Talk:Adeena Karasick

Copyright issues

It's public information, and I have permission from the writer to use it Safiasouthey (talk)

See below. Voceditenore (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.prairiefire.ca/interview_jhc_karasick.html. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Voceditenore (talk) 13:53, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Article cleanup and notability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article needs extensive clean up in multiple areas as outlined in the maintenance tags at the top of the article. The subject appears to be reasonably notable from a quick search of google news and books. However, the article currently relies entirely on primary sources which are not independent of the subject herself, and is written in a highly promotional tone. I've already removed the unsourced cherry-picked "Praise" section, but much more needs to be done, including adding references to reliable independent sources, properly cited with full bibliographic information.

If any editors working on this page have any affiliation whatsoever, either personal or professional, with Adeena Karasick please read WP:Conflict of interest for guidance when editing under these circumstances and follow those guidelines scrupulously. Voceditenore (talk) 13:47, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Puffery

I have removed the unappropriate puffery from the lede [1]. Not only is it unencylopedic and promotional, it's plagiarised from the subject's website. I have also removed (once again) the cherry picked quotes with no independent verifiable source and all taken from her own publicity materials. Do not re-add, unless you provide a reference to the original source for each quote. Voceditenore (talk) 08:30, 30 May 2012 (UTC)

On cleaning up

This article basically reads like jacket notes or a publisher's promotional blurb about one of its authors. It's practically a résumé (CV) and contains no biographical information. A true academic will understand what an encyclopedia is and will not need to exploit Wikipedia for additional publicity. Having 'permission' to write about someone only demonstrates that there is a Conflict of Interest which is clearly manifest through the style of this article. The fact that the text of the article is partly a close parphrasing of text 'pretty much written' by the subject herself, is sufficient for CSD or AfD. However, there is almost certainly a place for Karasick in our encyclopedia, but the style of the article needs to be greatly toned down, and the addition of biographical background is required.

File:Adeena_Karasick.jpg

Unfree photo removed until proof of copyright has been submitted to OTRS.

Logging in

Editors please note also that registered users are required to log in each time they contribute to an article or discussion. This will avoid editing privileges being blocked for all users connecting from that IP address.

Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:33, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Conflict of interest

This is not edited or written by Adeena Karasick or any party directly related to her (yes, the account has her name, but it is by Safia Southey, an unrelated party). Please remove that issue. Thank you! Adeenakarasick (talk) 16:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

As well, there are many citations, and the wiki contains all real and verifiable information. Adeenakarasick (talk) 16:46, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

If you are not Adeena Karasick, then you need to read Wikipedia:Username policy which explains why your username needs to be changed immediately. Note also, I have no idea whether or not you are Safia Southey, but in fact that person is very closely connected to Karasick. I shall change the tag to this one. It will stay there until the puffery and publicity has been removed from the article. I strongly suggest you also read our policies on verifiability, biographies of living persons, and neutral point of view as well as out guidelines on conflict of interest. Voceditenore (talk) 17:04, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I was just reading though this article, and realized that there is a tag on it saying that the citations are affiliated with the subject, which when I looked into, is not true. Most sources seem to come from websites with no direct connection to the topic, or by the topic. FieraMichelle (talk) 19:33, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

I added some other citations to her award section that I found. Is this enough to rid her of the "additional citations needed" tag? FieraMichelle (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually, what you did was remove several tags without adding citations. [2]. I have restored them. Almost all of the "citations" you did add were not to reliable sources. One was a Yahoo Groups posting, one was to an Amazon.com off-shoot, one was to a blog, one was to a press release on a self-published website.

The whole awards section was also very misleading, and some of these are not notable awards at all. Note that "Top Five in 2012 Award for This Poem" refers to being one of the top 5 poetry books chosen by a writer/blogger on the Jewish Daily Forward. The "Exuberance is Beauty Book Award for Amuse Bouche" is simply one of the "awards" made up by a blogger for his favourite books. The "2009 Best Book of 2009 for Amuse Bouche" was not the best book at all. It was one of dozens of "poetry picks" listed at about.com and wasn't even in the first 10 listed. The " British Columbia Book Award (Silver) for Mêmewars" is inaccurate. She was a finalist. I checked and referenced it to the official website of the award. It merely lists her as a finalist, no "Silver award". The actual winner that year was someone else, Linda Rogers for Hard Candy.

Once again, please read all the policy and guideline pages linked in my reply to Adeenakarasick, higher up in this section. Voceditenore (talk) 13:54, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Today's cleanup

I have now copyedited the article to remove the promotional tone, unreferenced hype, cherry-picked quotes, and excessive detail. I have also added references from a few reliable sources which are independent of the article's subject. I am going to remove the maintenance tags for peacockery, conflict of interest, and primary sources but they will go right back up if further attempts are made to turn this article into PR for the subject. The tag for further sources being required stays up. Many of the assertions in the article are very poorly referenced to press releases, YouTube videos, self-published blogs, Yahoo Group postings etc. Note that this sentence was misleading on multiple levels:

"Her eighth book, This Poem, which was recently released in August 2012, opened on the Globe and Mail Bestseller List and then went on to win Top Five of 2012"

Firstly, it was the best seller list for Winnipeg, not all of Canada. Secondly, the second clause fails to make clear that it's referring to another publication, refers only to poetry books, and has nothing to do with bestseller lists. The alleged Globe and Mail reference is also completely unsatisfactory. It has no bibliographic information or link to the paper's website. Instead it links to a photograph of an out-of-context clipping hosted on a private website with no evidence that it even comes from that newsapaper. [3]

The subject of this article is notable, but this kind of poor-quality hype (obvious to any neutral reader) actually detracts from the subject's reputation rather than enhancing it, and it most emphatically detracts from Wikipedia's reputation. Voceditenore (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)

Future editing

This is an encyclopedia article, not Ms. Karasick's web site, advertisement page, or press release. Future editors and especially those who are affiliated in any way (personal or professional) with her must adhere to the following guidelines when editing it.

1. Before even starting to edit it again, please read Wikipedia:Conflict of interest and Wikipedia:Autobiography for guidance and then follow them scrupulously. I strongly suggest that the COI editor(s) not edit the article directly, but list suggested edits here on the talk page and declare your affiliation with the subject.

2. All additions must be neutrally worded and use encyclopedic tone and style. Any additions which can be perceived by a neutral reader as hype or PR will be removed immediately, as will unreferenced or improperly referenced self-serving claims. See Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Verifiability for guidance.

4. Remember, that once you have written an article on Wikipedia, you no longer own it. It will always have to conform to Wikipedia's policies on content, style, formatting, and verifiability—not to the subject's desired image or marketing goals.

Voceditenore (talk) 18:42, 23 December 2012 (UTC)