Talk:Laura Boushnak

RfC: Broad removal of cited information

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

, an WP:SPA Removed a large amount of text here. Part of this diff was an edit by which seems to have been mostly removed by Sabic. The biographical information and three sources was removed with an ES of ''I have deleted a paragraph regarding Laura Boushnak's parents and school related information because I think it is a bit of a more personal nature and I want to keep this page more work related. I would really appreciate it if no one added it back again.'' This seems to imply a wp:COI on Sabic's part. More information with citations have been added by Sabic.

This would seem to be an overly ambitious removal, possibly by request of Laura Boushnak. The removed information seems to be well-sourced and public. I think that most of Sabic's additions should remain, but much of the deleted content should be restored. I am not familiar with the topic, only noticing it via wp:Huggle. Would someone else who is a real editor please correct this, if necessary? Thanks Jim1138 (talk) 21:23, 23 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Restore content removed. Admonish them again regarding exerting ownership, as well as about conflict of interest, and edit warring.


 * I became involved when Sabic asked at the AfC help desk for assistance demonstrating notability. They had made the common novice mistake of citing almost exclusively sources in which Boushnak's wire-service photos appear (but that say nothing about Boushnak) or other non-independent sources (the art collective she co-founded, organizations that awarded her prizes). Notability, of course, needs to be proven by independent coverage in a range of reliable sources. The draft had been declined by, , and for failing to grasp this.


 * I found and added sources to demonstrate notability, made numerous other improvements, and pointed out still-problematic areas: the fact that more than half the content cited no references, and the shortage of critical reviews of her exhibitions (necessary if one is trying to prove WP:CREATIVE). At that point approved the draft. Sabic then undid much of my work without explanation. I gave them a level-1 ownership warning and explained in detail why I was reverting a portion of their changes. They took on board some of my comments, but again removed sourced content about Boushnak's youth. They did so without explanation, so  restored the content. Sabic removed it again with the misguided edit summary quoted above.


 * Sabic may be mistaking Wikipedia for Facebook or LinkedIn. They may be unfamiliar with the wisdom in the essay "An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing." As an encyclopedia, Wikipedia aims to present a full and balanced biography of a person's public life. That includes information about their pre-career life, to the extent that it is covered by reliable sources (such as The New York Times and The British Museum). In this particular case, additional information about who her parents were, about growing up in Kuwait as a third-generation Palestinian refugee, and about enforced changes of schools, helps the reader more fully understand the subject. It is particularly relevant because the article already mentions that she's a Kuwaiti-born Palestinian, that "she witnessed how many people, including her own family and close relatives, had to flee their homes and seek refuge", and because her professional focus has been on women's education in the Arab world.


 * Sabic has made other questionable changes without explanation since the draft was moved to article space: (a) replaced a perfectly good portrait with an image in which the subject is barely discernible, (b) removed an interesting description of how Boushnak learned her trade - by a correspondence course where she mailed prints to New York and received back criticism on cassette tapes, and (c) removed the list of her exhibitions. Improvement of the article will be difficult so long as Sabic feels that the page belongs to them, and they do not need to work collaboratively. --Worldbruce (talk) 19:34, 24 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment Summoned by bot. The link given at the top of this section does not appear to be correct. This edit utilizes the edit summary quoted and yes, I agree that it should not have been removed. I see nothing objectionable about this content. It is nontrivial and well-sourced. Coretheapple (talk) 20:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I would like to apologize for any inconveniences I may have caused. Being new to Wikipedia, I was not aware that all of you were involved in the article and that by removing/changing some of the information you would somehow be affected.

The reason why I was making so many changes was because I could not understand why my draft was not being accepted. I was trying to improve it as per instructions of other editors so I added/removed some of the parts in the article.

Regarding the part that :Worldbruce added about Laura Boushank's family and school, I moved it only for the reason because I was not able to find a reliable source that confirms that Boushnak was expelled from school. She was, however, not allowed to go to school, and that is a completely different story.

As for the Getty Images, I also removed the part about the grant money because it did not seem relevant at all. Please, correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I have enough of other resources and citations about Getty Images that work just fine?

Also, you mentioned the changes I made with the photo, I was aware of the mistake and was planning to add another photo because the current one seems too much like an advertisement for TED and sends the wrong idea. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Danni Sabic (talk • contribs)


 * It does appear that the article was in better shape back when I accepted it. Haven't closely followed all of the changes made since but I'm not convinced they're improvements. ~Kvng (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment: I agree with ; content should be restored. FoCuS contribs ;  talk to me!  20:55, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Summoned by a bot. Based on everything I've read and the arguments made above (especially by ) I think the content should be restored. Cheers Comatmebro  User talk:Comatmebro 15:35, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Summoned by bot, I think restore is the best option. Iazyges (talk) 05:47, 19 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.