Talk:Rebecca Eckler

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Photo request It is requested that a picture or pictures of this person be included in this article to improve its quality.

Note: Wikipedia's non-free content use policy almost never permits the use of non-free images (such as promotional photos, press photos, screenshots, book covers and similar) to merely show what a living person looks like. Efforts should be made to take a free licensed photo during a public appearance, or obtaining a free content release of an existing photo instead.
Maintenance An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information.

Contents

[edit] Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Assessment

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 19:33, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

I reverted the information about her blog prompting the creation of a parody blog because I think it's an interesting development -- she is a high-profile writer whose work is so despised by some that someone out there has started a blog just to mock her. This fits in with the downward spiral of her daily newspaper career -- she was fired from the Post and is used only on a freelance basis by the Globe, apparently due to the type of writing/spelling/structure/personal-score-settling issues she reveals in her own blog.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:DoctorBombay (talk • User:DoctorBombay contribs) 22:22,(UTC).

[edit] Editing and civility

Recognizing AspasiaLeonidas as a new account, I think it may be beneficial to read Wikipedia's policy concerning civility.

Concerning AspasiaLeonidas's recent edit, I've made a few changes and thought it might be best to discuss my reasoning.

The information that Eckler is "often derided" is, I feel, rendered superfluous gfiven the Jeffrey Simpson quote which follows. I have appended a citation request to the Simpson quote.

Unless the intent is to encourage judgement, I'm not certain what purpose is being served by adding "By her own admission" to information about the conception of her child. I have removed these four words.

The claim that Eckler has yet to find legal counsel to pursue action against the makers of Knocked Up is contradicted by the article she wrote for Maclean's. The sentence in which this claim is made has been removed.

Although I can't for the life of me see much relevance in the sentence concerning "mommy blogs" and positive reviews, I've let the sentence be. I encourage discussion on this matter.

I have adjusted the reference to Eckler's The Globe and Mail "Mommy Blog" to reflect the fact that the series was not a promotional vehicle. The link to the blog has not been restored as it must be purchased and therefore runs counter to Wikipedia's policy concerning external links.

I have restored the sentence dealing with Eckler's blog and the parody blog entitled NineGramBrain. However, I have not restored the link to the latter as third party blogs run counter to Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines. A tricky one this. Again, I encourage discussion. Victoriagirl 03:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

  • That's one of the more fair-handed edit summaries I've yet seen. Thanks for taking the time. The article is vulnerable to being perceived as a disguised attack piece. Sources would help. I would also suggest leading with her works and then having a section on her style -- which has been criticized for its self-absorption. Canuckle 22:55, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
    • Hi. You cited the need to purchase for deleting link to the parody blog. I don't see a purchase requirement on that site now. If the blog has changed since your edit, that indicates to me that edits to get it in are spam. Regardless, WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided advises against linking to blogs that are not by recognized authorities. Sourced criticism could of course be notable. Canuckle 16:13, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
      • I think I was a little unclear. In that particular paragraph I was referring to Eckler's Globe and Mail "Mommy Blog", which now requires purchase. For this reason, I removed the link. I first removed the NineGramBrain parody blog link, citing verifiability guidelines. Though this concern was never addressed, the link to NineGramBrain was returned. I've since deleted the NineGramBrain link for a second time as it runs counter to the policy concerning external links (as you've pointed out). I've also argued that the parody blog violates biographies of living persons (below). I'm pleased to see discussion on these issues. Victoriagirl 16:31, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] court papers

  • Should a link to the "Knocked Up" legal filing be added? Is it relevant? See here: [1] Canuckle 00:26, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
I think it relevant. Victoriagirl 16:11, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I added it, had second thoughts, looked at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Well known public figures which advises against court documents for bios, undid it and added it to the movie site's controversy section. Canuckle 16:33, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Globe & Mail and NineGramBrain

I've just reverted the most recent edit and, again, offer my reasoning.

The claim that Eckler's Globe and Mail series was "discontinued due to its promotional nature" quite obviously requires a source. None was provided.

I have again removed the link to NineGramBrain, which as previously stated, runs counter to Wikipedia's verifiability guidelines. I might add that it also violates Wikipedia's policy concerning external links.

To expand on what I wrote in my previous post, I don't believe that mention of an anonymous parody blog is appropriate. I've since investigated further and note that at no point does NineGramBrain identify itself as a parody of Eckler's blog. What's more the profile of this blogger features the address of CrackWhoreConfession.com. I have deleted mention of this blog per Wikipedia's policy concerning biographies of living persons, in particular the section dealing with biased or malicious content. Again, I encourage discussion. Victoriagirl 16:10, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I restored mention of the parody blog because I think it is significant that this write engenders so much ridicule that she has inspired someone to start up a parody blog. While her name is not mentioned anywhere on the blog, it is clearly based on her own blog -- current posts mention the Apatow lawsuit, and the Toronto Star recently quoted a comment from the blog in a story about Eckler's lawsuit. I have never seen a writer inspire the type of widespread disdain this woman does -- just read the comments on the Globe and Mail's own website regarding her lawsuit -- and I think this entry is incomplete without some mention of that. I have not restored the link to it, but have restored mention of it. It is significant and relevant. DoctorBombay.
Agreed. As the blog has now been identified as a parody by The Toronto Star, a verifiable third-party source, it is worthy of mention. I think a link to NineGramBrain is still out per WP:BLP. Easy enough to find, though. Victoriagirl 21:09, 12 June 2007 (UTC)