Talk:Sophie Morgan/Archive 1

Notability
Disability is not in itself a reason for notability. Any young women of this person's age might have achieved the same at this stage in their careers, and many have achieved much more. Most of the refs are self promotion in this article.Mehmit (talk) 10:35, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Partitas (talk) 13:58, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the subject notable as an artist? Is the subject a notable tv presenter?


 * Apparently she is notable as a disabled activist so I've put this in the intro and the article now seems to make more sense. Paradisepark (talk) 16:44, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Ha! It now seems she's turned into a 'Paralympics Sports Anchor' - presenting the weather report does not make you a sports anchor whatever the Christian Scientist article says! Transparentfish (talk) 09:53, 18 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The subject is sufficiently notable to have a verified Twitter account https://twitter.com/sophmorg Daffodillman (talk) 11:30, 16 March 2013 (UTC)

Removing reliable sources
Please do not remove references to reliable sources from this article. It makes notability harder to recognise and skews an AfD discussion in the wrong direction. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   22:27, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * The Scottish Sun 'is often referred to as "a downmarket, English-based tabloid" by the Daily Record' - I am sure you can find better references. Other editors are reverting cites by the Sun and its satellite papers for the same reason as I have here. Partitas (talk) 08:20, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * What others might do elsewhere must be supported by consensus, not personal opinion.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately, you can't just dismiss it as a source because you don't like it (and FWIW I hate the Sun too but freely accept about 2 million people disagree with me). While we must be careful to ensure that tabloids are not used to source malicious gossip and questionable content, it can be acceptable to use them for neutral, uncontroversial facts - note that there were other things I could have cited from that piece but chose to stuck just to the bare fact she had appeared on television. I have linked other sources on the AfD discussion - please have a look and use them to cite content in the article - and that was just through five minutes of searching. I'm not sure all of them are truly independent of the article's subject and don't have time at the moment to find any more, but if I can find those in that short space of time, I'm sure you can do better. Also, please don't revert changes while discussing content here, as that can be construed as edit warring - a better course of action in this case could be to tag the offending source with Verify credibility if you dispute it. -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   09:47, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The removed citation from The Scottish Sun should be returned, as there is no ongoing discussion at WP:RSN about its contextual use here and more recent discussions at RSN of The Sun and affiliates, while generaly disliking tabloids for their style and format, have resulted in use being contextually acceptable, as long as contentious or gossipy assertions are not made and sourced solely to the tabloid. This talk page discussion should bear in mind the wider consensus reached elsewhere.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 20:15, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * As non-controversial information has become an issue in this article, a discussion at WP:RSN has now been initiated.  Schmidt,  MICHAEL Q. 21:42, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm tempted to say It's The Sun wot won the AfD ;-) -- Ritchie333 (talk)  (cont)   14:31, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

Mehmit (talk) 20:15, 15 March 2013 (UTC)
 * On the subject of 'removing reliable sources', I've just added a tag to this one re COI because two of the contributors are consistently doing that - saladblackberry and Fridamoon. I just reverted 1,647 characters from the article and many references which Fridamoon had removed under the guise of 'adding information'.OSLJA (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2012 (UTC)
 * If we're making a list of unconstructive editing and possible COI, I'd like to add Bethaiku to that list - who removed at least 1,221 characters from the article, including many references, citing 'accuracies' as the reason. If the sources are referenced and someone claims they're inaccurate, the editor is very likely to be Morgan herself I would think...
 * Agreed. Fridamoon, saladblackberry and Bethaiku are all single article editors - the article about Morgan or reality shows she's taken part in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OSLJA (talk • contribs) 12:46, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter who removes content as long as the removal is reasonable. Subjects can edit their own articles. WP:COI is a guideline, not policy. Contentious content or content that has been challenged should stay out of the article until there is a sensible policy/guideline based consensus to include it. I've removed content that is, in my view, contentious, irrelevant, unsourced editorializing and not encyclopedic. If someone can convince me that I'm mistaken, fine, I have the page watchlisted. I don't find it surprising at all that the subject or people connected to the subject would see the kind of content that is being repeatedly added as contentious and seek to remove it.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 13:19, 16 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Remind me again, where has Bethaiku declared a conflict of interest? If the COI is simply based on a suspicion, I think the hatnote on this page should be removed. 46.208.21.102 (talk) 12:32, 26 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Here.  Sean.hoyland  - talk 12:35, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Further education
Resurrecting my old post from archives as it's still relevant. ":::::::The Channel 4 profile isn't a reliable source. Those things are often just based on submitted text and aren't necessarily fact checked. And she doesn't claim a degree on her website, she just says she joined the degree program and during it had a second degree opportunity. I'm not convinced any of the other sources are RS for this. Doug Weller  talk 12:19, 27 September 2016 (UTC)"  Doug Weller  talk 13:13, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * My response is the same; numerous sources, including Morgan's own website, state that she has a degree from Goldsmith's. Unless you have a reliable source which directly contradicts this or claims she has misrepresented her qualifications, then there's nothing to see here. Keri (talk) 13:15, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but she does not claim to have a degree. "After leaving hospital, whilst adapting to life as a wheelchair user, she joined the Fine Art Degree at Goldsmiths Art College, London. During her degree a second career opportunity arose, as she was asked to participate in a ground breaking expedition across Nicaragua ('Beyond Boundaries BBC 2004) and since then Sophie has gone on to establish a diverse and successful portfolio career; spanning across various creative industries." I suspect she wrote that badly, but there's no claim to have graduate or to have a degree there. But you're right, no one is challenging that and they probably would if it weren't true.  Doug Weller  talk 15:05, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * As stated here, Morgan has more than one company and more than one website. The website she operates for her art business states very succintly: "Artist Sophie graduated with a degree in Fine Art from Goldsmiths University in London and had her first solo show in 2004." The quote you use above requires an assumption to reach a conclusion not explicitly stated nor supported by the source. She is pretty high profile lately and by now I would expect to have seen this claim challenged were it untrue. I disagree with your opinion that Channel 4 is not a reliable source for bios about its talent, but I think that is by-the-by in the circumstances. Keri (talk) 15:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Sorry about missing her other websites. You're right. And I said that it would probably have been challenged if untrue. A documentary report from Channel 4 would be a reliable source, that page is almost certainly not. I can point to many BBC pages that aren't reliable sources either. Doug Weller  talk 16:22, 29 September 2016 (UTC)