Talk:C. Christine Fair

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Scratch pad[edit]

Fair's articles[edit]

Why F&D tag?[edit]

What has this article to do with "food and drink"?? I think this is an error. --R. la Rue (talk) 20:03, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

She is the published author of several cook books. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 02:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Removed because article does not say anything about her cooking and I see no evidence of her cook books. The one book mentioned in the article is about something else.OrangesRyellow (talk) 09:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is not your choice to make. As an author of a cook book, she does belong in this group. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 20:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Added the cookbook to her works and added the correct category, American Cookbook Writers. Geofferic T•C✡ 00:19, 9 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

edit war over criticism[edit]

Please use the talk page rather than the version history to settle what's appropriate her. Mentioning some criticism of her is certainly appropriate, since some of her claims and methods are iffy and have been criticized in various publication/outlets. However there is the question of WP:UNDUE in particular in connection with WP:BLP and biographies mainly consisting of lengthy "criticism" sections are usually not appropriate. A middle ground here might be to keep the criticism short but precise and provide several sources rather than giving a lengthy description.--Kmhkmh (talk) 21:32, 24 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can agree that a separate section maybe WP:undue, but after reading the article from Salon there appears to be some valid criticism of her positions that this information should be included in the article. If I had known about these when I created the article, I would have included them as they are a valid counter point to her political and academic positions. I'll try to work this in properly over the next few days. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 19:33, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I came across this one [1] probably not reputable enough as a source but interesting nevertheless.--Kmhkmh (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
She is trained in languages and her accomplishment has been to read and interpret Pakistan's "internal literature," by the military, the Islamists and terror groups etc. This work is definitely considered valuable. However, she has no training in politics and her political views are definitely naive. I will find and add some academic reviews of her work. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mentioning some of the criticism is appropriate but a lengthy separate section is WP:undue and the content which was recently added is bordering on WP:BLP. We should not add a separate section till we don't find wp:rs sources. Scholarly sources should be prefer over bias websites like "salon". Also, Facebook posts ain't notable enough to be given space at the article. To user:Jerem43, they should refrain from abusing WP:ROLLBACK [2] and try to give edit summary when they know the edit they're reverting is not wp:vandalism. Spartacus! (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Or you could stop undoing the work of multiple editors who are trying to include pertinent information to the article and help include the information in such a way that it is better incorporated. Salon is considered reliable. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 07:49, 27 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Primary sources[edit]

An editor, SheriffIsInTown (talk · contribs), removed a source that was being properly used according to WP:PSTS - the source is not primary as it is not a work belonging to or created by Fair, but the academic directory for Georgetown University. Fair did not create the source, the University's HR department created it. I added another source that is secondary. --Jeremy (blah blah • I did it!) 06:38, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, as per WP:PSTS, deciding whether primary, secondary or tertiary sources are appropriate in any given instance is a matter of good editorial judgment and common sense, and should be discussed on article talk pages. In my judgement, an academic's qualifications and career details can be taken from published CVs unless there is reason to doubt the information. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there is really no issue here. The use of primary source was perfectly fine in this case.--Kmhkmh (talk) 17:18, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is it OK for the subject of an article to edit the page him/herself?[edit]

I am unclear about the policy here, but in the interest of getting clear on it I'd like to point out something. Ref these changes made by IP 14** and the edit citing a tweet by Christine Fair [3]. Now this tweet by Ms Fair suggests that the changes made by the IP (14**) were made by the subject herself as she claims in the tweet. So, is it ok?—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 22:46, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Editing your own article is discouraged but not forbidden. As long as the edits are not containing self promoting material, personal opinions or dubious claims or otherwise contentious material they are usually accepted. The principal guideline/policy applying here should be Wikipedia:Conflict of interest, though that that topic might be discussed elsewhere as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 23:45, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Hmmm..self promotion and dubious claims is what those edits were.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 23:48, 5 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistani trolls continue to write nonsensical things in this entry while Wikipedia seems utterly uninterested in preventing such frequent recurrence of base fictions. This is why my students are NEVER allowed to use Wikipedia for their work. The idea that anyone can write anything and link a Ben Norton article and pass it off as fact is absurd. There are facts and then there are accusations. You'd think someone would care about such things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PakistaniTrollCruncher (talk • contribs) 12:23, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People of all nationalities can edit Wikipedia. Please state what problems you find in the content rather than commenting on the editors. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am deleting this content which was apparently added by a sock. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:42, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Kautilya3, I think Mr Troll was talking about his /her BLP vio edits being reverted, the self promotion drive too. Else I dont find anything wrong with the content. I wonder if Mr troll can point us towards the problem so that the community can help resolve the issue.—TripWire ︢ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︢ ︡ ︡ ︢ ︡  ʞlɐʇ 18:39, 6 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PakistaniTrollCruncher: Our Wikipedia articles are a lot better written than some so-called third class academics who use third class language in their articles. Just one look at your username will tell anyone how good an academic you are. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 03:12, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Overweight and undue[edit]

