Talk:Gaby Chiappe

request edit
Could we please make the following amendments to Gaby Chiappe's page? She does not feel comfortable with the amount of personal information currently on the page and would really appreciate it being taken down. The page also contains some details that are incorrect that are amended below. Thank you!

Gaby Chiappe (born 1964) is a British screenwriter

Chiappe was born in Gibraltar to Mary and William Chiappe. When she was three, the family moved to Brighton, England; She attended the Cardinal Newman Comprehensive School and New Hall College, University of Cambridge.

Sources: Gibraltar Magazine; Film Stories; BIFA; WGGB

Namini1995 (talk) 15:03, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Reply 2-MAR-2020
Regards, Spintendo  16:57, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
 * The request cannot be reviewed because two of the provided references do not appear in the request. Please note that if using a shortened ref tag, the entire ref tag must be placed somewhere in the text for the shortened ref tag to display the full citation correctly.
 * Each individual item in the proposed table needs to have its own citation. Currently, the citations are bundled at the top of the table, and are not attached to any individual entry in the table.
 * The COI editor is reminded that if they receive, or expect to receive, compensation for any contribution they make, they must disclose their employer, client, and affiliation to comply with Wikipedia's terms of use and the policy on paid editing.


 * Also a reminder that most of the information is sourced from interviews - if the subject is uncomfortable with it appearing, why say it in an interview? Sounds fake, Namini. It also sounds ridiculous to claim that her entire career progression is deemed 'personal'... Kingsif (talk) 18:59, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

innacuracies
Hi, I am the subject of this wikipedia entry.

It reproduces - in good faith I’m sure - several inaccuracies contained in an article originally published by the Gibraltar magazine. I would like the chance to correct those inaccuracies. It also presents as fact statements which were the subjective view or opinion of the journalist who wrote the original article (M Brufal), and in several instances employs incorrect terminology. I would also like to correct those errors.

As a separate issue - As a frequent user of wiki myself I have to say the information contained in this page feels unusually rambling - as well as personal, intrusive and rather sexist. Why are my childcare arrangements relevant? They wouldn't be included if I were a male scriptwriter. The information was given to a group campaigning to make it easier for women to work in the industry. It was relevant in that context, but not I would argue, in this.

An earlier attempt to edit this page was over-turned. I’d be really grateful if I could be allowed to edit it again and for my amends to be taken seriously for the reasons given above.

Gaby Chiappe

Gaby Chiappe (talk) 18:02, 5 March 2020 (UTC)
 * It wasn't edited before, it was blanked. That shouldn't be done unless an article is awaiting deletion and contains bad text. Now, first, read WP:COI. You can make a specific edit request (i.e. "change X to Y"), either with a source or by stating that it adds nothing to the understanding of the subject. Kingsif (talk) 01:28, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for your guidance. I have done as you suggested but before attempting an edit I want to ask if an independent editor could review ref 1,( the article from the Gibraltar Magazine) to assess whether or not it can be considered a reliable source. The article is not dispassionate in tone, nor is it non-partisan. The Gibraltar Magazine is distributed in Gibraltar for locals and tourists. Its expressed aim is "to promote Gibraltar and its people". Statements such as she received "praise and accolades for some of her stories" is not substantiated and certainly not neutral. if I wrote it about myself it would quite rightly be considered self- promotion. Could someone independent review the article in question and decide whether it really can be considered a reliable source? Thanks.


 * I can ask the administrator, who I've seen make good neutral judgements before, to look over the source (all the sources, I suppose), and judge edit requests. Kingsif (talk) 17:48, 16 March 2020 (UTC)