Talk:Teeuwynn Woodruff

pioneer
, actually, after carefully going over WP:BLP, I have removed some random radio podcasting guy's characterization of her. It is inappropriate; just as it is improper to include characterization of someone as "podcast host said (article subject) is a "lazy slob" " Note that it says it applies to negative, positive or neutral. Graywalls (talk) 17:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

random dudes' podcast reference
, in your edit summary which read (added a few more reviews of her works), you removed in-text attribution to what was said by Woodruff herself in her interview with some random dudes that's running podcasts. Such interviews are WP:SPS. Would you explain why you removed the attribution? Graywalls (talk) 18:32, 19 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I didn't remove the attributions, I only rephrased some of them so that there was less duplication of wording (or, to put it another way, to provide more variety of phrasing.) "Woodruff claimed that", "In an interview, Woodruff said" and other similar phrases are synonymous with "said Woodruff", and do not take away from your point that these are claims that she herself has made.Guinness323 (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

has now removed my maintenance templates twice, improperly. "5 November 2020‎ Newimpartial talk contribs‎ 10,874 bytes -34‎  Undid revision 987146392 by Graywalls (talk)Dont't be draft. Your AfD cited SIRS, which doesn't apply to BLPs. GNG and NBIO were amply met. Don't template bomb. undothank Tag: Undo" Just as  repeated, we should know better than using blogs from some random internet dudes as sources and writing contents based on the article subject's conversation with those random internet people. It's a serious due weight and reliability issue, because those random dudes are controlling the conversation and the subject is going on and on about what she wants to talk about. Graywalls (talk) 15:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's ridiculous. It's like those articles for voice actors--most of it is a resume with primary sources, if any sources exist at all. Two non-notable podcasts (podcasts) are supposed to make this notable? Drmies (talk) 15:25, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The current references are one newspaper, two books, two dead-tree magazines, two online magazines, and then also some non-independent sources. Your comment is indeed ridiculous, Drmies - the AfD result did not in any way depend on the podcast interviews, and the subject's comments in those meet ABOUTSELF requirements for inclusion in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 16:15, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The argument shouldn't be about the numeric quantity of the sources. A great bulk of this article is based on the subject's chatter with two random internet dudes BK Adrian and Sam Chubb. Really not that much different from writing an article on someone from a chatroom log. Mike Selinker isn't exactly "independent" either and even if it was, the source used would be considered primary. Graywalls (talk) 16:48, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I was counting Selinker among the non-independent sources, so I'm glad we agree. :p The tags you bombed on the article are for a lack of independent sources - yet most of the sources used in the article are independent - and for Notability - but Notability has been established by the independent sources alone. And in any event, tag-bombing an article because you don't like an AfD result isn't really cricket, particularly when the AfD was based on NCORP, which doesn't apply to this article. Newimpartial (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The tags are a reasonable way to keep it marked in the mean time while discussion is taking place. Such templates also cause the article to be listed in articles with so and so issues thus giving more opportunity for others to notice and come by and check out. I would much prefer to just absolutely remove everything dependent on conversations with random internet dudes, name list put together by coworkers and so on, but I'd imagine that removal would create another objection. Have a look at this edit a lot of which I disagree with and in particular (which I have already removed) She has been described as "one of the pioneer women in the industry." referencing one of random internet dude's characterization of her. That's ridiculous. About as absurd as including "some random passersby thought she is ____". Graywalls (talk) 17:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree that normally the point in citing an interview is to relay the subject's own statements, per ABOUTSELF. Also, I haven't looked up either of the podcasters to see whether there is anything more relevant than "random internet dude" on either CV. But even if so, that wouldn't affect the ABOUTSELF inclusion. Newimpartial (talk) 18:05, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Sure, if it's about confirming non-controversial facts like birth day, or home town that can not be fluffy and could not in anyway be considered promotional. The difference between professionally conducted interview vs one done by some internet random dude or a friend is that summary production and conversation control is in the hands of the credentialed professional interviewer. If there was to be an article about you, chit chatting with your friend and going on and on about what you want other people to know about you that have not been reliably published elsewhere, including that information would be biased and unduly favoring the presentation desired by you, even if it's not intentional. Graywalls (talk) 18:18, 5 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't see any PROMO in the ways the podcasts are currently used, but I'll keep my eyes open. And having reviewed the podcasters' CVs, while MK's podcast is fannish, Sam Chupp was a professional in the industry from 1992-2000, writing for Atlas Games and Holistic Design as well as White Wolf, so his expertise in the field is non-trivial. He and the subject were colleagues for a couple of years, but since that was more than 15 years before the podcast in question was recorded I don't think it creates a COI for the interview in question. Newimpartial (talk) 20:23, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Death
This tweet from a former coworker at Wizards of the Coast, Mark Rosewater, confirms Teeuwynn Woodruff died. I don't know if there's a process to be followed when someone dies, beyond just editing in that information, so I didn't edit the article. I'm leaving this note here so that hopefully someone who know how to proceed sees it and edits the article.

