Talk:Venus Nicolino

Reversions of sourced content
(Note: this was copied from my talk page to this page here, as it is appropriate to this article....)--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Tom,

The information you added is false and defamatory. We ask that you please not re-post it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venustruth (talk • contribs) 17:02, 21 August 2014 (UTC)


 * How so? The information all comes from reliable secondary sources which are easily verified. The information you added is unsourced and violates Wikipedia's rules about biographies of living persons. I will copy this to the deletion page as well as the discussion page as that is where this discussion belongs.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 20:37, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Drug use claims
I removed those particular claims because something like that cannot be sourced to a tabloid (which the NY Post is). The second source (Daily Mail) simply parroted what the NY Post published. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:08, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Nonsense. Two papers printed what Nicolino said on the LA Shrinks TV show about her own past (ab)use of prescription medication. She said it, about herself, broadcast on t-e-l-e-v-i-s-i-o-n. Your removing information looks like you're giving in to a spurious legal threat, when we are on solid ground here, and suggests you're not the free-ranging frog that you purport to be. The NY Post and Daily Mail are reliable sources for what happens on television.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 02:33, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I am not giving into anything. Tabloids are not reliable sources for biographical claims of that nature. For all you know she was misquoted, or the sense of the quote changes because no context was provided by the source. That is why we require those reliable sources, so there is no wiggling room and we can be on solid ground, as you say. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:37, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And I also removed that quote to the "Manhattan Digest", which I assume only nine people in the world read... let's be careful about what we put in here. This is still a BLP, regardless of threats or any other behavior by the subject or people associated with her. § FreeRangeFrog croak 02:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks to me like you caved. If you believe the NY Post is an unreliable source, then why is it still there in the reference section to back up the current line in Wikipedia which says "She believes 20% of children in America are mis-diagnosed as having mental illness ... Nicolino became and remains an outspoken critic of the over-prescription of drugs, especially to children"? So the NY Post is not trustworthy when it says, essentially, that Nicolino, herself, described herself as having past problems with prescription medication, but it is trustworthy when it makes a statement about her supposed statement about children being misdiagnosed for mental illness? Hmmmm? Plus, the whole idea of the Bravo show LA Shrinks is summarized in an article in Psychology Today, that think your life sucks? Just look at your own therapist’s life. Now there’s a hot mess. (see bottom of paragraph 2). Essentially, the show is about the real lives of therapists, their problems, their issues, so Nicolino revealing on TV of her problems with prescription medication in the past is thoroughly consistent with the NY Post and Daily Mail accounts. Last, such information about Nicolino revealing her past problems with prescription medication is not that 'defamatory', by today's terms -- she revealed it herself, on TV; if there are any problems in what is going on here, in terms of Nicolino's career, they are caused by Nicolino herself trying to straddle two worlds: (1) being a reputable psychologist (maintains confidentiality of clients, keeps focus off of her own problems and on her clients' problems, etc) versus (2) being a reality TV star who appears on skitzy shows like LA Shrinks where she prances around in a bikini or underwear, smokes, drinks, talks about her use of sex toys, and talks about her past problems with prescription medication, for the purpose of trying to keep ratings up, appeal to popular audiences who like soft porn and such. What Wikipedia should do is cover what's out there, neutrally, objectively, reporting what the sources say; when you censor Wikipedia to remove details which you feel are 'defamatory' or controversial, you paint a distorted picture, and in a tiny way, work towards undermining Wikipedia's credibility, and cause people to wonder whether certain contributors here are being or will be paid off by lawyers or theatrical agents. Right now, the Nicolino article is a borderline advertisement for a reality TV star.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 14:35, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Tom, I have handled hundreds of cases like these, on and off Wiki. People writing to OTRS screaming that they're going to sue every editor and IP that touched the article, the Wikimedia Foundation, Jimmy Wales and the Easter Bunny. We do not "cave in" to legal threats and demands. The NY Post is a tabloid and regardless of the nature of the subject's work, it is not now nor will it ever be an acceptable source for a claim that a living person is or was addicted to drugs. It just isn't. You find a good source for that (and you've been around long enough to know what a good source is) and I will tell the subject, her lawyers and the ninja assassin they hire to off me that it's too bad, but the information stays. Until then, it needs to stay off. And the only reason why I didn't remove the rest of the tabloid crap is because if I did, you'd be left with a one-liner stub. The ticket is 2014082310000701 if you want secondary confirmation from another volunteer. However the existence of a ticket or anything else makes no difference. I would have removed all that if I had seen it because it had landed on BLP/N or whatever. § FreeRangeFrog croak 15:45, 23 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, while I continue to disagree, thank you for your explanation.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 19:41, 23 August 2014 (UTC)