User talk:Popemj64

Possible conflict of interest on Leslie Parrish
Hello, Popemj64. We welcome your contributions to Wikipedia, but if you have an external relationship with some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest or close connection to the subject.

All editors are required to comply with Wikipedia's neutral point of view content policy. People who are very close to a subject often have a distorted view of it, which may cause them to inadvertently edit in ways that make the article either too flattering or too disparaging. People with a close connection to a subject are not absolutely prohibited from editing about that subject, but they need to be especially careful about ensuring their edits are verified by reliable sources and writing with as little bias as possible.

If you are very close to a subject, here are some ways you can reduce the risk of problems:


 * Avoid or exercise great caution when editing or creating articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with.
 * Avoid linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Spam).
 * Exercise great caution so that you do not accidentally breach Wikipedia's content policies.

Please familiarize yourself with relevant content policies and guidelines, especially those pertaining to neutral point of view, verifiability of information, and autobiographies. Note that Wikipedia's terms of use require disclosure of your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation.

For information on how to contribute to Wikipedia when you have a conflict of interest, please see our frequently asked questions for organizations. Thank you. TwoTwoHello (talk) 21:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources
Hi Popemj64

I notice from your edit summaries that you have been adding information obtained directly from Ms Parrish. Unfortunately, such information cannot be used in wikipedia articles because it cannot be independently verified by other editors. Verifiability is one of the essential requirements and unless reliable sources can be found, such information is likely to be removed. Reliable sources are particularly important for biographies of living people, like the Leslie Parrish article, because of the possibility of doing harm to the subject.

I am not at all sure that her official website would count as a reliable source for anything even slightly controversial as it appears to be self-published.

I had a look for sources when I was working on the article quite recently and was surprised how few I could find. I did find a google book, but you removed it as a source with this edit. I wonder if you would mind explaining why you did that? Thanks.

P.S. You can find information on how to add references at Citing sources TwoTwoHello (talk) 14:54, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi TwoTwoHello,


 * Thank you for contacting me about the recent changes I made to the Leslie Parrish biography page.


 * Firstly, forgive me if how I'm responding to you is incorrect - still feeling my way through Wikipedia.


 * I appreciate your comments and agree that verification is normally necessary but as you have pointed out to me there is virtually no reference material available to use other than her official biography. In fact, the only information offered is from her official site. I too have searched and found little in the way of online news articles that could be used as reference material. There are sources that provide further verification of events that happened in history (that Ms. Parrish was involved in) but there are few references that speak of her directly. Her official website biography is all that is available on the net that speaks of her life story.


 * The biography that appeared on Wikipedia before I began making changes was woefully inadequate. It spoke of nothing other than her name, birthdate/place, marriages and some of the characters she played in a few films/TV shows. In fact, the information was more about the biography of the characters she played rather then about Leslie Parrish. In a nutshell, the previous biography (before my changes) was embarrassing and, yes, even insulting to Ms. Parrish (yes, I do know her personally). She asked me to try and make changes to the Wikipedia page - to post a more honest and informative bio then what was currently there. Having no experience on Wikipedia I said I would give it a try, but without any promise that I would succeed. I realize you have a responsibility to maintain the integrity of Wikipedia and what is posted there but at the same time Ms. Parrish also should expect that her life story be complete and accurate. When the public reads her bio they should have a better understanding of her history, of the things she accomplished and events that she participated in - none of which appeared in the previous biography. You have to admit that previous biography was, in a word, lame. I know Wikipedia wants better of that page and for Ms. Parrish. The problem of course is the lack of any published references to use, and unfortunately there is no changing that fact. References/citations are few and far between (there are some, but not much).


 * You asked why I removed a previous reference that was there? The reason is simple, the book being referenced was entitled: "Fifties Blondes: Sexbombs, Sirens, Bad Girls and Teen Queens". Oh my, who would want a book like that listed as a reference? It provides trivial information like bust measurements and such. The title alone is insulting to Ms. Parrish - and rightfully so. I'm sure even you must agree that such a book title being used as a reference is embarrassing to Ms. Parrish and I must say, with such a title, I don't believe I would consider such a publication all that reliable as a reference source. I trust you understand why that reference needed to be removed.


 * A woman who is now 80 years old, who did some modeling (mid 1950's) and acting (acted until 1977) and spent the majority of her life involved in politics, the environment, business (amongst other things) does not want to have people read a bio that focuses on only a small portion of her life (and uses a book about sexbombs and bad girls as a reference). That is why that particular reference was removed. Truthfully, I find it odd and bewildering that a book with such a title is actually considered a more reliable source (just because it was published) then the official website biography which Ms. Parrish herself contributed to and approved... to me, that is wrong.


