Talk:Cathy Young

Untitled

I don't know whether the initial sentence should say she's a columnist, she's a journalist, she's a novelist, or what. I got VERY impatient after reading two or three sentences of this very annoying article. Why is it telling me when she relocated to where and what colleges she attended before saying in what role she became notable enough to be the topic of an article? I expect to get that first---almost always in the first sentence. I expect to be told Albert Enstein was a physicist BEFORE reading 82 paragraphs about the details of his education and tastes. Michael Hardy 19:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried to add a little more informative info on the opening section. Master shepherd 03:06, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Salon and Jezebel

Salon and Jezebel qualify as RS. This article is currently tagged as needing additional secondary sources. We cannot write a BLP simply from the article subject's point of view. Reliably sourced opinions are allowed in BLP's. Please do not continue to delete reliably sourced content needed to expand this article which already has too few sources outside of the subject of the article describing herself. If you can find RS's of a differing opinion, then add them too. All of the reporting I was able to find on Young to date has been in relation to her writings on rape and the men's rights movement. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 00:55, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Salon is a reliable source, and I did not remove it. Jezebel, however, is a blog, not a WP:RS for anything, let alone the high standards required by WP:BLP. You have also twisted the Jezebel source -- it says she once "defended" men's rights groups, not that she is a supporter of the men's rights movement. But that doesn't matter, since it's a blog and we won't be using it here. 24.224.148.216 (talk) 01:07, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Jezebel not a self-published blog. I believe it can be used in accordance with WP:NEWSBLOG if it is attributed. Also, if the text needs tweaked to "defended" from "supported", that would seem more appropriate than outright deletion. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:35, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

And User:BoboMeowCat, you certainly shouldn't be adding this material back in after it has been challenged. StAnselm (talk) 01:17, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

@StAnselm: I was the first to bring issue to talk per BRD. Jezebel is not a self published source, so it is my understanding it can be used as long as it is attributed. Also, this page is tagged as needing actual secondary sources. If you look over the article history, it appears Cathy Young herself has been involved in writing her own wikipedia bio. There is a problem currently where the article mostly contains info from only the article subject's point of view, and now we have an IP hopper edit warring to remove what appears to be reliably sourced info that the IP described in edit summary as "negative".--BoboMeowCat (talk) 01:21, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

The note about Young editing this article itself is a red herring. Her last edit was several years ago. – S. Rich (talk) 03:38, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it is a red herring considering bio relies on primary sources to describe the subject according to the subject's POV, and there has only been a handful of contributions since Young edited (mostly IP's), but either way , let's put aside how the article became based on primary sources, and work to remedy that. Does Jezebel qualify as WP:NEWSBLOG and WP:OPINION allowing it to be used if content is attributed to source? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 05:08, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. The issue is whether Jezebel is RS (and I'm not going to opine in that regard. Whether Young edited this article as an IP is a SPI matter. – S. Rich (talk) 05:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Several days have past and no one has responded with any policy based reason why WP:NEWSBLOG should not apply here. This does not appear to be a BLP violation as the source is not self published so WP:BLPSPS does not apply. Also, this article by Jezebel was also republished by Huffington Post.[1] The content has been restored, but carefully attributed to who said it. If there are further concerns, BLP noticeboard might be a reasonable next step.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 04:24, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Apart from being a blog, Jezebel, like all of the Gawker gossip network, is highly WP:QUESTIONABLE. There are already many threads on the BLP noticeboard that have concluded Gawker blogs are inappropriate for BLPs. You're welcome to start another there, but stop restoring your blog links here without consensus. HuffPo, not exactly a respectable source itself, did not even publish the entire article. It's just a link to the Jezebel blog with an excerpt and obviously not subject to their own meagre editorial control.

There are also now WP:UNDUE issues since you've attempted to turn this article into an exhaustive catalogue of every insult ever slung at Young, down to the last sensationalistic blog. This is the biography of a mainstream journalist. It should cover the controversy, but not consist primarily of attacks on the subject. I easily found multiple positive assessments of Young's work, which confirms that you're intentionally cherry-picking negative sources to advocate your POV, consistent with your entire edit history. It's curious that every virulent POV pusher around claims on their userpage that they are here to "fight POV." 24.215.94.126 (talk) 13:30, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

Are you saying that Huffington Post is not a RS for a BLP? While it's true that Huff Post didn't reprint the entire lengthy Jezebel article, it's not true that it was just a link [[2]] Also, Huff Post reprinted the content added to this BLP (which you removed). It's kinda funny that you accuse me of having an agenda, when I have not attempted to remove any of the positive commentary you've added, while you've been removing commentary you view as negative. While it's true that I didn't find much in the way of positive commentary on Young and you did, I'm guessing that was because I only clicked on links to sources I recognized as not self-published like The Washington Post, Maclean's, Salon and yeah even Jezebel and Huffington Post. I probably missed those iffy seeming sources which you found because I've never heard of them before and assumed they were self-published. [3], [4]. It seems pretty clear I'm adding stuff in accordance with wp:due. I think no matter what your personal opinion on Young happens to be, it doesn't seem too surprising that when the positive stuff added includes stuff like this: Young re-investigates "atrocious coverage of campus sexual assault myths" in the "hopes of setting the record straight and minimizing some of the incredible damage the accusations have done", that there are going are going to be RS arguing against this type of reporting on the topic of sexual assualt by Young.--BoboMeowCat (talk) 16:46, 23 February 2015 (UTC)

Wouldn't it depend on the content of what is being pulled from Jezebel to determine if it is a RS or not? However, it would seem to me most things one would pull from Jezebel would be equivalent to adding a "line of criticism" to the article, which seems to be a WP:WEIGHTY issue. -Xcuref1endx (talk) 03:15, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Adding secondary sources

When I stumbled across this bio, it had only one ref (split up as two refs), referencing page 10 and 11 of Cathy Young’s own book. [5] I’ve added multiple secondary source refs. My prior edits to expand secondary sources have been objected to on another article talk page as “insults” [6], but I’m having a hard time finding anything other than this sort of coverage of Young in regard to rape and feminism in the sources that directly describe or report on Young (as opposed to the hits that pull up Young’s own columns and articles).--BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Adding-I have not significantly trimmed the content sourced to that primary source (Young's book) but it seems that might be a reasonable next step considering it fills up much of the article and may constitute wp:undue, but I'll wait to see if anyone has additional input on that. --BoboMeowCat (talk) 18:34, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

On second thought, I just moved some of it back up to the life and bio section; however, now it is unclear if the life and bio section is referenced by that book because the ref was originally only attached near the content describing that book and not her career in general. I'm not sure if the life and bio section as currently written is unreferenced or referenced by the Ceasefire book. Does anyone have access to that book to check? --BoboMeowCat (talk) 19:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Possible duplicate?

Katherine K. Young versus Cathy Young are these people actually distinct people. They are both cited on Misandry and it would seem odd to have two feminist scholars writing on misandry that hold similar viewpoints. Talpedia (talk) 18:48, 6 March 2022 (UTC)