@Mar4d and SheriffIsInTown: The new section on Criticism added yesterday is overweight and undue. I am not sure why a new section is needed when there is already a section titled "Views". WP:CRIT advises against "Criticism" sections. I am also not sure that the sources have been represented accurately, e.g., the first sentence says "Fair's work and viewpoints" have been criticised, whereas in reality the article is about one television debate. All Op-eds must be attributed to the authors as per WP:NEWSORG whereas none have been attributed properly. Moreover, there is no fair explanation of what her views are. This coverage is all the more surprising because Sheriff deleted scholarly reviews of her scholarly work claiming "This is an encyclopedia", as if scholarly reviews are inadmissible on encyclopedias whereas op-eds seem to be.

Christine Fair is an academic scholar and covering the academic work with academic sources should take priority over her political views (even though I admit that there is some crossover from her academic work to political views). I am leaving this section on for now, but I am afraid it needs to be drastically cut down and needs to be written in a balanced way. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I think we'll wait for @SheriffIsInTown: comment on why that section was reversed, and give his viewpoint. Personally, I welcome this article's expansion including any reviews of her work or more explanations of her views (for example, I included her statement on the research funding and her perspective on drones). Given Fair's field of work and different perspectives, it is fair to show per WP:NPOV the scholarly or academic disagreement that exists on her viewpoints. I'd appreciate if you could expand on the concerns regarding attribution, as the sources with alternative views have been attributed already in the article, and are notable in their field. Finally, WP:NPOV and balance is followed as per the presence of sources - not absolute NPOV (that would in fact be POV); if the sources explain the criticism, it would be WP:OR to present it otherwise. The only way is to add opposing viewpoints using attribution. Mar4d (talk) 10:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I believe she is notable mainly for her hawkish views, and that this should be reflected in the article. I also believe that the "Criticism" section should precede the list of her works – it is usual in Wikipedia biographies for lists of works to come after the text about the subject. Maproom (talk) 16:23, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Kautilya3: You might want to create a separate article for book, something like Dead Reckoning: Memories of the 1971 Bangladesh War. Reviewing her work in this article is undue. As for the Criticism section, i agree with Mar4d and Maproom. Criticism section is about her as an academic and scholar and not about individual pieces of work and there are many articles which has Criticism section. I don't mind changing the name of the section to Views or consolidating the Criticism section under Views as long as the content stays. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that the section I wrote originally is perhaps overweight, which is why I didn't immediately reinstate it. But by the same token, the current section on drone strikes is ridiculously overweight. I am not going to worry about it right now, until well-rounded content is developed for the article. I am just putting my concerns on record. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 18:41, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And, i was wondering, man, how come Kautilya did not revert me for last two days on this page, its not possible under normal circumstances! Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:34, 7 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Over Controversies Explanation[edit]

Editing the "controveries" one-line comment to further clarify what actually occurred in line with the references 16 and 17. When a reader simply reads she was "accused of harassment", they do not necessarily think of a "simple" online spat of insults that were exchanged on Twitter. I, for one, think of "harassment" as something more serious than a few online insults, while others may read "accused of harassment" and read it as only an accusation, when clearly there is proof of what actually happened. Whether it is legally considered harassment or not is another issue, but I think there should be clarification as to what actually happened. The references cited do not simply say "so-and-so accused her of harassment", they basically document a simple online dispute in which insults were exchanged in an emotionally charged manner. If someone can re-word this to clarify in a manner better than I can, feel free, but as it stands I feel it needs to convey the facts of what happened rather than lead someone to imagine what occurred in vague terms. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.158.32.123 (talk) 21:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other Accomplishments: In Her Own Word[edit]

