Talk:Ashley Flowers

Cleanup BLP
The article was overly promotional to the point of being peacock-y. I performed a number of edits that got rid of those issues and added complexity to the sentences. I also included the plagiarism controversy that the earlier version of the article practically dismissed. I will watch the article to make sure the same kinds of problematic edits, almost certainly paid, performed on the Crime Junkie article 2 or 3 years ago will not go unnoticed here. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:01, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Cleanup BLP Response
@DiamondRemley39 I completely disagree with you on this article. I spent weeks researching and writing it. It was not paid. I have no affiliation with them. I had never even heard of Ashley Flowers until her book came out and was surprised she didn't have a page already based on her press and success.

The only language included in the original version (that you removed) that could have possibly been seen as peacock-y was "award winning podcast, the number of downloads, and the show's awards." You may not have liked the writing style of the article but it was all factual, sourced, and not editorialized. I do believe that the facts you removed should be included on this page - her podcast is one of the top podcasts in the United States. She goes head to head with Joe Rogan every week. I referenced the Joe Rogan page when writing this article. Here is an example excerpt from his intro: "He launched The Joe Rogan Experience in 2009; by 2015, it was one of the most popular podcasts in the world, regularly receiving millions of plays per episode" Is it OK for him to have this but not for her? If so, why?

RE plagiarism: From what I read this was a one time incident that was corrected. It was written about and cited in the first version. Comparatively to the rest of her career it seemed like a blip IMO. I don't believe downplaying huge wins and highlighting (in more detail than a you do popularity of the show, it's awards, and successes) is unbiased. Why remove details from other sections but expand this section? I started this page from scratch and it was included...


 * Original version:In August 2019, Crime Junkie was accused of using the work of others without proper attribution. Flowers and Prawat explained that links to all sources used in the episodes are available on the Crime Junkie website. They are absent from the app description because of limitations on the number of characters.[22]


 * Updated version: In 2019, Flowers and Prawat were accused by multiple parties of plagiarizing other works, including newspaper articles, other podcasts, and an episode of the television show On the Case with Paula Zahn for episodes of Crime Junkie.[13] Flowers responded to the claims and legal action taken by The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette by removing at least five episodes of Crime Junkie.[14][13][15][16] Flowers told Variety, "the information used to create these episodes could source material could no longer be found or properly cited", but Flowers did not directly address violating the ethics of journalism.[17]

I'm happy to neutralize the page if it reads as promotional but every piece of information was well sourced and I believe the page was very comparable to other BLPs. I recommend this tag be removed 1) because it is a false accusation and 2) because it's supposably been fixed.

Curious for other editors to weigh in - I'd like to better understand what exactly was wrong with the first version (if anything) and what I should do moving forward to prevent this.

Thank you. Drsammyjohnson (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)DrSammyJohnson