Unrelated to her death, the information in this follow up tweet from Mark Rosewater may also be relevant.

In case Tumble is a better source, I'll note that Mark Rosewater also posted the same information on this post there. And if you need confirmation that those two accounts, on Twitter and Tumblr, really belong to Mark Rosewater, a Wizards of the Coast employee, to be able to use either as a source, you can see that, for example, this article on that company's official website links to both on the bottom. Davide (talk) 20:14, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * No, per WP:BLP, we can't use someone's blog/social media as a source. If it is reported by NEWS MEDIA, then we can cite the news source. Graywalls (talk) 21:05, 3 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like someone else edited her death into the article with the source being a tweet on Teeuwynn Woodruff's own Twitter account from her husband. Does the rule about not using social media as a source have an exception if it comes from the person's own social media account? Davide (talk) 21:07, 4 September 2023 (UTC)
 * It's been implemented. This article should have just waited until the secondary source published the announcement of death rather than try to use dubious source like TWITTER and TUMBLER. Wikipedia is not news reporting site. Graywalls (talk) 00:58, 5 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I didn't edit the article with Twitter and Tumblr sources, I only posted those sources on this talk page and waited for someone familiar with the policy to say something. Someone else must have taken the links I posted here and used them as sources. Davide (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I hate to invoke IAR, but I think this case requires a moment of reflection., does it make sense to remove edits saying that the subject of this article has died based on Twitter posts until www.CBR.com writes an article about it based on the same Twitter posts? I'd argue that it's a bit absurd. Cjhard (talk) 00:30, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * There's a reason why rules are applied more stringently to WP:BLP than others. You noticed how fake confirmed Casio accounts were tweeting over Gerald Pique & Shakira matters. Granted, notability of Teeuwynn Woodruff isn't anything close to those two, but it's better to wait for information to be passed down the proper channels, then follow what the reliable sources say. Wikipedia is NOT news. It is not our purpose to be the first to break social media gossip. Better that we're a week lagging in information than post something wrong only to correct it. Such things are harmful to reputation of Wikipedia in general and if we waited a week on this article that averages 7 views a day for this year, it wouldn't have mattered one bit. Graywalls (talk) 00:51, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand your position, but CBR did not independently verify Woodruff's passing, it wrote an article based solely on the social media posts that were being used as sources in this article. This Wikipedia article is still using social media posts as the source of Woodruff's passing, it's just doing so under the guise of CBR's "independent reporting". And CBR isn't exactly the most reliable source in the world. I think a little common sense goes a long way here. Cjhard (talk) 05:28, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Newspapers and scholars do and they can use primary sources but we as Wikipedia editors should not. We leave it to another source (such as newspapers) to do the interpreting primary source and cite the secondary source. No respectable publications parrot what they just read without fact checking. We Wikipedia editors are not allowed to evaluate the same thing journalists do. We can take this over to BLP/Noticeboard and discuss how it should've been proceeded. Graywalls (talk) 07:32, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * I won't typically utilize a source that just repeats what I already saw on social media, because they are just reporting what everyone else already saw rather than verifying it. 2601:240:E200:3B60:E0FD:4466:64:7446 (talk) 12:01, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * How do you know this? Media outlets don't spell out fact checking processes done, or if they've even done it. If they parrot something without so much as to checking or reviewing source credibility and they get it wrong, it's their own reputation on the line. Sources that do so too often get deprecated from Wikipedia, like The_Sun_(United_Kingdom). Also in WP:RSP specifically, things like TWITTER and FACEBOOK are discussed. Graywalls (talk) 19:23, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

BLP/N
I posted on Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard just for general input even though the matter is resolved simply due to the fact a source popped up during the disagreement. Graywalls (talk) 19:34, 6 September 2023 (UTC)


 * Here from BLP/N. WP:BLPSPS says quite clearly Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. BLP policies also apply to the recently deceased. This is a problem that has come up before, without a clear solution. So the Tumblr source was no good, but as it's been replaced by secondary sources the point is now null. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 20:18, 6 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Thank you for confirming this. 8.37.179.254 (talk) 21:14, 6 September 2023 (UTC)