Talk:Jody Pinto

Editing by IP editor who seems to have interviewed Pinto
An IP editor has made a large number of good-faith edits which seem to be based on talking to Jody Pinto (judging by the edit summaries). Although the information may be accurate, Wikipedia only reports information that can be backed up by reliable secondary sources. We don't include information gleaned from subjects themselves (except for a very limited amount of very uncontroversial stuff). Unfortunately we can't include all the information the IP has collected, unless we can find some source to justify it. The information that their latest edit replaced did have at least some referencing, so I've restored that version rather than the IP editor's; if you're the editor, that's the explanation. I'm really sorry about this. If Pinto can advise on secondary sources, it may be possible to put information back in again. Elemimele (talk) 22:00, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * IP now claiming to be pinto on their talk page. Trying to direct them here.  Slywriter (talk) 22:13, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Why don't you want the accurate information?
 * Secondary sources are hard to come by given the mysoginistic art world and lack of secondary sources about Pinto. TO create a good secondary source, you first need an accurate primary source. Please leave the edits. They are cited now from an external website.
 * The previous versions clearly have incorrect information as well as terrible grammar mistakes and is an embarrassment.
 * I suggest leaving my edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:3A40:F200:1C0D:3858:813F:AC49 (talk • contribs)


 * Wikipedia deals in verified information, largely from reliable secondary sources. Wikipedia is not a promotional tool nor is it a place for an article subject to include their autobiography.   As you have an obvious conflict of interest, the best thing you can do is provide sources on this talk page and suggest changes.  What you can't do is wholesale rewrite the article based on the personal website of the subject.  Though a link to said website is acceptable if not already here.Slywriter (talk) 22:19, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Reverting instead of discussing is not the solution.Slywriter (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2022 (UTC)


 * There are efforts to improve the coverage of underrepresented topics on Wikipedia (such the Art+Feminism campaign which led to the creation of this article), but Wikipedia's ability to be a leader in covering underrepresented people is limited by needing verifiable sources. The best we can do is find more existing research and reporting. Personal website are acceptable for some basic information (see WP:ABOUTSELF), but like Slywriter said, we can't base the entire article on a self-published primary source. Politanvm talk 22:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * In explanation, we do want accurate information. The trouble is that many people don't give accurate information about themselves - people are prone to exaggerate, or to bias because we stand too close to ourselves to see ourselves in proper perspective. For this reason, Wikipedia only summarises what people independent of the subject have said about them (and we must apply this rule fairly, to all subjects, whether we personally think they're likely to be truthful about themselves or not). Yes, it's extremely frustrating when it's hard to find secondary sources, and a lot of very worthy people don't get written-about as much as they should. If you can point us at any newspaper articles, books, secondary sources that help towards this article, please do! Elemimele (talk) 22:39, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh, and if you see things that are wrong, please say so here on this talk page. It's usually possible to do something about wrong information! Elemimele (talk) 22:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)