Talk:Michele Renouf

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

Contents 1 Griaznoff 2 Third opinion 3 Editorial commentary in text 4 Low-grade edit warring 5 Lady Renouf 6 Categories 7 Michele vs. Michèle 8 Notability

[edit] Griaznoff

Daniel Griaznoff - a descendant of Russian aristocracy?

See: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2002/12/02/1038712882022.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.101.233 (talk • contribs) 22:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Third opinion

Hey. First, third opinions are usually only used after there has been discussion between two editors. Since there's been no discussion, I can't really give an opinion here. I will however speak on the topic at hand. Both of you right now have violated WP:3RR, which states that you should not revert a page more than three times in one day. You've both been reminded of it on your talk pages, and any further reversions may result in you being blocked.

Having said that, I tend to believe that this page is pushing a little POV towards her being a Holocaust denier. I've gone ahead and added sections to this page, which I think make it look a little better. In order to balance this page out a little more, I'd say the best thing would be to start with adding more information about her career, her life, whatever - but keep the denial section down to what it is. If she really did get famous from sitting with David Irving, then certainly that should be mentioned, but this page should not be solely about that.

This is just a start, and I'd like to get some dialogue going. What are your thoughts on this? — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 04:20, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

After repeated communication via email, including being told by info-en-q@wikimedia.org that POV edits and editorial commentary are against policy, there are still edits being made that are blatently POV. The edits add no new information about Renouf. They serve the sole purpose of an attack against her. Byafet has stated himself that this is his purpose here; to paint Holocaust revisionists according to his view points. He has stated that he believes Wikipedia should reflect a point of view; his point of view. He has been told that this is not what Wikipedia is about but even so, continues to make POV edits.

I know, I should assume good faith. But here is an editor who categorically states that he is acting in bad faith, deliberately making edits against Wikipedia policy. Contrary to your warning, I have not broken [WP:3RR]. There is not an edit war going on; there is essentially a vandal who is repeatedly making bad faith edits, with EronMain and myself trying to clean up the mess.

You've come in late to the party and assumed that the talk page is the only place that communication might have taken place. It isn't; Byafet's editing has been discussed and condemned by others already. I'm simply trying to keep the page neutral in the face of a continued barrage of hate. Robert Ham (talk) 20:07, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Apologies on the 3RR thing; in retrospect, I didn't read everything as well as I should have. I think the page is fine in its current state, if still a bit heavy on the denial POV. Are you okay with the page as is, or would you keep removing the denial stuff? I guess I don't know enough about Renouf to really be able to gauge that. — HelloAnnyong [ t · c ] 20:13, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

I've made some changes to the bits I think are phrased inappropriately and cleaned it up a bit. I've probably missed bits; it's obviously an on-going process, as with all Wikipedia pages. One thing I want to be clear of: I don't believe the page shouldn't describe Renouf's actions and interests with regard to the holocaust; I simply think it has to be done very carefully, paying particular attention to WP:POV and WP:BLP. One has to remember that wikipedia is not about painting people in one particular light, even if that light is how most people view them. Wikipedia is about conveying information without painting people in any particular light at all.

I'm also a bit concerned about the references. One, which is used twice, is from an exceptionally biased newspaper hit-piece. The other is from the ADL, an organisation which is open about, and proud of, its own bias. Robert Ham (talk) 23:11, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Editorial commentary in text

I came to this page after seeing this request for editorial assistance. In my opinion, the edits that are the subject of the ongoing back-and-forth are pretty clear examples of POV commentary (they are unsourced as well) and as such do not belong in a Wikipedia article. I would add also that there is no need for them. The unadorned and undisputed facts quite sufficiently describe the views and character of Michele Renouf. JohnInDC (talk) 10:54, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of clarity, I should add that I removed those comments, and the diff can be found here - diff JohnInDC (talk) 11:59, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Low-grade edit warring

This constant back-and-forth cycle is tiresome. I have added back in the reference to "Lady Renouf" for the reason that it is accurate. I am removing the editorial aside about the Iranian conference being "mostly attended by Holocaust deniers" as, well, an editorial aside. Its inclusion is not to inform, but instead to cast the conference in a certain light. (I have no quarrel with the characterization, merely with the tangential nature of the characterization *here*.) I am changing the verb "accused" to back to "described" for the reasons set forth in my prior edit summary, namely, that "accused" not only results in bad English, but the more neutral "described" is just as accurate. I have not restored the portions concerning Renouf's education and training, because it was unsourced.

