Talk:Nancy Jacobson

controversy
If editors are going to add a perceived negative incident in this person's life, then they should balance it by citing the other positive events this person has done, if any, to make a better more balanced article. The incident being added was a minor blip on the radar screen, yet editors are weighting it disproportionately to the circumstances. Please discuss merits here before adding negative content per WP:living persons.Journalist1983 (talk) 13:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

An admin has already stepped in an asked you not to remove the cited material which was added to this article. Conversely, a lot of the material in the original article, which you wrote, does not have citations. I understand the sense of ownership inherent in creating something, but this article was essentially a fluff piece a few weeks ago ("In her free time, she enjoys running, tennis and skiing"???) -- and Wikipedia is not a PR propaganda tool. The same admin who reverted your removal of cited content also removed some of the "wuffle" from the original article.

After this occurred, a number of anonymous users logged on and reverted the admin's changes. Seeing as this article is rarely edited by anyone except you, I find it difficult to believe that this was not you who logged on anonymously to get around an admin's edits (i.e. bad faith). I've also noticed that a lot of your articles consist of glowing reviews of little known business executives and former politicians. Now if any of these people were involved with a media event reported on by the New York Times that involved (1) the Obama campaign, (2) a for-profit activity at a national party convention, and (3) a false claim regarding A list celebrities, this would be noteworthy. It wouldn't be NPOV to ignore such a well known moment. If you would like to add some more positives, then please find some cited material (Jacobson's skiing and jogging won't work for this), and I'd be happy to work this into some encyclopedic material. I realize I'm new here, but everyone needs to start somewhere. Oh and thanks for defacing my user page. --Nacl11 (talk) 15:46, 22 March 2009 (UTC)

I find it hard to believe you're "new" here. I don't buy it. You are a sock puppet with an agenda.Journalist1983 (talk) 16:44, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

First -- how do you explain anonymous users restoring edits the same edits that you wanted? Do you deny that this was you? A sock puppet is an online identity used for purposes of deception within an online community. You may have noticed that no one besides me and one admin has been reverting your deletions. Unless I am the admin who did this (and I am not), then I how could I be a sock? Second -- there are no citations for many of the items listed in this article. How do you know about the jogging and skiing, for example, and the child's name? Wikipedia is not for original research. Third -- and perhaps most substantively -- please reconcile your position that this is not a newsworthy event with (1) through (3) listed in my last post. Let's try and reach Consensus! And then I'll believe your not some public relations intern who gets paid to edit Wikipedia

I've been reading Wikipedia for years. Just started to edit. --Nacl11 (talk) 18:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

DELETE PAGE -- THIS IS rediculous -- why would you make this \'controversy so major a piece of this womans 25 year career --- either take the controversery part off or take the whole page off - or use one sentence to report controversy -- no need for a 25 year career to have a paragrah about an event that never happened .richardg5438 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC).


 * Re: my removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material - I came to this article because of a complaint to the foundation due to the poor and dishonest sourcing, but my nomination and recent cleanup to make it comply with wp:v and wp:blp is not due to any confidential information received via OTRS. The edits can be challenged like any other editor's. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-09t22:58z


