Talk:Barbara Snow (therapist)
 | This article was nominated for deletion on 18 June 2020. The result of the discussion was keep. |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
Gizomodo source edit
Hello, Epachamo! I believe that Gizmodo source you used for this page is not good for several reasons:
- The source is a podcast with the information presented as a show with the focus on "sensationalism".
https://gizmodo.com/weve-launched-an-investigative-podcast-about-a-controve-1826416613
- It is not understood how the information leaked about the relationship of Teal Swan and Barbara Snow (if there was any sort of information, which I honestly doubt) based on the fact that the relation between a psychologist and a client is confidential:
- https://www.apa.org/topics/ethics/confidentiality
Couldn't it be the case of a leaked information about the client without her consent? Even if it is a small chance that it is, doesn't violate Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living Persons?
- Finally, please, check this table of sources:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources
Here is on Gizmodo: There is consensus that Gizmodo is generally reliable for technology, popular culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements.
Since this source of Gizmodo topic is a radio show with a lot of controversial topics, don't you think it is unethical to use that source without adding more reliable ones? To me it looks like Gizmodo publishes this type of shows to attract more public with "sensationalism". I can't see how it is a proper source for Wikipedia if there is no consensus.--Onetimememorial (talk) 20:58, 18 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Onetimememorial:Could you elaborate on which statement you feel is controversial? Gizmodo interviewed Teal Swan directly, and from Swan's own mouth she confirms unabashedly that her therapist was Barbara Snow. Gizmodo covering controversial topics does not make it unreliable. The New York Times also covers controversial topics. Teal Swan is a pop culture phenomenon. I disagree that the coverage by Gizmodo is sensationalist. Controversial and sensationalist are not the same thing. Snow and her relationship with Swan are an important part of both their stories, and should be mentioned. Epachamo (talk) 23:10, 20 May 2022 (UTC)
- Both Swan and Snow are controversial figures and the assertions are about a police investigation of Swan. You will need multiple reliable sources about this topic per WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:REDFLAG. Further, you can not reinstate info disputed on BLP grounds until you correct the issue or obtain consensus which you have not done. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:24, 29 May 2022 (UTC)
{{BLP noticeboard}}