Talk:Nicole Lapin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Articles for deletion This article was nominated for deletion on 11 March 2008. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]
This article is supported by the Arts and Entertainment work group.
Chicago Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles related to Chicago.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Society Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Media, an attempt to better organize information in articles related to media. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

Contents

[edit] Biography assessment rating comment

WikiProject Biography Summer 2007 Assessment Drive

The article may be improved by following the WikiProject Biography 11 easy steps to producing at least a B article. -- Yamara 19:23, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


Can we get a second picture of her up here? This doesn't reflect how professional she is. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.176.185.115 (talk) 05:04, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

I attended Northwestern with Nicole and know that NU/Medill does not name a "valedictorian" of its classes.

What did she go to Harvard and Columbia for? She doesn't have degrees from there that I know. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.180.181 (talk) 23:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Above commentor clearly didn't get a degree in journalism or research. Medill clearly names a 'valedictorian' for its classes, unless the Medill magazine itself doesn't know what kind of awards they hand out. http://www.medill.northwestern.edu/uploadedFiles/Medill/Alumni/Medill_Magazine/All_Past_Issues/Summer04campusnotes.pdf 160.39.212.122 (talk) 03:25, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Nicole Lapin Anchor .jpg

Image:Nicole Lapin Anchor .jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 20:27, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Education section sourcing

Edits to the article and comments on the talk page have indicated that the material in the education section of this article is disputed. Sourcing for this section should come from reliable sources and not from self published material such as Lapin's CNN profile page. BlueAzure (talk) 17:39, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Clearly the above user does not realize that CNN vets their own content is verified, it is after all a news organization and thus reliable source. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Botbotb (talk • contribs) 13:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

CNN is considered one of the highest ranking news sources. Nicole Lapin, a member of CNN, is a female role model. Her academic background, professional behavoir, and overall presense is a breathe of fresh air in this chaotic, media-obsessed world. Her WIKI page is reflective of just that and is cohesive with her CNN profile page. As the above user pointed out, CNN would not place false info on its own NEWS website. KEEP THE PAGE! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Browneydgirl (talk • contribs) 17:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Beverly Hills High School

Nicole went to Beverly Hills High School, Freshman and Sophomore year, and served as co-anchor on the student-run Norman News Service, broadcast locally in Beverly Hills on KBEV channel 6. This should be added to her "Education" section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.20.254 (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I concur, this should be added to her education section. --DavidD4scnrt (talk) 06:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] External Links

External links should include a link to the Young People Who Rock website, as it meets the requirements of WP:EL (guidlines for external links), namely: 3. Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons. --an article on an author that had an external link to their book would be relevant. Ms. Lapin created and runs Young People Who Rock. Linking it would provide accurate material that is relevant to her biography. Further, it does not run afoul of Links To Avoid, such as: 11. Links to blogs and personal web pages, except those written by a recognized authority. --while the link may be to a blog, it is written by a recognized authority I have added back the external link, and welcome discussion here. Bullcat99 (talk) 15:56, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

I took another look at the link and I still don't see why it should be included. It does include information about Nicole Lapin, but is for a CNN feature she hosts. If it were her personal blog then it would be appropriate to link to. In regards to number 3, this does not apply as the blog is not about her and therefore there is nothing that would otherwise be integrated into the article that cannot be because of the reasons given in 3. In regards to number 11, I don't know if Nicole Lapin is a recognized authority on " young people who rock" but since the article is not about "young people who rock" but about Nicole Lapin, 11 is not relevant. BlueAzure (talk) 23:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)


I agree that the blog should be listed- Lapin writes all of those posts. See byline with repurposed content: http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/04/07/ypwr.crabtree/ http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/03/30/ypwr.suri/ http://www.cnn.com/2008/LIVING/03/22/ypwr.s4/

I am not at war with you, however, I am interested in a concise and accurate description of this anchor's life. BlueAzure is deleting quite a bit, after losing the nomination for deletion. My last edit should be up to date, with the most accurate sources. I worried about college sources. I have replaced those with current, bona fide, publications. I am still concerned about "Derober"-- this seems very tabloid. Amberlights (talk) 06:24, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

