Talk:Polly Clark

Discussion of notability, COI, etc
At the time I created this article, all I knew about Polly Clark was that she had written a novel that had W H Auden as a character and had been prominently featured in a recent BBC documentary about Auden, which I saw. I thought that she might well be deserving of an article and set out to create one under the "Women in Red" umbrella, but finding independent references was a bit of an effort. A lot of websites which mention her seem to be copied from the same source, presumably a press release, so I was forced to resort partly to primary sources. I included the basics and, as far as possible, omitted anything promotional or dubious that I'd obtained from those sources.

Shortly afterwards I noticed that an anonymous editor, User:80.69.16.238, had made edits with the apparent intention of promoting this author and her latest novel. For example, they had removed any reference to critical reviews and replaced it with lengthy quotes from favourable reviews. I undid most of these edits because they were not in keeping with the guidelines.

One of the promotional edits had an edit summary which read "changed 'chequered' - which was a loaded, negative description, to 'varied'". I'm baffled by this, as "chequered" was a direct quote from the author herself in the quoted reference. Does anyone else think that this is a negative term? I've had a chequered career myself and I'm quite proud of it.

Subsequently, another anonymous editor, User:81.154.82.160, made further promotional edits and appeared at the Teahouse, claiming to be Polly Clark and making accusations of "bullying", stating that the article was created with "malice", "in order to present me negatively". She states that the previous anon editor was in fact her publisher, who of course should not have gone anywhere near the article because of the obvious conflict of interest.

I'd like to get other editors' views on this. Deb (talk) 11:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)


 * I've removed the 'notability' template, because clearly if she's written a novel that has received an award and multiple reviews in national media, she meets WP:NAUTHOR. As it stands, it seems to be a good basic article. Sionk (talk) 02:37, 22 November 2017 (UTC)


 * Hi, Sionk. I agree with Theroadislong when he points out that the concentration on Larchfield makes the article more about the book than the author, but there doesn't seem to be anything published about her that isn't based on primary sources, so there is nothing independent to confirm that she's actually been a zookeeper or worked in Hungary - that's why I wasn't sure about including those claims. What do you think about the word "chequered"? I can't see how it is either "loaded" or "negative". We'll need to watch this to make sure the COI edits don't recur.Deb (talk) 10:29, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, sorry for attributing Tigraan's comments to someone else! Deb (talk) 10:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)


 * There are other more suitable words than "chequered", It seems a strange word to pick out of the description and put in quotes and, if you did, you'd need to say something like 'Clark describes her career as "chequered"' etc. I suppose it's okay for someone to describe their own career as "chequered", but not so much for someone else. It's a sort of black-and-white, good-and-bad conotation. 'Varied' is far better.
 * Considering her poetry has also been recognised too, I think it's justifiable to have a Wikipedia article about her. Sionk (talk) 19:42, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with that. It's just a pity there aren't any significant sources for her career as a poet. The dictionary definition for a chequered career is "a background that includes many changes, especially of employment". I'm not aware of anything that suggests it means "a shady past". I'm really puzzled that she described her career that way, yet objects to being quoted. (That's if the anon really is her, of course. Deb (talk) 22:17, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Gender critical views
She “came out” today on twitter/x as the owner of a gender critical account https://twitter.com/jeanrhys____?s=21&t=GCMB-IzOgmh3X4293HZ1Yw

The exact thread is here https://twitter.com/jeanrhys____/status/1780888412393718041?s=46&t=GCMB-IzOgmh3X4293HZ1Yw

including tweets stating that trans clinics are child abusers 2A00:23EE:2128:26B3:51C3:B0A8:D621:49B1 (talk) 18:27, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Conflict of interest
@UncommonCandour has openly claimed to be Polly Clark in a series of edits. They have only ever edited this article, refer to this article as "my page", and specifically state "I am the person who is the subject of the page". Fairly clear-cut that they should steer clear of editing this page any further than they already have. GraziePrego (talk) 07:25, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Political views section discussion
I wish to restore the "Political Views" section. In accordance with WP:BLPUNDEL, consensus must be obtained first to restore the content removed by @Void if removed.

Per WP:ABOUTSELF, ''Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities, without the self-published source requirement that they are established experts in the field, so long as: The material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim; It does not involve claims about third parties; It does not involve claims about events not directly related to the source; There is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and The article is not based primarily on such sources. This policy also applies to material published by the source on social networking websites such as Twitter, Tumblr, LinkedIn, Reddit, and Facebook.''

On that grounds, the content is fine to include.

Per WP:RSOPINION, There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material.

On that grounds too therefore, the content is fine.

In reference to WP:BLPREMOVE, Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced; is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see also Wikipedia:No original research); relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP ; or relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards.

As the tweets are written by the subject of the BLP, the content does not violate WP:BLPREMOVE. GraziePrego (talk) 08:49, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * This entire section is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources, based solely on WP:SPS. IMO you would need a secondary source to establish this is even WP:DUE for inclusion, and without that it is just WP:BLPGOSSIP, and not relevant to a disinterested reader, or encyclopaedic. Per WP:BLPRS When material is both verifiable and noteworthy, it will have appeared in more reliable sources. This sort of thing has been discussed to death on the BLP talk, and its a misuse of WP:ABOUTSELF to "surface" people's views in this way without a secondary source demonstrating any of it is WP:DUE.
 * WP:SPS are usable for uncontroversial facts but they don't establish notability by themselves, and constructing a whole section of a WP:BLP from them is inappropriate. The point in WP:ABOUTSELF the article is not based primarily on such sources also I believe applies here in spirit - this is a new section about a newly introduced aspect of the article subject entirely constructed from WP:SPS. You can't go through someone's social media and WP:SYNTH their "political views" based on jaundiced selection of isolated statements, any more than you could go through their social media for their "views on universal basic income" or "views on dogs" or "opinions on popular TV". It is exactly the sort of WP:OR that should be avoided on WP:BLPs
 * Further, going through previous tweets for selective quotes with selectively presented context is the sort of thing that is Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care per WP:NPF Void if removed (talk) 09:57, 19 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't have a problem with the first factual sentence, about Clark outing herself as the anonymous Twitter writer, per WP:ABOUTSELF (it doesn't need a separate section in the article). But I do have a problem with selectively describing her views, based only on Twitter. Wait for the views/opinions to be noticed by somebody else in a relaible source. Sionk (talk) 14:42, 21 April 2024 (UTC)