 * So it is purely a coincidence then that right after your request to delete the page was denied you decided to blank the page  anyway?  That does not make much sense seeing that an indepedent group of people (AfD) decided that the material should be kept .  But in the context of everything that has been involved with this page -- the sockpuppetry , the improper speedy deletion request, the initial promotional tone  -- it sort of makes sense in a way.  This article was intended to be a glowing public relations piece and heaven forbid some actual news should be in it. I liked how Janaa22 removed the cited material immediately after (and in spite of) the deletion request being denied too.  I liked how two socks ( Richardg5438 and Janaa22) were created just to comment on the deletion request. --Nacl11 (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * wasn't a blanking of the page - per the edit summary: "-unsourced and poorly sourced material per wp:blp, see Articles for deletion/Nancy Jacobson. Sourced lead with WashPost articles."
 * wp:blp states "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
 * Articles for deletion/Nancy Jacobson states "Biography of a living person without reliable sources. Ref 1. blog, 2. not mentioned in source, 3. not mentioned in source, 4. not mentioned in source, 5. blog, 6. 404, 7. blog, 8. tabloid attack article."
 * wp:blp trumps "indepe[n]dent group[s] of people (AfD) decid[ing] that the material should be kept". If such a group decides to keep a copyright violation, it would also not matter, copyright laws trumps ignorance of them.
 * I'm not sure how 2 IP edits are sock puppets. Those 2 edits correctly removed poorly sourced (blog and tabloid attack article) material.
 * You linked to an AfD, was there an improper "speedy deletion request"?
 * I agree that the article's initial promotional tone was bad, and is rightly now fixed.
 * User:Janaa22's removal was correct, see re the 2 IP removals.
 * You need to put "User:" in front of user links. If you think User:Janaa22 and User:Richardg5438 are sock puppets, you can have it investigated - see wp:sock. They may be wp:meat tho.
 * The current sources are very good, but the article may now suffer from wp:undue. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-19t10:34z


 * Why bother submitting a deletion request at all if you are going to remove the material regardless of the AfD determination? Why bother discussing sources if the real objection has suddenly become about wp:undue?  Are you going to keep changing your objection (forum shopping) until you find something that works?  Why bother going through any of Wikipedia's consensus process, like AfD, when they will ultimately be ignored? The sources were discussed in AfD where it was left unchallenged that the New York Times web site is a valid source.  AfD decided to KEEP the article.  You deleted it and then objected to the source.  Everything has now been SOURCED to the point of nausea.  An important newsworthy event -- printed in national and international periodicals -- has continually been deleted and now watered down.  I am wondering why.  Removing sourced material is vandalism. --Nacl11 (talk) 15:51, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


 * wp:v and wp:blp is more important than people in an AfD who thinks blogs and refs that do not mention anything it's referencing is valid.
 * wp:undue was not the most important problem before, wp:v and wp:blp was - those are some of the most important policies on Wikipedia. Now that there are good sources, other problems are being pointed out.
 * Some people thought the NYT blog was an wp:rs, others did not.
 * I didn't delete the article, I'm not an admin and can't delete articles - I deleted the unsourced and poorly sourced (1. blog, 2. not mentioned in source, 3. not mentioned in source, 4. not mentioned in source, 5. blog, 6. 404, 7. blog, 8. tabloid attack article) material per wp:blp: "Be very firm about the use of high quality references. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."
 * I didn't water it down with this edit, I removed words not in the sources like "stir" and "email", and put the references next to the information instead of all at the end. The Denver post ref was then 404 so I commented it out - that URL it is now working for me.
 * I didn't remove sourced material - I removed words not in the sources.
 * See WP:VAND for what vandalism is, before putting vandalism warnings on user pages (also, wasn't a page blanking, it was the removal of "unsourced and poorly sourced material per wp:blp, see Articles for deletion/Nancy Jacobson. Sourced lead with WashPost articles."). -- Jeandré, 2009-05-19t21:57z


 * See also Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion. -- Jeandré, 2009-05-20t09:30z

Restoration of edits by Jason775
Hello,

I would like to propose that the edits made by Jason775 be restored in a sense. While the original article does have its issues, it wasn't necessary to remove all of Nancy Jacobson's past information. I'll try to read through the article as it was before Jason775 had made his edit, and will piece together a new one over the weekend. Please let me know if there is something you disagree with and I would love to respond. Thanks in advance! ChunyangD (talk) 14:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)

Encyclopedic style of writing versus PR style
There's been a template on the page since November 2018 about the fact that the article sounds more like a press release than an encyclopedic article. I blitzed through it (in November 2020) and tried to fix that. I didn't add new content or subtract old content...just dealt with the tone issues as best as I could. I actually didn't look at this talk page before I did that and now I see that there have been tone disputes going back years on this page. So, I might have blundered into some old disputes. At any rate, I would like to remove the "sounds like a press release" template at this time, and I will, unless someone objects in the next week or so. Novellasyes (talk) 12:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

What is her race?
What is her race? Ron John (talk) 13:49, 17 May 2024 (UTC)