Talk:Tania Head

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on September 28, 2007. The result of the discussion was Keep.
This is not a forum for general discussion of Tania Head.
Any such messages will be deleted. Please limit discussion to improvement of the article.

This person's name is in the popular press while her scandal plays out. By all indications, she falsely claimed to be a survivor of the 9/11 attacks. Many people will read about her, and then consult this Wikipedia article to learn more. It is hardly the time to remove the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.42.46 (talk) 13:03, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] CSD

The person this article is about is the subject of multiple non-trivial reliable sources: New York Times, USA Today. ~a (user • talk • contribs) 20:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, but much that is reported in the media is not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia. The article is certainly in need of cleanup. I dislike the lack of definitive information. First possibility is that the woman has likely merely made a fool of herself loudly and in public, second that she believes she speaks the truth, third that she does. Michaelbusch 22:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
There is definitive information. Her "fiancee/husband" has never heard of her (a fact that is sourced) and her employer has never heard of her (a fact that is sourced). ~a (user • talk • contribs) 12:40, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
The NY Times article says that "Dave" died in the 9/11 attack, so the verb tense used in your comment is questionable. It would be more accurate to state the article says that friends and family of "Dave" say they have never heard of her. Edison 13:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Corrections

I removed the word "false" under the Appearances heading as too presumptuous. Also made a small grammatical correction ("at colleges" for "in colleges") in the same sentence. 24.125.221.167 01:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)Randy

[edit] Coatrack

This article about an otherwise not very notable person appeared only after a New York Times "expose." It appears to be a WP:COATRACK and may be contrary to WP:BLP principles. Not every newspaper article justifies an encyclopedia article. If her claimed 9/11 experiences and volunteer work were not encyclopedic before the NY Times expose, then they probably are not after the expose. See also WP:NOT#NEWS.Edison 14:01, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Her history is the reason why she had the position of the organizations presidency. Becuase her history may be false she was removed. I think it is entry-worthy when one of the largest WTC Survivor organizations has a major scandal. It calls into question compesation to survivors or other forms of public attention towards them. This event has a real impact on the metropolitan community! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Forcefieldmaker87 (talk • contribs) 20:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Weaseling in lead

Um, rambling sentences akin to "some people said some things she said were somehow different from something else" fail the WP:WEASEL guideline. They convey absolutely nothing useful or meaningful. -- 67.98.206.2 20:47, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

And, no they are not supported by the ref, either, my four legged friend. The word "some" appears in the article but once. You are creating a meaningless WP:SYNTHesis here. -- 67.98.206.2 20:49, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Ref "some of which were contradicted by some of those involved. Additionally, some people close to Head said she had made changes to her account of events in recent weeks..."
These are not weasel words. They are a fair summary of what it contained in the Times article without going into too much detail. Please read the original Times article that you keep removing the link to.
Not only could the Times not verify the substance of Head's story, people they spoke to, named individuals from the family of the person she said was her fiance/husband to Merrill Lynch actually contradicted parts of her story. Likewise, named individuals in the article say that she made changes to her story at certain times. This is certainly worth noting in the article, as a summary of the ref, and does not fall foul of WP:WEASEL Harry was a white dog with black spots 20:51, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
I didn't remove the any links, I removed its duplication (it's there twice, you see). You are actually the one who reverted my wikification of the link. You should just say "named individuals from the family of the person she said was her fiance/husband and Merrill Lynch actually contradicted parts of her story" not say "some people said some things." Again, see the relevant guideline. There are better ways of saying what you are trying to say here that's not confusing to the reader. -- 67.98.206.2 20:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is the direct quote, from the third page of the NY Times article, that supports the above words:
"In recent days, though, an associate of Ms. Head’s, Janice Cilento, a social worker who is on the board of the Survivors’ Network, said that Ms. Head told a different version of her life with Dave, relating now that they had only known each other for a few months and that their relationship had been kept secret from his family. Previously, Ms. Cilento said, Ms. Head had told her that she knew Dave’s family well, and that the couple had been living together for some time.
Most recently, last weekend, Ms. Cilento said, Ms. Head told her in a phone conversation that her relationship with Dave had been a fantasy.
In fact, the family and several friends of Dave, whose full name is being withheld by The Times to protect their privacy, said they had never heard of Tania Head. His mother said none of her son’s e-mail messages had indicated such a relationship. Both his parents and his roommate, with whom he lived in Manhattan, said they knew of no trip that he had taken to Hawaii." Harry was a white dog with black spots 20:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
No ref can support ignoring style guidelines. -- 67.98.206.2 20:57, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Well I have padded out the lead by adding the extraneous information above. In any event, you could have changed it to the wording you suggest above rather than simply deleting it. This is a brand new article and is very much a work in progress. Harry was a white dog with black spots 21:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
Much better. Pretty much the way I would have put it myself tomorrow, but for today, well... I've been 3RR blocked on the slightest conceit before, even without going over 3RR. IP editors get no respect. -- 67.98.206.2 21:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Update

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/30/nyregion/30survivor.html

Another source: http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/09/27/national/main3305007.shtml I don't see any new information in it, but it lends further notability.--Father Goose 06:41, 2 October 2007 (UTC)