Talk:Inbaal/Archive 1

New section added
I've added a section on criticisms to the main article, which I wanted to explain. I originally nominated this article to AfD last year and following the AfD discussion it was kept. I felt at the time that the reliable sources were few, but that only those which were favourable were cited in the article. So I'm adding the less complimentary sources now but I hope this isn't just knee-jerk reaction to my AfD being declined. (Which is partly my reason for having waited a few weeks to make the changes.) The sources are reliable ones - two UK newspapers (one of which I read and the opther of which I light my fire with...) so there's no probloem there, but if other editors feel the addition gives undue weight to criticisms I'd be open to a discussion. Nevertheless, I feel these additions balance up the article and make it less promotional. Kim Dent-Brown  (Talk)  12:34, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

Witch hunt
It might be a good idea to point out that only one editor, Kim Dent-Brown, has been trying to get this article deleted, then added every bit of unfavourable media criticism he could find to the article, and edit out anything he deemed to be 'salesy' or insignificant. - Is Mr Dent-Brown an ex boyfriend of the subject? A business rival? He deleted a link to the subject's home page, calling it 'inappropriate', even though other notable figures (such as Barak Obama) have links to their personal pages from their wikipedia page. He claimed lilfestyle magazines aren't reliable sources, even though magazine interviews are often the source of information for biographical articles (such as Miley Cyrus). He was unhappy with citations referring back to the photo scans of magazine pages on the subject's home page, even though personal pages (such as Prince Charles's) are often the source of information for other articles. He dismissed perfectly valid sources as 'heavy on sales pitches and low on journalism' despite having no proof that either claim is true, and then relying heavily on a sensationalist 'expose' from the Mail on Sunday, which is hardly the most reliable source in British journalism. I call for Mr Dent-Brown to investigate his own reasons for this witch hunt, and for wikipedia editors to keep an eye on his actions. Regards, 217.43.72.248 (talk) 00:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)Chanel
 * tl;dr version of what follows: I think WP works best when editors of contrasting views collaborate successfully to improve articles. I think this is a good example and that the piece is in much better shape than before we got involved.


 * And now the wall 'o text! I found the original article in September 2010 when browsing Category:English_Wiccans. Her entry jarred for me compared to others who were there - such as Eleanor Bone - and some who were not but should have been - such as Madge Worthington. I didn't feel the article on Inbaal described her as having the same stature and importance as these folk to the history of Wicca in England. So indeed I nominated the article for deletion.


 * As there was no consensus for deletion, the article stayed (though neither was there a ringing endorsement for its quality and the subject's notability!) But in the course of the discussion I looked for any reliable sources I could find and did indeed come up with some that included criticisms of her. After the AfD I inserted these and removed some of the more unencyclopaedic language.


 * I removed the link to her website because (as you'll see if you look) it is a sales site inviting credit card payments for on-line psychic readings, rather than a site with much informational content. I was wrong to do this. I was following the points at WP:ELNO and WP:ADV but didn't properly read WP:ELOFFICIAL which says "For example, although links to websites that require readers to register or pay to view content are normally not acceptable in the External links section, such a link may be included when it is an official website for the subject." So when the link was restored I did not revert its restoration and the link is still there.


 * I'm happy to state that I have no personal knowledge of Inbaal or connection with her. But I have some personal knowledge of Wicca and she did not seem to me to be anywhere near as notable as others in the category I cited. My latest edit has been to correctly re-insert a reference to one of the articles praising her "accuracy and kind manner" - much though it stuck in my craw to do so! It would be great if the other citations praising her qualities could be appropriately made to the original sources, rather than to her own website.


 * In summary: I think this is a good example of WP working well. Nine months ago this was a very poor article; I think it's now a much better one. Yes, I would still delete it if I had godlike powers but fortunately WP doesn't work that way. Instead the policies have made two editors with very divergent views collaborate to produce an improvement to the article, and that's surely a good thing. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  09:17, 6 May 2011 (UTC)

This isn't wikipedia editors collaborating - this is one person with an issue, and another trying to limit the damage to the article.

You say "I found the original article in September 2010 when browsing Category:English_Wiccans. Her entry jarred for me compared to others who were there - such as Eleanor Bone - and some who were not but should have been - such as Madge Worthington. I didn't feel the article on Inbaal described her as having the same stature and importance as these folk to the history of Wicca in England." - but nowhere does it say this is a list relating to the history of Wicca, it's a list of English Wiccans, which the subject is. If you look at the list of Category:American_Wiccans, you'll find for example Fairuza Balk's name - she's hardly a prime figure in the history of US Wicca, but is Wiccan and a notable American. That's all it takes to qualify.

The article, as it is right now, isn't remotely representative of its subject. Your 'criticisms' paragraph takes up a quarter of the article, whereas criticisms do not make up a quarter of her career. If you are happy to list every single criticism the subject received in her career, you can also try to include every positive feedback. That would be balanced.

217.43.72.248 (talk) 23:26, 14 May 2011 (UTC) Chanel


 * I know nothing of the subject personally, so I have no way of knowing whether 1/4 criticism is representative of her. But it is representative of the reliable sources that discuss her. She's chosen to adopt a high media profile and will have to live by the consequences of that. By the way, why not register an account? It makes your contributions all appear in one place and makes communication easier. Not compulsory of course, but it helps a bit.... Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  23:47, 14 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Re Fairuza Balk; good spot there, I remember her from The Craft of course but there's nothing in her article that suggests the actress herself is either a Wiccan or a neopagan. I've removed those categories from her page. Kim Dent-Brown   (Talk)  00:16, 15 May 2011 (UTC)