Talk:Tarah Wheeler

Name
Are there any current sources for her full name? I've been unable to find "Marie" specified anywhere reliable. "Tarah Wheeler Van Vlack" has sources, but unclear if that was ever legally changed. BLDM (talk) 02:57, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

sure here https://pdxscholar.library.pdx.edu/polisci_theses/1/ will update 104.156.104.138 (talk) 00:50, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

Notability tag removed
I have removed a WP:DRIVEBY notability tag placed by - the article contains numerous sources and passes a prima facie test of WP:NBIO. If Zweifel believes that this is insufficient, their remedy would be to nominate the article for deletion through AfD and reach a broader consensus decision. Absent any such action, the tag serves no purpose. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:23, 25 September 2020 (UTC)


 * But why remove her academic history? Zweifel (talk) 06:24, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source for it? If not, then we can't include it. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 06:25, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Her LinkedIn page (I suck at formatting, I'm sorry) : [] "PhD-partial" "University of Michigan Degree NameDoctor of Philosophy - PhD-partialField Of StudyComplex Systems, Political Science Dates attended or expected graduation2004 – 2008 Activities and Societies: Fellow of the Center for the Study of Complex Systems"
 * I mean, it's cute that she puts it on her LinkedIn page and tries to hide it. Most people use the term "ABD" or "All but Dissertation".
 * Here is a resume: [| Pre-candidate for Doctorate...]
 * [] "...went for my PhD..." -- this is for her failed start-up called FizzMint.
 * Oh yeah, it's hard to prove a negative, but the University of Michigan site seems to want nothing to do with her. I haven't found a single reference.
 * Anyway, "PhD-partial" is citation enough, and I am going to restore the language.
 * Also, buddy, who is "we" here?
 * Also, buddy, who is "we" here?

User:FiloSottile
 * I beg your pardon. First, how is my edit regarding her educational history inaccurate?  Second, what does "original research" mean, exactly?  Surely mentioning this scholarship she received constitutes "original research" as much as her very well documented failure to complete her PhD.  I was asked to provide a citation - and I provided it.  What makes her look good can't simply be objective, and what makes her look bad is in the interstices between condemned unsourced statements and condemned "original research".  You can't use both.  Third, being honest about this person being little more than an 'influencer' does not make me any more biased than the meat puppets she has watching and editing this page.  This person is using Wikipedia as a public resume, as a public relations tool.

I have redacted a number of personal attacks targeting the article subject. Wikipedia is not a platform for users to express their personal displeasure with article subjects. , your personal opinion of Tarah Wheeler is irrelevant, and your expressed desire to paint her in a negative light suggests that you are incapable of editing this article in a neutral and unbiased manner. I suggest you find some other articles to edit, preferably about people whom you haven't made your mind up to be outraged about. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:15, 25 September 2020 (UTC)