The edits I've removed are all generally POV edits and the article is better without them. Indeed as I said several weeks ago when removing several similar edits, "the unadorned and undisputed facts quite sufficiently describe the views and character of Michele Renouf".

Please discuss further changes here in the Talk page. JohnInDC (talk) 17:43, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Really, it's not much of an edit war. It is more a case of one user, Byafet - who only edits this one article - seeming to bear some personal grudge towards Ms Renouf combined with an inability to understand that her being an anti-Semite and Holocaust denier does not mean policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view do not apply. This user has never responded to warnings or other comments on his or her talk page and seems completely unwillingly to engage in any sort of discussion on the topic.

Byafet's talk page consists of a string of warnings going back over six months regarding contentious and POV edits to this page. I really think that the response to this conduct needs to be taken to the next level. - Eron^Talk 18:29, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, I know; and I don't disagree with anything you've said. I just came to realize that for those 6 months, whatever talk there *has* been about the article has been taking place away from this page, and that someone coming here cold might not appreciate the efforts that have been made by various editors to bring this under control. If User:Byafet is going to ignore entreaties to stop - or at least to engage - well, it's more useful for "the next level" if he ignores them here!

Nice cleanup, BTW. JohnInDC (talk) 18:39, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thank you. And re the next level, I have reported Byafet's edits at the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. - Eron^Talk 18:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

"Tendentious". Yes, that captures it pretty well. We'll see what happens next, then. JohnInDC (talk) 18:46, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• BLP/N response': Lady Renouf would need to be added later in the article, if appropriate. Per MoS, it shouldn't be at the beginning like it was before I edited it. I also added back in the information about the conference, but in a neutral fashion, including 5 of the many RS sources for reference from the main article for the conference (there are many more listed there, but I thought 5 was sufficient). --Faith (talk) 18:54, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Nice work, thanks Faith. - Eron^Talk 19:21, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 19:26, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

You're welcome. I've put this on my watchlist. --Faith (talk) 19:31, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Lady Renouf

Please note that "lady" should not be at the beginning of the article per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(biographies)#Honorific_Titles --Faith (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

This has been restored (and yet again removed) per MoS, namely, "Wikipedia guidelines permit inline use of titles but forbid inline use of honorifics ... Consensus has determined that the honorific titles 'Sir'/'Dame' and 'Lord'/'Lady' from the British honours system have met the above criteria." Note Lady receives specific mention. The restoring editor will need to show why the MoS should be ignored. --Faith (talk) 01:11, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

MoS clearly allows for the inclusion of "Lady", as occurs in every other relevant bio. I have seen here. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 09:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Particular interpretations of the MoS notwithstanding, in my view the current manner of introduction ("Michele Renouf, Lady Renouf") is kind of awkward. I preferred it with just her name, introducing "Lady" further down in the article text. JohnInDC (talk) 10:43, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

