This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to
join the project and
contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the
documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
This article has been
automatically rated by a
bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Animal rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
animal rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Animal rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Animal rightsTemplate:WikiProject Animal rightsAnimal rights articles
A fact from Rachel Hirschfeld appeared on Wikipedia's
Main Page in the Did you know column on 9 December 2008, and was viewed approximately 1,950 times (
disclaimer) (
check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
Did you know... that attorney Rachel Hirschfeld works in the field of pet rights, including the creation of pet trusts allowing pets to inherit property?
The following Wikipedia contributor may be personally or professionally connected to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include
conflict of interest,
autobiography, and
neutral point of view.
The paragraph beginning "Hirschfeld has been profiled by..." could still use some work. I haven't had time to go through all the refs, and one is a video, but from what I can tell not all of them are "profiling" her, but just quoting her opinion in an article that's not about her specifically. The New York Sun article does seem to be mostly about her, but I don't know about the others...and claiming that she has been "profiled" by all these media outlets makes her seem more famous and significant than she probably actually is. —
Politizertalk/contribs16:42, 8 December 2008 (UTC)reply
I
rewrote the intro to remove "self-described" claims sourced to a commercial website selling Hirschfeld's product. Recent edits indicate opposing forces at work editing this article, so sticking to the stricter
WP:RS sourcing per
WP:BLP seems especially appropriate.
Flowanda |
Talk02:08, 29 June 2010 (UTC)reply
Welcome to Wikipedia. Thanks for joining the discussion. Some editors are trying to use the page to advertise products and services in violation of
WP:NOTADVERTISING. The simple solution, mentioned above, is to hold to the strict sourcing required per
WP:BLP. --
Ronz (
talk)
03:42, 15 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Many books on notable subjects contain reference to non-notable and self-published books. The questions is whether the subject is notable, which she obviously is, and whether she wrote the book, which she clearly did
N1Alliance (
talk)
10:41, 15 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Just because she's notable doesn't mean her self-published book is. And please don't just try to readd incorrect information back into the article; do the work.
Flowanda |
Talk08:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)reply
I think you are missing the point. Nobody is saying that the book is notable. However, the book is verifiable (note: i did not add back the ISBN number, which appears to be wrong); an article can contain non-notable facts about a notable person. in fact, most do.
N1Alliance (
talk)
10:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)reply
External links and editing disagreements -- August 2011
I
removed a number of external links to articles on pettrustlawyer.com that are either advertorials or just mentions of Hirschfeld as part of a larger article. As there appears to be ongoing disagreeing edits, please discuss here after carefully reviewing
WP:BLP.
WP:COI.
WP:EL,
WP:RS and
WP:ADVERT, as well as the notices on your talk pages.
Flowanda |
Talk07:22, 8 August 2011 (UTC)reply
Sorry. I didn't see the discussion here before I re-posted the information. I never had this much trouble in Wikipedia before, so please help me understand this. All articles and papers included in the Bibliography section were written in their entirety by Rachel Hirschfeld. They are not parts of larger works or articles. The links point to pettrustlawyer.com as a convenience, but were originally published by various third-party news and media sources such as Black Tie Magazine and the American Bar Association. Unfortunately, some of these sources tend to delete articles after a given amount of time, so it made more sense to link to a more permanent location. (
Radman63 (
talk)
00:10, 19 August 2011 (UTC))reply
I agree with the removal of the material. We've had this same problem with this article in the past. If we follow the relevant policies and guidelines closely, there should be no problems. --
Ronz (
talk)
00:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)reply
OK. So now the problem is that there is just too much information? Should I just narrow down the number of articles and further reading links? I think it's important to add information the subject of the article has written, and also links to her current activities in the form or further reading.
I'm a little confused because at first, you all seemed to say I was doing something wrong. When I try to justify my actions, you seem to switch to saying it is too much information. Am I adding the information in the wrong way (first complaint), or do you just feel it is just too much information (latest complaint). If you can make up your mind on what the problem is, I can do the right thing. Please teach me the right way to do this, and please be consistent. Thanks! (
Radman63 (
talk)
00:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC))reply
Thanks for responding. Yes, it's confusing. Because this is a
biography of a living person, it is strongly recommended that contentious material be removed even before any discussion.
"So now the problem is that there is just too much information?" No. Too much promotional information. Too much information not verified and deemed notable by independent sources.
"I think it's important to add information" Others disagree both here and across Wikipedia.