Talk:Amy Shira Teitel

Article proposed for deletion
Appears to be a self-promoted page without requisite notability. Without noteworthy accomplishments or coverage, I nominate this page for deletion.

Horsewhipser (talk) 17:32, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Horsewhipper. When are these You Tube hacks going to stop making pages promoting themselves and their channels using Wikipedia as an advertising hoarding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.31.98.75 (talk) 01:21, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree...should a section also be added regarding her plagiarism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bt10ant (talk • contribs) 16:40, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I would leave the page, and then a description of the documented plaigarism from The Space Review. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.170.88.70 (talk) 05:26, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Historian?
If she is a "space flight historian", which university did she get her history degree from? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8388:502:5080:1D7A:4438:9C7:82B9 (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

The very article you cite is by the authors from whom she lifted the material. You can easily find both. What more is needed? thanks Bt10ant (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Bt10antBt10ant (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

plagiarism accusations
I undid the malformed entry on her being accused of plagiarism. I have no idea how reliable the source is. If anyone wants to dig deeper on this, I at least dug out the article that the text presumably referred to: --Nczempin (talk) 19:47, 3 August 2019 (UTC)

The very article you cite is by the authors from whom she lifted the material. You can easily find both. What more is needed? thanks Bt10ant (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC)Bt10antBt10ant (talk) 14:33, 17 October 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bt10ant (talk • contribs)

Pruning of promotional material
This article was created by an editor who was later blocked indefinitely and had a number of COI concerns raised on their talk page before being blocked. A lot of promotional writing about the article subject was introduced into the article by that editor. I have just done some substantial pruning of that promotional material to bring this article more into line with Wikipedia guidelines. Oska (talk) 12:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

For future reference, after my pruning (just in case puffery starts to creep back in). Oska (talk) 02:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

More on plagiarism accusations
The section on Teitel's alleged plagiarism is (IMO) poorly documented. The only cited source is mainly a primary source by the people claiming the plagiarism happened. I did a web search just now and could only find one other claim, in what appeared to be a forum posting. If this allegation is sound, there should surely be more (and higher-quality) secondary sources to back it up, or else it should be removed. Given that this is contentious material about a living person, I would normally remove it immediately — and I may still do so if substantiation of superior quality isn't promptly forthcoming — but in this case I fear that would set off an edit war, so I would prefer to at least ask if anyone can quickly find highly reliable secondary sources which discuss the claims made by others. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 09:40, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the accusation of plagiarism from the article, per WP:BLP. We are to exercise extreme caution in using primary sources (see WP:BLPPRIMARY). Contentious claims in a Wikipedia article are supposed to be backed up using reliable secondary sources which analyse and discuss any cited primary sources. Since the authors of the Space Review article being cited were in fact the same people who claimed their work was plagiarized, the single cited source was not only a primary source, but it was also a self-published source (note, of course, that the subject of the article was Ms. Teitel, not the authors). A statement made directly by the affected person or persons (in this case, Robert Kennedy and Dwayne Day) may arguably be passable in uncontroversial contexts, but it simply doesn't fly in the case of a contentious claim in a BLP. Please find at least one reliable secondary source (more than one would be even better) which talks about the plagiarism allegation before trying to put it back in the article. If you disagree with my rationale for removing the material in question, please consider bringing up the matter at the Biographies of Living Persons Noticeboard (WP:BLP/N) rather than engaging in an edit war. — Rich wales (no relation to Jimbo) 07:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I just removed another uncited statement about this. I do not know if it is true, but we cannot state it as a fact without a source. --Khajidha (talk) 20:36, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

DOB
Every site which gives a DOB for Amy Shira Teitel gives 7 March 1986. Many of them look legitimate, but evidently none has been sufficiently authoritative so far. Could an established editor find or at least define an appropriate reference? Thanks.... 2600:1008:A117:45:4D8B:4CDD:DFC6:844C (talk) 23:37, 24 January 2023 (UTC)