Talk:Carla Baron

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] IIG Official Investigation of Claims of Carla Baron

I've re-added the link to a site that critically examines some of Carla Baron's claims. If there is some reason why this association is not applicable, I hope that it can be discussed here instead of making another quiet deletion. Grinder2112 17:44, 29 May 2007 (UTC) (Restored after multiple deletions by Carla Baron. -- Fyslee/talk)

[edit] Blank pages are bad!

This is the wrong way to do; I don't recall the tag off the top of my head, but it needs to be tagged with a clear tag that says it's been created to be protected from recreation. Even if the exact tag isn't used, there needs to something visible on the page to explain why there's nothing on the page and that it's been protected. To any Wikipedian that's been here more than a few days, blank pages scream vandalism, and they don't look good even to newbies.--Prosfilaes 09:03, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

The relevant place is Wikipedia:Protected_titles. David D. (Talk) 09:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
That's for administrators only.--Prosfilaes 10:50, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
I know, but that is the solution and how it it done correctly. Is there another template? David D. (Talk) 13:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


Blank pages are diplomatic. Besides - those who wish to find Carla Baron need not use Wikipedia to locate official websites sanctioned by Ms. Baron. They need only to do any number of searches through the various search engines available out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Psychic profiler (talk • contribs)

Likewise they need not use wikipedia to find unsantioned sites. Since they exist and James Randi is not that obscure, any wikipedia article will inevitably have that view point too. You cannot control the information on wikipedia as a public figure you have put yourself in a position that makes you vulnerable to critics. This is part of public life and does not seem like a valid reason to delete this article. Or protect as a blank page. Is this a stop gap measure? It can't stay like this forever unless there is a real reason for this criticism to be considered libelous. Is there reason to belive it is? If so why is James Randi not being sued? David D. (Talk) 19:19, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
If blanking pages to be diplomatic was the solution, half of Wikipedia couldn't exist; if we can manage to have a pages on Taiwan and Israel, surely we can have a page on Carla Baron. Part of the value of Wikipedia is a source of information independent of the official, sanctioned, websites, and not controlled by fans or critics either.--Prosfilaes 20:18, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] protected

Isn't there some formal process that is required to cause an article to be blanked and protected? This seems to be unprecedented for such a public figure. David D. (Talk) 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV violation and cover-up of criticism by Carla Baron

(Copied from BLP Noticeboard (diff), since she likes to delete criticism. )

Carla Baron, this matter involves an obvious attempt to cover-up criticism of yourself. Such coverups aren't allowed here unless the information is libelous or undocumented. Articles here include criticism. Your misuse of this BLP Noticeboard will not succeed and has only brought more attention to your agenda, which is to keep criticism out of the article.

This documented criticism needs to be included:

I suspect there are other third party sources that can also be used to bring balance to the article. If there are issues with the quality (RS, V) of those sources, that is one matter, but covering up criticism violates NPOV, and there is plenty of criticism out there!

Carla, what has happened here is that you have become the victim of Wikipedia's "Law of Unintended Consequences":

Unintended consequences.
If you write in Wikipedia about yourself, your group, or your company, once the article is created, you have no right to control its content, and no right to delete it outside our normal channels; we will not delete it simply because you don't like it. Any editor may add material to it within the terms of our content policies. If there is anything publicly available on a topic that you would not want included in an article, it will probably find its way there eventually; more than one user has created an article only to find himself presented in a poor light long-term by other editors. Therefore, don't create promotional or other articles lightly, especially on subjects you care about. Either edit neutrally or don't edit at all. NPOV is absolute and non-negotiable.

This applies to all articles and to any subject, including pet ideas or favorite singer, regardless of who started the article. We need to cover the subject from all angles, and NPOV requires that both sides of the story are presented, so criticism is included. Many think they can write an article presenting a subject in the best light possible, only to find they have opened a can of worms and Pandora's box itself. Once the article is started, all kinds of negative things also become part of the article. So attempts to promote something often end up back-firing.

As we have often seen here, attempts to cover-up documented criticism only results in more unwanted attention and even better referenced criticisms being added to the article in question. We aren't interested in your idea of "truth", but in NPOV coverage of all aspects of the subject. Hagiographic articles are fine in the media or your own website, but are totally inappropriate here.

Your proper role here (since you have a conflict of interest) is to ensure that obvious libel or undocumented criticisms are corrected, and that is best done by participating at the article's talk page and convincing other editors to help you do it if they can be convinced by your arguments. If that doesn't work, then you can use this board.

The article should be restored, including the criticism. This attempt to violate NPOV and misuse this board should back-fire big. -- Fyslee/talk 14:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

If Carla Baron was a non-notable private person, she'd have a leg to stand on here, but as a notable public person she doesn't. It goes with the turf. -- Fyslee/talk 14:48, 8 June 2007 (UTC)