Talk:Jane Philpott

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Published Works[edit]

So this doesn't develop into an edit war it seems best to discuss here I think. Drmies has repeatedly blanked the "Published Works" section claiming that it is too "resume like". In their latest edit this editor has referred to an infobox in their comments, presumably in response to my reference to Template:Biography. As far as I can tell this template has nothing to do with an infobox but is a standard template for a biographical article. It explicitly includes a "Published Works" section. The instructions therein are 'If any, list the works organized by date of publication. See Charles Darwin for example.' Given these instructions I cannot see why this section should be blanked.

Accordingly I am seeking consensus on whether this section should be included or not. It seems to be relevant information for anyone researching the subject of the article as it provides insight into their work, which is presumably why anyone would read the article in the first place.

EncycloCanuck (talk) 18:39, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Philpott is a scientist in her own right and she would deserve an article on that basis. It is her political role that makes her currently prominent but her scientific role is no less notable. There are plenty of examples of science biographies that have lists of published works, Saul Perlmutter, Jim Peebles, Michael Berridge to name a few. I also cited Charles Darwin's bibliography as an example of a list of published works that includes things other than books, eg. letters and monographs. EncyclopediaUpdaticus (talk) 20:09, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is a scientist, maybe, but she is not notable as a scientist. EncyclopediaUpdaticus keeps pointing to Darwin, forgetting that a. they pointed to Charles Darwin first, where only a few of his notable books are listed; b. the bibliography article does not seem to publish every little thing that Darwin ever published in a scientific journal; c. it is a dedicated bibliography article; d. what these two with the similar user names are inserting are articles, not books, and that makes a huge difference; and finally e. Philpott is (obviously) not Charles Darwin, whose books changed the course of science and history. Also, Wikipedia is not for resumes, and these two seem to try the best they can to make it so, by promoting the non-notable TED and other things this politician has done.

    The "Template:Biography" thing--now I understand what they were pointing at--yeah, "see Charles Darwin for an example", and this is taken literally to mean "list every journal article"? If we take that article for an example, these editors should be creating Jane Philpott bibliography.

    Edit war? Don't know--we have tag-teaming here with the intent to promote a person. Drmies (talk) 22:40, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I've tagged the article for POV and excessive detail. The HIV/AIDS advocacy work is inflated, the TED stuff is inflated, the bibliography is resume style; I guess I could put Template:Like resume on this as well. The sourcing is just terrible--the work in Niger is probably worth mentioning but [this is the faculty page on a U of Toronto website; this isn't even by a journalist and it's not in the news section of the paper but rather appears to be some sort of Hero of the Day competition; and this is a letter written by the subject herself to a web publication. So tags for unreliable sourcing, primary sourcing, and not enough sourcing seem to be warranted as well. Collect, you've dealt with this kind of thing before at BLPN. What do you make of it? Drmies (talk) 22:50, 12 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Happy New year everyone - It looks as though Patar_knight has now made edits that address the issues raised in this topic and no others have chimed in so I intend to remove the POV and excessive detail tags at the end of this week unless there are any respectful, well reasoned objections. FWIW the accusation of "tag teaming" is unfounded and unsupported by any evidence - EncyclopediaUpdaticus and I have never communicated on any topic other than what is for all to see here on this talk page. EncycloCanuck (talk) 16:13, 6 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • There having been no such objections I shall now remove those tags EncycloCanuck (talk) 18:54, 11 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Jane Philpott. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:44, 19 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Jane_Philpott&oldid=1204983540"