On further inspection of www.derober.com, I would like to remove the age and dob until another source is discovered. Amberlights (talk) 06:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

per number 3-- The blog is all her work--all of the postings are Ms. lapin's writing, and the video all feature her interviewing. Jon Stewart is only the host of the daily show, yet a link to the official site for his show is in his external links. (Even a link to an unofficial fansite is in there). While it is possible that the heavily trafficked (and I imagine heavily edited) page may be wrong, I am inclined to believe that the determinations there, at least in terms of type of reference, are acceptable and relevant to the topic. Much of this also applies to 11--the work is all Lapin's, so, as with any author or creator of content, a link to that content would be appropriate.Bullcat99 (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
According to the Jon Stewart article, he is not just the host, but also a writer and co-producer. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a reason to do something and that article appears to have a lot external links that might not be appropriate. The link to www.thedailyshow.com seems to be appropriate in that article. Generally one external is provided, Jon Stewart does not have his own website and the www.thedailyshow.com includes a bio page for Stewart at [1]. The appropriate link for Nicole Lapin is her bio page. As I said before, number 3 is not relevant because the blog is not about her therefore nothing would be integrated into the article if not reasons given in 3. As I said before, numbers 11 is not relevant because that applies when the blog is about the subject of the article and the author is recognized authority on subject. The Young People Who Rock blog doesn't meet any of the WP:EL#What to link criteria, instead it seems to meet number 4 of WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided: "Links mainly intended to promote a website." From this conversation on my talk page you have a interest in promoting this blog on wikipedia. BlueAzure (talk) 19:50, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Also added the ISBN link for the Declare Yourself book. For more information, one can visit the Amazon page (kept out of article as per Wiki EL standards) at: http://www.amazon.com/Declare-Yourself-Connect-Celebrated-Americans/dp/0061473324/ref=ed_oe_h Bullcat99 (talk) 16:13, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Awards

I removed the awards section again. The section still doesn't contain any reliable sources. The press releases are a better source than the other sources, but after looking into the awards they cite I do not see that the awards are worth mentioning. We do not have an article about the Society of Professional Journalists awards and according to the source she received second place in the Television Spot News Reporting category in Region 5 (out of 12). We don't have an article William Randolph Hearst Foundation or its awards and the award she won does not appear to be at the national level. The Hearst Foundation site has a page for that year's national championship and Nicole Lapin was not a winner, maybe she was a regional winner. BlueAzure (talk) 23:40, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

You are factually incorrect about the Hearst Awards. [2]--she was third place nationally in 2002-2003, I will work on more sourcing, but as per discussion below, please confirm and then I will put this back in. This is why we should discuss edits before making them. It's too bad we don't have an article on the Hearst Foundation; perhaps if I have more time I will add one. For now, try looking outside of Wikipedia to [3]. The prize has been around since 1960, and is consider very prestigious in the journalism community. Bullcat99 (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not incorrect, the source cited was about the 2004-2005 awards and in addition it was not reliable so it should have been removed. No reliable source has been provided for the 2002-2003 award, without a reliable source this also appears non-notable ,as it was third place for an apparent non-notable award. BlueAzure (talk) 19:51, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Leave out awards, not relevant in her biography. Other anchors list awards on wiki sparingly. Amberlights (talk) 06:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edits

Further edits/redactions to information on this page should not be made without explicit discussion and consensus as per wiki guidelines. BlueAzure--you and AmberLights, and to a certain extent you and I, appear to be in a bit of an WP:Edit War. While I am glad that you are deemed the expert of 'relevant policy reason', I humbly yet vigorously disagree. I put in relevant policy reasons for making my edits, and invited discussion, not unilateral edits and reversions. Your imprimateur of relevance has been questioned before, as in the discussion for deletion of this topic. You have made your feelings clear. I do not suggest that this necessarily biases your opinion, but does suggest that there is certainly reasonable room to question some of your assertions with regards to this topic, and that we both should exercise some more caution in making edits and discussing them. Perhaps we should find a mutually agreeable Wiki editor to assist in facilitating these discussions? I have added some comments onto the external links section, and will refrain, for the moment, from making the edits, until we have more discussion. While reasonable minds can disagree, it is important to be reasonable. Bullcat99 (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


We need an outside moderator, BlueAzure. These most recent edits have noticeably degraded the quality of the information on the page. We need an external ruling on the ability to use CNN information as sourcing--this page is losing its coherence. Your most recent edits (4-9-08) have damage the quality and level-of-information provided. I think we need to revert back and have discussions on these. I fail to see how this differs from the AforD you attempted. Bullcat99 (talk) 01:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


