Talk:Emily Gould

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Eb0178a.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:30, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Untitled
THE SECTION ON THE INTERVIEW IS SLANTED IN GOULD'S FAVOR... KIMMEL DOESN'T DO ANY ACTUAL ACCUSING IN THE INTERVEIW. AND MS. GOULD NEVER DOUBTS THE SEVERITY OF ANY CLAIMS... THIS IS WRITTEN BIASEDLY!

Ms. Gould's biography doesn't, to me, indicate that a wikipedia page is warranted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.250.185 (talk) 12:16, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Gould does not have the credentials to warrant a wikipedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.185.185.238 (talk) 03:02, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

The subject has appeared in several notable media and therefore seems to fulfill the criteria for notability. Wellspring (talk) 16:00, 20 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I don't have an opinion about whether this article should stay or not, but the New York Times ran an article, by Gould, about herself and her blogging. --Zippy (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Weight problem with Criticism section
The criticism section is out of balance with the rest of the article. Per WP:WEIGHT (policy): "Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" (emphasis added). These minor episodes represent an extremely small part of her overall career yet make up 80% of the article. Furthermore the article is not a List of good and bad things said about Emily Gould, any "criticism" should be worked into her career history, with appropriate weight rather then separated into a section called Criticism which isn't a neutral presentation. -- Green  C  00:35, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could change the section header from "Criticism" to "Jimmy Kimmel appearance"? Her appearance on CNN was a major part of her life as she explains in the New York Times article she wrote.--The lorax (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2015 (UTC)
 * I changed it to "2007 interview", but I wonder if this section is at all necessary here, per WP:UNDUE. Should 80% of her bio be taken by the discussion of this? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:05, 24 July 2015 (UTC)


 * There is a lot of information about Gould on the net so no lack there. She is one of those who gets involved in public controversies/disputes. A whole lot of drama. She wrote a book that received many top-tier reviews, it deserves its own section. And her early blogging career where she first came to prominence. -- Green  C  13:43, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

I think we now have three people who voiced concern about over weighting the article with this one incident. Myself, User:Ceoil and User:Piotrus. I would suggest that consensus be achieved before adding it back. In the mean time perhaps a compromise solution is writing a more balanced history of her career. This Vanity Fair bio is an excellent source for that. Then add back the 2007 incident so it's not overweight. -- Green  C  13:42, 25 July 2015 (UTC)


 * i agree Duckduckstop (talk) 16:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)

I think the logic here is pretty awful. The content seemed fine&mdash;it was about something significant and it was cited. But since it seems to create an "imbalance" in the article, giving so much space to an unfavorable thing, it has to be deleted in order to achieve balance? By this logic, we can restore the content if we create an equivalently large section about something that reflects well on her, I guess? This is a weird, weird logic to apply to developing articles. It's like chopping off the limbs of healthy trees because some of the others are looking puny. You can't demand that "good" facts have to grow in tandem with "bad" facts. Rather, if an article is deficient in one respect, you improve that aspect. Also, I must point out that balance is in principle kind of a silly thing to pursue. We just report the facts, even if they are disproportionately "bad". Articles normally grow bit by bit and we don't expect them to spring forth fully formed like Athena from the head of Zeus. Everyking (talk) 04:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I agree with Not sure why we're removing something that is a notable part of her biography? She had a contentious appearance on Larry King Live with Jimmy Kimmel which later made an appearance in The Newsroom. Definitely worth mentioning -- how do you propose compromising ?--The lorax (talk) 21:36, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Well it's a question of WP:WEIGHT. The controversy makes up the majority of her biography. The solution is fill out her biography, her entire career. There's one source that does it already so it's pretty easy to crib from it. -- Green  C  01:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Photo
Gould has said that she doesn't like the photo in the article. If she contacts me on my Talk page, I will gladly help her to upload one that she likes. -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:57, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Note her comment about the photo is via the Genius site: http://genius.it/6433563/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emily_Gould. Note the coverage of the use of Genius by people to comment on their Wikipedia articles at  ★NealMcB★ (talk) 15:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

Birth date and place
I added a birth date and place for Gould, with a source, and also a link to an article where she herself confirms this as her correct birth date and place:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Emily_Gould&oldid=684566798

Who changed this to say she was born in Silver Spring, MD? Can someone help out and revert back my old edit, which is sourced? — Preceding unsigned comment added by C1782T919ML (talk • contribs) 09:16, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 one external links on Emily Gould. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160417084224/http://gawker.com/5009993/emily-gould-introduces-oversharing-to-new-york-times-magazine to http://gawker.com/5009993/emily-gould-introduces-oversharing-to-new-york-times-magazine
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071205173305/http://gawker.com:80/news/accidents-will-happen/a-long-dark-early-evening-of-the-soul-with-keith-gessen-328558.php? to http://gawker.com/news/accidents-will-happen/a-long-dark-early-evening-of-the-soul-with-keith-gessen-328558.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 18:22, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Lena Dunham feud
Does this section really belong in a biography? I won't remove it myself, but it seems really, really trivial - just a few people writing mean tweets about each other. I'm struggling to see a notable 'controversy' here. Robofish (talk) 20:51, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 February 2018
Emily has a new official website that should be added to the External Links section: http://emilygould.com/ Akallaur (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC) Akallaur (talk) 17:25, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done  Anon 126   (notify me of responses! / talk / contribs) 20:16, 21 February 2018 (UTC)