Talk:Chrissie Maher

BLP issues

I have removed this text because it violates Wikipedia's prohibition on original research. In order to justify a sweeping statement of this type, one must cite a reliable source that makes the assertion. It's not permissible to link together references in an attempt to prove the assertion; that would be synthesis. As this is a biography of a living person, these standards are applied with a very high degree of rigor.

The article also lacks proper citations. This puts much of the article in jeopardy; unsourced statements, and statements that have brief parenthetical citations but without proper full citations in the references section, must be deleted if controversial or contested, per WP:BLP. I strongly recommend that editors on this page use the citation templates to fully document the sources for the assertions on this page, including article names, authors, sources, dates, page numbers, and to the fullest extent possible Internet links. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 11:49, 30 September 2010 (UTC)

I have added citations for as many things as I could find on the page, using templates. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 03:28, 1 October 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph 4

I do not see the relevance of this paragraph in a biography. Martinos155 (talk) 18:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

The accusations were leveled personally against Ms. Maher; the allegation was that she started the rumors that lead the employees to quit, and the tribunal found sufficient merit to those allegations that they found it to be a case of constructive dismissal, ruling for the employees. While the action was taken against the entity that employed these people because that's how such actions work, the issue directly related to Ms. Maher. It's a reliably sourced incident that appears to have attracted notable press attention, and I believe that it is reasonably neutral as currently phrased. I would agree that it's in a grey area where WP:UNDUE is concerned, but I'm not sure that omitting this would result in WP:NPOV compliance, and I can't think of a way to phrase it to make it any shorter yet still accurate. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 19:33, 3 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Macwhiz. It would not be appropriate to remove this entirely, and it is written in a neutral way including Ms Maher's view. JohnCD (talk) 09:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

If we put all the allegations against previous employees or employers on all the biographies ...I will start with the Queen and work my way down http://www.tpuc.org/node/35 Martinos155 (talk) 16:27, 4 October 2010

There is a slight difference between an accusation on a fringe group's website, and the formal ruling of a government tribunal as reported by multiple major national newspapers. Yes, in biographies, we do report on verifiable, properly sourced facts... even if they are unflattering to the subject. To do otherwise would be censorship. While I understand you don't like it, that's not sufficient grounds to remove it. Do you have a specific objection under WP:BLP to this paragraph that can be addressed? // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 16:46, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to comment here. As it was reported by reliable sources, there wouldn't seem to be a reason within policy to remove it. SlimVirgin ^{talk|contribs} 16:55, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

The formal ruling was against PEC not Chrissie Maher 92.41.55.20 (talk) 17:18, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree with the above... Why have Plain English Campaign problems on a Biography about Chrissie Maher Martinos155 (talk) 17:25, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Nevertheless, Ms Maher's actions were central to the case and I think the version here is written as favourably as reasonably possible. Martinos155, before you start on the Queen, please read WP:POINT. JohnCD (talk) 17:32, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Subjects notable only for one event Policy shortcut: WP:BLP1E

Main page: Wikipedia:Notability (people)#People notable for only one event Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Merely being in the news does not imply someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article. If reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having an article on them. Biographies in these cases can give undue weight to the event and conflict with neutral point of view. In such cases, it is usually better to merge the information and redirect the person's name to the event article. If the event is significant and the individual's role within it is substantial, a separate biography may be appropriate. Individuals notable for well-documented events, such as John Hinckley, Jr., fit into this category. The significance of an event or individual should be indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources.[5] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martinos155 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 5 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't see how that applies here. Ms. Maher is notable for more than one event. As for the tribunal, we aren't discussing a BLP about her accusers, so WP:BLP1E isn't applicable here. // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 11:20, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

BLP

Biographies of living persons (BLPs) must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives, and the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to BLPs, including any living person mentioned in a BLP even if not the subject of the article, and to material about living persons on other pages.[3] The burden of evidence for any edit on Wikipedia rests with the person who adds or restores material. Martinos155 (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

It's well established that the privacy of a BLP subject is not violated when an article describes something that has already been published in major newspapers. There's nothing private about this case. This quote is from the lead of WP:BLP, but you haven't stated any part of the body of that guideline that you think has been violated. The paragraph in question is non-sensational, reports on a notable event in the subject's life in a neutral fashion, and is backed up by reliable sources. See WP:WELLKNOWN: "If an allegation or incident is notable, relevant, and well-documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." // ⌘macwhiz (talk) 11:33, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chrissie Maher. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121022175452/http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/Graduation/114808.htm to http://www.ljmu.ac.uk/Graduation/114808.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.womeninpubliclifeawards.co.uk/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&id=14%3Apast-winners-2010&Itemid=9&layout=default

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:32, 6 August 2017 (UTC)