The deletion of biographical material from a reliable primary source, namely, CNN, degrades the quality of the old 'career' section. Under the guidelines of WP:PROVEIT, "Before you challenge unsourced material, ask yourself whether you really do doubt that the material is accurate. Unsourced material should not be removed simply because of a difference of opinion." If you really think that the CNN material, which can be quoted inline in a manner such as, "According to her CNN Biography, ...", is inaccurate, I would like to see proof. If we differ on our opinions I differ to the PROVEIT guidelines. Also, before making such sweeping changes again, post to the talk page for a discussion. The time it will take to restore the material you have thrown out with the bathwater is not insignificant, and could have been avoided. Bullcat99 (talk) 02:35, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

My editing has been appropriate and inline with WP:BLP. Reinserting material without a reliable source is not appropriate and will be reverted. While the article is shorter now, it is actually better. Previously, the article was more resume than biography. BlueAzure (talk) 19:55, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
According to WP:Notability, notability is only determined in the creation of an article. The guidelines "encyclopedic suitability of topics for articles but do not directly limit the content of articles." BlueAzure has compromised the integrity of Wiki Standards and Practices by repeated deletion of edits before discussing them as outlined in the guidlines. This user needs to DISCUSS major edits before unilaterally deciding what is notable with an article that has already been giving notability by a consensus of moderations after BlueAzure nominated it for AforD. BlueAzure is not a moderator and should not act as such, unless there were a conflict of interest. Amberlights (talk) 05:29, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The times when I mentioned notability have been when wikipedia does not have articles about awards or a press club that would show that those things are notable. In WP:Notability #Notability guidelines do not directly limit article content it states "article content is governed by other policies and guidelines, such as the policy requiring Verifiability and the guidelines covering the use of reliable sources and of trivia sections." In none of those cases were any reliable sources provided, so I was using notability as an extended criteria to determine inclusion over and above what the policy allows. The rest of what you are describing is not the way wikipedia works. As I said before, my editing has been appropriate and inline with WP:BLP. BlueAzure (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Nobel Nominee Parent

Nobel nominees are not announced or told of their nomination. Should this be removed? Onorland (talk) 00:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This is well-sourced information for this subject. And according to the Nobel site, the evaluation process is exhaustive for nominees who are legitimate, in which case they are "announced" after some years and are typically only considered if nominated by an esteemed member of a field. http://nobelprize.org/nomination/nomination_facts.html Amberlights (talk) 06:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources for use in discussion of edits

Lapin's speech for the LA Press Club (link to the video of the event at http://video.aol.com/video-detail/cnn-pipeline-anchor-nicole-lapin-at-the-los-angeles-press-club/879517700 --this is primary source material, so one can "only make descriptive claims about the information found in the primary source, the accuracy and applicability of which is easily verifiable by any reasonable, educated person without specialist knowledge, and make no analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative claims about the information found in the primary source." --descriptive comment (to be cleaned up when re-inserted in the bio)--Nicole Lapin has spoken at events for the Los Angeles Press Club. Bullcat99 (talk) 01:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

If that was mentioned in a reliable source it might worth mentioning, but the primary source doesn't show that this it is notable and therefore worth mentioning. BlueAzure (talk) 19:56, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
As I have discussed before, notability only applies from the get-go. "It is a generally accepted standard that editors should follow, though it should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception. When editing this page, please ensure that your revision reflects consensus. When in doubt, discuss first on the talk page." WP:Notability The ancillary quote in a College Newspaper, The Daily Northwestern, is not worth mentioning. Nicole Lapin is not the subject of this secondary source. This is a stretch in relevance, more so than the LA Press Club mention. At least the LA Press Club is active, current, more prestigious affiliation. If there are no objections, I will delete this: "While at Northwestern, she worked as an assignment editor for the Northwestern News Network" Amberlights (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
The source for the LA Press Club is a primary source and we don't have an article the LA Press Club. The Daily Northwestern is a reliable source and we have an article about the Northwestern News Network. I don't see how this information is not relevant in a biography of Nicole Lapin and I don't see how the fact that is isn't a "active, current, more prestigious affiliation" is a reason to remove it. BlueAzure (talk) 06:05, 17 April 2008 (UTC)