 * Perhaps a disclaimer should be placed (in bold type) at the top of the page stating the problem that few verification references are available for Leslie Parrish.


 * My opinion would be that before the page were to (heaven forbid) revert back to the previous version it would be far better that the page be removed from Wikipedia all together. I trust most people (including yourself) would agree.


 * An obviously incomplete (and in some cases factually incorrect) biography serves no one... not Ms. Parrish, the public or Wikipedia.


 * Please get back to me when you have a chance and if you have any suggestions or solutions as to how to keep the page content as it currently is. I'm open to changing or removing specific things that you feel pose a potential problem (as long as it doesn't minimize or totally affect the remainder of what's written). I look forward to hearing back from you.


 * Sorry for the length of this message.


 * Cheers,
 * Mark
 * Popemj64 (talk) 19:39, 9 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Mark. Many thanks for the detailed reply.


 * Don't worry about the format of your responses, as long as they are comprehensible, that's fine. I suggest we keep the thread on your talk page so it can be easily followed. I will be watching your page and will see any responses you make. I have taken the liberty of moving your post from my talk page to here and adjusting the indentation.


 * The lack of coverage in reliable sources is usually taken as a sign that the activities are not notable enough for inclusion in wikipedia. If they were important, someone would have written about them. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. It summarizes information present in secondary sources (and to a much lesser extent, primary sources).


 * I am sure it must be galling to Ms Parrish that the campaigning, activism and other activities that she considers important are not mentioned by wikipedia, yet her acting work is. Other editors will sympathise as well, and if Ms Parrish feels that strongly about it I would be prepared to submit the article for deletion, but I doubt it would be successful. Her acting work is definitely notable. I am afraid her desire for the article to be complete is likely to be given little weight; accurate is a different matter and any corrections would be welcome. The article contains a prominent link to her official website so a reader seeking more information is likely to go there.


 * I agree that the previous article was disappointing, but that is largely due to the lack of reliable sources. The name of the one reference is unfortunate, but you don't judge a book by its cover! The content it was used to support seemed eminently sensible and as a published book independent of Ms Parrish, it does carry a lot of weight as a source.


 * I don't think the article can remain how it is, entirely sourced to the official website. For one thing, we can't know for sure that it actually is the official website as approved by Ms Parrish, but there are other problems with it as a source as well. Because of your close connection to the subject, I think it would probably be best if you didn't edit the article directly any more but made any suggestions for improving the article on the article's talk page where they can be considered by interested editors.


 * I am sorry if your experience of wikipedia has been disappointing so far and hope you will consider improving other articles where you don't have a potential conflict of interest. The many policies and rules can often seem bizarre, but they have the best of intentions and work surprisingly well. Regards. TwoTwoHello (talk) 00:01, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Welcome!
Welcome to Wikipedia, Popemj64! Thank you for your contributions. I am TwoTwoHello and I have been editing Wikipedia for some time, so if you have any questions feel free to leave me a message on my talk page. You can also check out Questions or type at the bottom of this page. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: Also, when you post on talk pages you should sign your name using four tildes ( ~ ); that will automatically produce your username and the date. I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! TwoTwoHello (talk) 00:05, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Introduction
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * How to write a great article
 * Discover what's going on in the Wikimedia community

RE: Leslie Parrish page
Popemj64 (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Hi TwoTwoHello,

Thank you for your recent response. I spoke to Ms. Parrish this evening to explain the situation. First, she wanted to comment that back in the time when she was a model and actress, speaking out against the establishment could, and did, get celebrities banned from studios resulting in loss of work and income. Hence the reason why she, and so many of her peers, kept their activism quiet and under the radar. She simply states this fact so that you better understand why so little was written about her at the time - hence few references available. However, she does have knowledge of several publications and online articles that she feels could be used as references/citations. There are also references online to the historical events themselves (ie: 1968/1972 Democratic Conventions, Mayor Bradley election in LA, etc.). It is likely that Ms. Parrish would be able to locate a fair number of reference links which can be provided for the Leslie Parrish Wikipedia page. However, between her and my busy schedules (her business takes her away until October), it might not be possible to insert them at the moment. It would indeed be unfortunate if the page reverted back to it's previous form but I do understand your position... albeit I might not necessarily agree with it entirely. By the way, I do think one can actually judge a book by it's cover especially when it's title is "Fifties Blondes: Sexbombs, Sirens, Bad Girls and Teen Queens". My first impression of such a book would be that I won't find too much in-depth facts contained within (by the way, who says such a book is in itself factually accurate?... lord knows I've read many books over the years that 'got things wrong'). Also, The International Leslie Parrish Website, is the official site approved by Ms. Parrish. Since I assume you have gone over what I have written on that page I do have a few questions that I hope you can answer for me. 1. As the page appears now what sections are fine as is, and which sections are not? 2. Is there specific information (certain sentences/paragraphs/claims being made) that you feel is in need of references/citations? 3. How many references/citations would be needed to maintain the contents of this page - to preserve it as it currently appears? 4. If the page is reverted back when would this happen and who would do it? I'll leave it at that for now. I know your probably quite busy and I do not want to take-up all your time. Thank you for getting in touch nonetheless and providing your input. Have a great week ahead. Cheers, Mark Popemj64 (talk) 06:34, 10 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Hi Mark