 * Flowers didn't have an article because she didn't have enough notability outside of Crime Junkie until her book blipped on NYT and got a couple of reviews from the usual suspects. It's fine there is an article on her now (or it would have been tagged for notability or worse).
 * Of course it was slanted to include Flowers' line on the plagiarism. Even here you're excusing the lack of attribution in the app. Of course the podcast/Flowers has a website and she and Prawat could have named sources over the course of an episode and/or at the end of an episode... as most true crime podcasters have done for years.
 * How can plagiarism be corrected? Plagiarism done was the issue, not whether Flowers will continue to commit it or start attributing sources.
 * Those sources on the plagiarism have stated it wasn't a one-time thing, but multiple episodes, and that not citing sources was the standard, so this argument doesn't work here. And it's hardly a blip in the course of one's career to have Variety and other publications across the country note that several journalists have accused you of a serious ethical violation-- the term for which is typically covered by 9th grade English class if not by Composition 101 in college. The plagiarism was a big deal and it must not be downplayed in an unbiased article.
 * Why don't we leave the tag for now, as I will need a day or two before I can look at it with fresh eyes and be confident that it's just the facts, and other eagle-eyed editors might find more in the meantime?
 * Others have suspected your edits of being COI or undisclosed paid. Interested parties may see here: Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 152 as well as on your talk page. However, if other editors think it ought to be removed, I could hear those arguments.
 * You have edited in the entertainment space, and I believe specifically in the podcast space, but you only heard of this super popular podcast in connection with Flower's debut novel? Yet you didn't include critical reception of her novel, but focused only on the podcast. Do you also do much editing in the books/author spaces?
 * The only language included in the original version (that you removed) that could have possibly been seen as peacock-y was "award winning podcast, the number of downloads, and the show's awards.": There was much more peacocking than that. It's not about whether I like the writing style but whether it has an encyclopedic tone. The version I first read did read as promotional. And if the information you just referenced is more about the show, it belongs in the show's article (where I moved some of that)
 * "She goes head to head with Joe Rogan every week.": No, she doesn't. And that's metaphor. They're both podcasters. Flowers is no Rogan and Rogan is no Flowers. That's it. And don't argue that one article's phrasing ought to fit another. There is a Wikipedia policy or guideline about that and if I can think of what it is called, I'll link it here. Look to articles on similar people more for categories and keywords than for prose.
 * "[e]very piece of information was well sourced": Several of the sources used were of dubious reliability.
 * Moving forward, write a BLP, let it sit for a day or two, come back, and take out as much as you can. Learn about what Wikipedia considers reliable sources and use those and only those. That sort of thing.
 * It's a better article than it was before and with more greasepencilers on it, it'll be better yet. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:25, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

@DiamondRemley39 Can you please link this information? "And don't argue that one article's phrasing ought to fit another. There is a Wikipedia policy or guideline about that and if I can think of what it is called, I'll link it here." Because I also used Michael Barbaro, and Payne Lindsey's pages for structure including headers and subheaders. They have sections for each of their podcasts, personal life, and public image.
 * Regarding sources - I'm aware of what constitutes a good source. However, non-controversial information does not need to be sourced by tier one publications. e.g., alma mater and pregnancy. The bar for standard information like this is lower.
 * Also, I'm considering moving this back to a draft and submitting it through articles for creation since I think too much relevant information has been stripped. This might help us get to get more aligned on what should and shouldn't be included with other editors help. Thoughts? Drsammyjohnson (talk) 19:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)DrSammyJohnson


 * WP:OTHERCONTENT guideline. You may benefit from familiarizing yourself with the "Content" section of WP:POLICY as well.
 * Regarding sources: no, that is not policy. Any article, but especially biographies, and especially BLPs, need to be from good sources. The pregnancy isn't relevant to her notability. The alma is of more interest, but as she isn't an academic, it's of a more casual interest than a vital interest. Consider [[WP:BLP]. Please link to definition and policy on a "tier one" publication.
 * Regarding draftifying: taking the article out of the encyclopedia because you do not like that your words have been changed is not OK at all. There are no grounds for that in terms of notability and even briefly censoring a notability-meeting article on a successful woman because you don't like that your draft was edited and added to is problematic. The first draft was yours, but when you move it to the mainspace and someone else makes significant edits, you are no longer the sole author... And authorship is not ownership anyway. Because you published the draft on Wikipedia, it belongs to the world. If you want more eyes on it because you want to write about pregnancy and alma mater without good sources (and you perhaps still prefer to downplay another element), you should go to one of the spaces where editors or admins can be asked for help. Maybe someone will review your draft and my drafts with their edits and rationales and that person will have opinions on what should go and what should stay. Please know that I'll appeal and get additional editors involved if matters if the article is edited in a way that brings back the BLP issues, unencyclopedic tone, or spin of the controversy that the previous draft had. In the future, though, you should consider submitting articles through Articles for Creation in order to avoid significant edits being made in the mainspace... If you think that is likely and if such edits bother you. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 04:55, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the information, I'll take a look and leave this in your hands. Drsammyjohnson (talk) 23:05, 4 October 2022 (UTC)