Talk:Stacy Schiff

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.
This article is supported by the Science and academia 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.

Contents

[edit] Why is the Essjay fraud edited out?

Could someone please defend the portion of this edit that removed a description of how User:Essjay lied to the New Yorker about his credentials? --72.94.152.27 05:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

This is completely irrelevant to Stacy Schiff's biography. I suggest you read Wikipedia:Avoid self-references while you're at it. If you want to go off on some "Essjay fraud" rant, put it in a Wikipedia-related article where it belongs. RFerreira 06:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
I don't see any problem with listing that article as one of Schiff's works, since it was a major piece. But how about adding a "See also" to Criticism of Wikipedia#New Yorker article? It's relevant, since there's a specific section there about Schiff's article, and Schiff is mentioned by name. --Elonka 07:56, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
My thoughts: While many would consider any article in The New Yorker as a major work, as it is one of the epitomes of English-language journalism, I'm sure Schiff has many articles of such length, in such publications. Unless Schiff describes talks publicly about this incident herself, describing how it affects her journalistic practices or whatever, it's just a regretable section of what would be an average article for someone of Pulitzer Prize stature. -- Zanimum 15:30, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Just to be pedantic (and digressive), "epitome" doesn't mean "height" as implied here, but "summary". A common mistake. Bellagio99 02:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I was waiting to see if a major media outlet covered her role in it. The New York Times story doesn't mention her name at all, suggesting that it's unnotable in the context of her biography. This might change if a journalism review, for instance, makes hay about failures of fact-checking the way that Radar did, but that doesn't seem likely at this juncture. --Dhartung | Talk 06:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
I've changed my mind, as there are sufficient reliable sources covering the specifics of the article in relation to the story, though not all mention her by name.-- Dhartung | Talk 18:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm very surprised there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of the Essjay fraud, after all she has got increased notability from this incident. As in most media coverage of this also makes reference to the New Yorker article and her involvement as the writer. Mathmo Talk 06:42, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see it as being that notable, a flash in the pan that will be forgotten in 6 months, hardly something that belongs in a life biography - plus there are some WP:BLP problems, since she is being accused by Essjay of offering to pay him for the interview, which is a very serious accusation that could hurt her career if true, and probably a false accusation by Essjay. She deals with controversial stuff all the time as a matter of course. If this story were to evolve into something regular that she is known for long-term, part of her reputation, what she is known for, it would be different. -- Stbalbach 20:41, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Aw, mention it, she's a PP winning journalist who got thoroughly scammed by a 24-year-old college drop out, but make sure it's supported with a citation. If it fades away sometime in the distant future I'm sure someone'll delete it then. Gwen Gale 22:13, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Inclined to agree it doesn't belong here. Her name is rarely mentioned in the stories, she herself has not (as far as anyone has bothered to research) commented on the situation publicly. And while I am at it, what is this 2009 thing? Crystal ball? Risker 22:15, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
Include - I've never heard of her before (being a Brit) and this incident certainly adds to her notability. - Regards - Munta 22:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
It's not un-notable, and it's not prejudical against Ms. Schiff, so the BLP balance provision shouldn't apply. All it really means is that someone should add more cited facts about other things this acclaimed journalist has written and done.Proabivouac 04:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Opinion

  • An editor asked that an opinion be provided, from the Talk:Essjay controversy page. This information does seem relevant for this article, both due to the very high number of reputable international secondary sources that mention/discuss it, and the allegations that were made about Schiff offering Ryan Jordan compensation for the interview... Smee 22:16, 6 March

2007 (UTC).


  • At such time as she issues commentary about the situation in a reliable source, the material may be added. C.m.jones 22:19, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
    • If the reason for inclusion is the allegation about compensation, I'll just point out that it isn't even in the Essjay controversy article right now - could that be because there is no reliable source?Risker 22:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
She wrote the article and published his MUD CV, his claim about an offer of compensation has aught to do with it. Gwen Gale 23:50, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Leave it out. There are WP:BLP issues, and I think the reason we think it's so notable is because it's to do with Wikipedia, and we're Wikipedians. I don't think a non-Wikipedia article about her would be so likely to cover one particular case of her journalism. ElinorD (talk) 01:56, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I would hope that Wikipedians would think that a Pulitzer Prize winner being hoodwinked would be valid for inclusion, Especialy when reported in reliable media around the world - Regards - Munta 01:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • I think mention of the article is appropriate (and I've added context to give it due weight). At this time I don't think Lih's point about the compensation claim is that important (and unless we agree Lih's blog is citeable, we can't use it). Although some people think she was "hoodwinked" the magazine seems to be thoroughly backing her up, so I don't think that's relevant; fact-checking is up to the magazine. She isn't being accused of fabrication, which has been the issue in other journalism cases.-- Dhartung | Talk 18:25, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
  • There's no reason for this information to be left out (except for WP:IDONTLIKEIT). It's been covered by mulitiple reliable sources. WP:BLP doesn't apply with this issue as there is nothing slanderous, without reference nor private about the subject. --Oakshade 05:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Who started the controversy?