 * Nice start on adding sources to the article. Sourced content is much less likely to be removed than unsourced content. Please keep them coming.


 * I'll try to address your numbered questions:
 * 1. As the article currently stands only the Selected Film Credits section is fine, which is ironic since it does not include any sources. Information on film casts can easily be found, so an editor is unlikely to challenge or remove any of her film credits. All the other sections have significant amounts of unsourced information.
 * 2. A good example of a sentence that needs a source independent of Ms Parrish is the claim that she was the first actress to make a stand against the war. It is likely to be challenged and removed if a source cannot be found. The claim that she deliberately turned down roles that would have made her a star needs sourcing.
 * 3. It is not a question of the number of sources, but that all the information in all wikipedia articles (that is not well known/trivially sourceable) needs to be backed by references.
 * 4. Now you have started adding sources, the article is unlikely to be reverted back. I am certainly not going to do it.


 * Other general points: Ms Parrish should be referred to as Parrish, not Leslie, per MOS:SURNAME. Wikipedia does not have opinions, so "unfortunately" should be removed from "a decision that would unfortunately end her preferred career". Talk of her feelings and puffery like legendary director should be avoided, e.g. "she felt privileged to work with legendary director".


 * I hope this is helpful. Regards. TwoTwoHello (talk) 23:35, 10 August 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input. I should be able to add quite a few more references during this month. Hopefully, when Ms. Parrish returns in October she will also be able to provide more.

I will go over the biography again and make changes as you recommended. I will reword a few things and remove certain statements which might be hard to provide any references for. I'm glad to hear that you feel it is less likely for the article to revert back, now that references are appearing. Hopefully, over the next couple of months, the biography will be much better sourced.

A couple of questions for you and then I promise I won't bother you any further (I'm sure you have other things to do then always respond to me). Firstly, Ms. Parrish has a lot of private photos taken of her and other notable people at important events (some of which are mentioned in the biography). Can these pictures be uploaded into my Wikipedia account and used as references in the article? For example she has a photo of her and newly elected mayor Tom Bradley (in Los Angeles) which is signed by him thanking her personally for her help in the election. Can something like this be used somehow as a reference? - Secondly, I would be willing to use the "Fifties Blondes" book (that I had removed) providing the remainder of the title (sexbombs... and such) was not included. Would that be acceptable? Let me know what you think when you have a chance.

Thanks again for your valued assistance - it is appreciate Popemj64 (talk) 05:44, 11 August 2015 (UTC)


 * I don't have any experience with photos on wikipedia, mainly because their copyright is a huge can of worms. They can't really be used as references because they can easily be electronically modified. A few photos could be added to illustrate the article, copyright permitting, per Photos. And while we are on the subject of copyright, I hope I am correct in thinking you have not just been copy/pasting content from the official website? That would be a Copyright violation and would likely result in the article being reverted to the earlier version. All contributions to articles must be in your own words, paraphrasing the sources closely enough to be faithful, but not too close.
 * Forget about the Fifties Blondes book. Changing the name would not be acceptable because of the requirement that readers must be able to find the sources so they can verify the article. My concern was with you removing what was the only source at the time, which no longer applies. If you have further questions, a good way to find answers in the documentation is to type wp:, e.g. wp:photo, into the search box and see what pages it suggests. Alternatively, you could ask at Teahouse/Questions where there are volunteers that enjoy helping out. Regards. TwoTwoHello (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2015 (UTC)

thanks for the help
Popemj64 (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC) Thank you for your opinion regarding the photos - I had a feeling they probably could not be used. The entire biography on Wikipedia has indeed been totally reworded from top to bottom. I knew that simply copying and pasting text from another website would not be allowed. I will continue to plug along with locating more reference material for the article and by October Ms. Parrish will be better able to provide resource material as well. Thank you again TwoTwoHello for all your assistance. Cheers, Mark Popemj64 (talk) 00:56, 12 August 2015 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. If content does get removed because it is unsourced, don't hesitate to restore it once you have found a source that supports it. Good luck. Cheers. TwoTwoHello (talk) 01:24, 12 August 2015 (UTC)