Talk:Rachel Hirschfeld

One last thing to do
The paragraph beginning "Hirschfeld has been profiled by..." could still use some work. I haven't had time to go through all the refs, and one is a video, but from what I can tell not all of them are "profiling" her, but just quoting her opinion in an article that's not about her specifically. The New York Sun article does seem to be mostly about her, but I don't know about the others...and claiming that she has been "profiled" by all these media outlets makes her seem more famous and significant than she probably actually is. &mdash;Politizer talk / contribs 16:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with the comment, and change made. Cbl62 (talk) 17:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Intro -- June 2010
I rewrote the intro to remove "self-described" claims sourced to a commercial website selling Hirschfeld's product. Recent edits indicate opposing forces at work editing this article, so sticking to the stricter WP:RS sourcing per WP:BLP seems especially appropriate. Flowanda | Talk 02:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Thanks for the good work! --Ronz (talk) 02:31, 29 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Disagree. What's wrong with the page as it is? N1Alliance (talk) 01:31, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for joining the discussion. Some editors are trying to use the page to advertise products and services in violation of WP:NOTADVERTISING. The simple solution, mentioned above, is to hold to the strict sourcing required per WP:BLP. --Ronz (talk) 03:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)

Book listing
There is no listing of Hirschfeld's book anywhere except here: http://www.cpa2biz.com/AST/AICPA_CPA2BIZ_Specials/Bestsellers/Bestsellers_Publications/PRD~PC-090530/PC-090530.jsp?selectedFormat=Paperback and the ISBN number does not appear to exist. A non-notable self-published book and a non-existent ISBN don't belong in the article; that's why I removed them. Flowanda | Talk 09:13, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Many books on notable subjects contain reference to non-notable and self-published books. The questions is whether the subject is notable, which she obviously is, and whether she wrote the book, which she clearly did N1Alliance (talk) 10:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Just because she's notable doesn't mean her self-published book is. And please don't just try to readd incorrect information back into the article; do the work. Flowanda | Talk 08:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I think you are missing the point. Nobody is saying that the book is notable.  However, the book is verifiable (note: i did not add back the ISBN number, which appears to be wrong); an article can contain non-notable facts about a notable person.  in fact, most do. N1Alliance (talk) 10:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Note this is a blocked editor. Flowanda | Talk 09:44, 9 April 2011 (UTC)

External links and editing disagreements -- August 2011
I removed a number of external links to articles on pettrustlawyer.com that are either advertorials or just mentions of Hirschfeld as part of a larger article. As there appears to be ongoing disagreeing edits, please discuss here after carefully reviewing WP:BLP. WP:COI. WP:EL, WP:RS and WP:ADVERT, as well as the notices on your talk pages. Flowanda | Talk 07:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry. I didn't see the discussion here before I re-posted the information. I never had this much trouble in Wikipedia before, so please help me understand this. All articles and papers included in the Bibliography section were written in their entirety by Rachel Hirschfeld. They are not parts of larger works or articles. The links point to pettrustlawyer.com as a convenience, but were originally published by various third-party news and media sources such as Black Tie Magazine and the American Bar Association. Unfortunately, some of these sources tend to delete articles after a given amount of time, so it made more sense to link to a more permanent location. (Radman63 (talk) 00:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC))


 * Wikipedia is not a host for CVs or an aggregator of bibliographies. There's no encyclopedic reason to list links to all her publications. r ʨ anaɢ (talk) 00:32, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with the removal of the material. We've had this same problem with this article in the past. If we follow the relevant policies and guidelines closely, there should be no problems. --Ronz (talk) 00:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

OK. So now the problem is that there is just too much information? Should I just narrow down the number of articles and further reading links? I think it's important to add information the subject of the article has written, and also links to her current activities in the form or further reading.

I'm a little confused because at first, you all seemed to say I was doing something wrong. When I try to justify my actions, you seem to switch to saying it is too much information. Am I adding the information in the wrong way (first complaint), or do you just feel it is just too much information (latest complaint). If you can make up your mind on what the problem is, I can do the right thing. Please teach me the right way to do this, and please be consistent. Thanks! (Radman63 (talk) 00:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC))
 * Thanks for responding. Yes, it's confusing. Because this is a biography of a living person, it is strongly recommended that contentious material be removed even before any discussion.
 * "So now the problem is that there is just too much information?" No. Too much promotional information. Too much information not verified and deemed notable by independent sources.
 * "I think it's important to add information" Others disagree both here and across Wikipedia.
 * In addition to those policies/guidelines mentioned by Flowanda and Rjanag, I'll point out WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:SPS, and WP:UNDUE. --Ronz (talk) 16:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)