This article currently says

Did Schiff start the controversy, or did Essjay? Keesiewonder talk 02:15, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright Violation

I retagged this with a copyvio because the tag was removed improperly. There is more than just "once sentence" that is lifted verbatim from other works. Frankly, even one sentence makes it plagiarism. There is at least 31 words that appear verbatim, exact words in exact order. There may be others. There's no excuse for 31 words. The entire article probably qualifies as a derivative work under copyright law and should probably be restarted from scratch. Quatloo 05:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I think you're referring to the following sentence:
"Her essays and articles have appeared in The New Yorker, The New York Times Book Review, and The Times Literary Supplement, among other publications."
You are joking, right? Even though this sentence was fully referenced and it is a statement of basic facts, you actually believe the Library Foundation of Los Angeles is going have their lawyers send a Cease and desist letter to WP over that sentence? Just change the order of her credits if you're that worried. --Oakshade 06:22, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
That isn't a copyright violation. The basic stating of facts can not be copyrighted b/c there are only so many ways to state that (to use this case) an author was published in The New Yorker, The New York Times Book Review, and The Times Literary Supplement and so on. Second, Wiki guidelines say we should avoid fixating on "An entry which contains a few copied phrases from individual websites or other sources. Quotation, even without attribution, is specifically allowed in international copyright law, and single sentences are generally not protectable."[2] Third, WP copyright policy (as stated at Wikipedia:Copyright#If_you_find_a_copyright_infringement) says that you should only tag an article and list it as a cv problem "If all of the content of a page is a suspected copyright infringement." That isn't the case here and changing a few words removes all doubt. In short, this isn't a cv violation and shouldn't have been tagged.--Alabamaboy 14:50, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
No, that sentence plus "Schiff worked as a Senior Editor at Simon & Schuster until 1990." Exact words. Both of which appear in the same source, indicating that this is derived from a cut&paste of that source. It absolutely is a copyright violation. And I used the copyvio properly because derivative works are copyrighted. Furthermore it is of no consequence whether a C&D letter results from this. What is important to note is that it is plagiarism and people are removing the copyvio tags improperly. Quatloo 21:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
Your citing sentences about quotation are also irrelevant, since this is not an issue of quotation. Furthermore the page containing that is not policy or even guideline, and in fact, that article is false, a few sentences or phrases can get you in trouble. See the story of Kaavya Viswanathan, even. Quatloo 21:27, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] BLP concerns

copied from my talk page

Please advise what WP:BLP concern you have, if any, with this article. Thank you, Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:10, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

I would consider Ms. Schiff to be "marginally notable" and a case where WP:BLP#Privacy of birthdays should apply. (even it that info is available on Barnes & Noble's website) --Aude (talk) 02:15, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Pulitzer winners are not marginally notable. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 02:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
If everyone disagrees with me, then okay. But think we should err on the side of caution here and not include it. Doesn't really add a lot to the article. --Aude (talk) 02:20, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
What "caution"? What evil things can you do with someone's birthday? If a person is only "marginally notable" maybe she shouldn't have an article at all, because then anything you say about her is arguably violating her privacy. Bramlet Abercrombie 02:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree that Pulitzer Prize winners are almost inherently notable. Bellagio99 03:02, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Her fame is irrelevant. If her exact birthday is widely known and available to the public, keep it in. Otherwise, reduce it to month and year, year, or remove it all together per WP:BLP#Privacy of birthdays. Any other BLP problems, please post at WP:BLPN. -- Jreferee 18:44, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

If Jimbo Wales isn't famous enough to have his full DOB listed then Schiff hardly qualifies. WP:BLP#Privacy_of_birthdays. 68.190.48.20 17:39, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

A Pulitzer winner is notable, and the bio page at the B&N website [3] is sufficient verification that the birthdate is public. The information should stay in. --Elonka 17:42, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
I agree; as per WP:BLP#Privacy_of_birthdays, there is no question over the notability of the subject and she has not complained therefore it should be included. --J2thawiki 18:16, 12 March 2007 (UTC)
Not to pile on here, but words really escape me when we begin challenging the notability of Pulitzer prize winning authors. The comparison to Jimmy Wales does not qualify. RFerreira 02:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Image request

Actually, Jimbo has a photo of her on Flickr, that I suspect he'll make available if we ask ... http://www.flickr.com/photos/jimbo_wales/109885558/ but, frankly, it's a bit blurry. I emailed Ms. Schiff directly (at her NYTimes address), and am hoping she will be willing to provide a better one. Could people give her a couple of weeks to respond, please? Thanks, AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Never mind. NYTimes address bounced. Will ask Jimbo. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 15:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)