But this is the correct style and is consistent with other articles. It is PoV to remove it. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 11:27, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, no, it's not so long as one is unaware of those other articles. Instead it's just a matter of style. Can you give a couple of examples of other articles? JohnInDC (talk) 12:00, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Off the top of my head: Ann Winterton and Sylvia Hermon. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 12:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Helpful, thanks. JohnInDC (talk) 12:34, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Incorrect usage in other articles does not mean that it's supposed to be that way. I quoted the MoS above where it specifies that Lady is an honorific that is not to be used inline like that. It's tenatious to keep adding it against the MoS. Please stop. --Faith (talk) 13:53, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Wrong again. The MoS states this is the correct usage actually. Have you read it? --Counter-revolutionary (talk) 14:16, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The MoS allows the use of title, but does not allow honourifics. A title is Sir or Lady, an honourific would be The Hon., The Rt. Hon., His Grace &c. What do you find confusing?Counter-revolutionary (talk) 14:21, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Also, Norma Major, I think you're very much going against all consensus here, which is never good! Counter-revolutionary (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) The relevant passage from the MoS, in all its wondrous clarity, is as follows:

"Wikipedia guidelines permit inline use of titles but forbid inline use of honorifics. Honorific titles (e.g. "Sir"/"Dame" prenominals used by some knights), not to be confused with honorary titles, simultaneously possess properties of both honorifics and titles. Because of this, their use inline has been controversial. This guideline permits inline use of honorific titles that in general have significant sourced usage or recognition (e.g. in general media) outside of the country or system in which they were given. To be clear, this paragraph is the guideline for permitting a particular class of honorific titles and not a particular instance for a given person. For further guidance, refer to the guideline for criteria for use inline of regular titles. Consensus has determined that the honorific titles 'Sir'/'Dame' and 'Lord'/'Lady' from the British honours system have met the above criteria. Consensus has not yet rejected any honorific titles; if/when they do so, they will be listed here. Open a discussion on the MoS Bio talk page if there is an honorific title that needs consensus."

So, titles are okay, honorifics are not, and honorific titles - such as "Lady" may or may not be. But I think this says th inline use of "Lady" is fine, and other articles seem to reflect this also. But I can certainly see how other interpretations would be possible. - Eron^Talk 15:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. "Consensus has determined that the honorific titles 'Sir'/'Dame' and 'Lord'/'Lady' from the British honours system have met the above criteria" - Quite clear. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 15:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

It's states it is controversal, but I'm tired of beating the point as I have no interest in the article. --Faith (talk) 06:40, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, on the plus side, if we've managed to reduce the problems with the article to an MoS disagreement, it's progress. JohnInDC (talk) 13:31, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Categories

I have removed the Categories Australian White Nationalists and Neo-Nazis from this article. There is no evidence in the article that she falls into these categories or that she has specifically engaged in such activities. She seems to focus on anti-Semitism and Holocaust denial. If there is clear evidence that she does belong to these groups, it should be included in the article before the categories are restored. - Eron^Talk 20:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Michele vs. Michèle

Is there any reason, other than a presumed attempt to conform to proper French spelling, for retitling this page "Michèle Renouf" from "Michele Renouf"? Renouf is Australian, not French, and I have never seen her name spelled with the accent grave. JohnInDC (talk) 13:43, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no idea why this page was moved. It certainly should not have been - as you say, there are no references whatsoever that have her name spelled with the accent. It should be moved back. I'll see if I can do that. - Eron^Talk 15:45, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

She uses the accent on her own website, which suggests it is certainly her name. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Hm. I'm not sure her web site is a reliable source. We do use it as a reference, but only to reference the fact that she has published some DVDs and that she has expressed support for certain individuals. All the reliable sources in the article - primarily newspapers that have published profiles of her - don't use the accent. I know it may seem a bit odd to argue that we shouldn't take her own word for how her name is spelled (it seems odd to me, and I'm the one arguing it) but we are talking about someone who has - according to reliable sources - been a bit creative in embellishing her personal profile in the past. ("Countess Griaznoff", anyone?) I think erring on the side of caution - and of newspaper fact checkers - is in order. - Eron^Talk 16:20, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

A name (like sexuality, as I've argued on Wiki in the past) is up to the individual themselves to declare. That's my view. Counter-revolutionary (talk) 16:25, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Notability

Borderline at best. Berks911 (talk) 21:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)