"I am a reasonably accomplished pole dancer who even knits and crochets my own costumes. Also note that in college I was a competitive bodybuilder. In my free time, I like to cook and even authored a cult best seller Cuisines of the Axis of Evil and Other Irritating States." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mustikhan (talk • contribs) 20:28, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not everything a BLP subject says about themselves is noteworthy. Assuming she actually said this and that it wasn't a joke, we'd still probably need a secondary source or two before I'd even consider including it. We don't list people's self-reported hobbies that have nothing to do with what they're notable for. This isn't Facebook. Fyddlestix (talk) 22:29, 4 December 2017 (UTC).[reply]
I deleted the pole-dancing link because it was to a facebook page. Then I radded it when I found it on a blog. I has been deleted by NOt24seven . I have reinstated.Kmccook (talk) 04:40, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
/Najeebkhan88| appears to be watching this page and taking out edits for no reason except vandalism.Kmccook (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

About an article of her and two further articles being under criminal investigations. Due to her position this paragraph might be relevant.[edit]

Criminal Investigations in Germany[edit]

Fair is currently under investigation by the German federal police after allegedly calling federal police officers "Nazis" during a dispute at Frankfurt International Airport.[1][2] She denies the allegations and wrote a tirade about the incident in the Huffington Post.[3] 78.35.120.151 (talk) 16:05, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There's a discussion at WP:BLPN. I may have to ask for protection of the article not because of this but also because of libel added a few minutes ago. Doug Weller talk 18:09, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I was just going to revision/delete it when I noticed another Administrator already has, so non-Admins can no longer view it. Doug Weller talk 18:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can I see please the revisions that Tstamp2 individual made? Lothar76 (talk) 22:03, 26 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They were just derogatory and sexist, personal attacks on her that didn't mention the incident on all. The current version looks fine better (edited 18:46, 29 January 2018 (UTC)) since RS have started picking up on the incident and connecting her with it. We should still be cautious though. ---- Patar knight - chat/contributions 17:16, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.presseportal.de/blaulicht/pm/74262/3844730
  2. ^ https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2018/01/26/german-police-sue-american-woman-slander-calling-them-nazis/1068397001/
  3. ^ https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/framed-arrested-and-robbed-by-the-police-in-frankfurt_us_5a58f270e4b01ccdd48b5bbf
  • Do not include -- per WP:NOTNEWS. If this incident is still remembered a few months from now, then maybe... But not now. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:59, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per above and this discussion, Consensus to not include seems strong. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:19, 29 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Add this to the consensus that we include a SHORT mention of the German airport event and $260 fine due to many reliable sources mentioning this. I know that this person edits Wikipedia and doesn't want it but that should be ignored. New2018Year (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
GB_fan reverted "we can not put that she was charged with a crime and then add a fact tag. that statment must be sourced to a reliable source WP:BLP)" - she herself states as much in the article she wrote. The picture she uploaded shows that she's charged with Defamation [1]

References

  1. ^ https://img.huffingtonpost.com/asset/5a58f3f51f00001400db8748.jpg

Edit request airport incident[edit]

The article states

In January 2018, following an incident at Frankfurt Airport, Fair was charged with slander under Germany's defamation law (Beleidigunggesetz).[21] She subsequently published an article on HuffPost rejecting the police account of the incident.

First, Beleidigunggesetz is german for "insult law", but as a generic term. There is no such a specific law in germany. This can be seen as such articles do not exists in german Wikipedia de:Beleidigunggesetz or on [dejure.org https://dejure.org/cgi-bin/suche?q=Beleidigunggesetz]. Slander is a crime under the german criminal code StGB paragraph 186. Insult would be a crime by paragraph 185, but this is not the charge. Anyway, there is not a "insult act" as implied, and "Beleidigunggesetz" is not a technical term an missleading. I suggest

In January 2018, following an incident at Frankfurt Airport, Fair was charged with slander under Germany's criminal code (Üble Nachrede StGB §186).[21]

Second she does not reject the police account about carrying liquids, but confirmed it. This seems noteworthy as this seems to be the most important part of the police account.

I suggest

She subsequently published an article on Huffington Post. She confirms carrying liquids exceeding the allowed quantities. She denies the police account of the alleged insult.

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 14:17, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm now lawyer, but the argument above seems convincing and might be a case were it might be justified to correct/amend imprecise English news sources by primary sources (given above) despite this being a bit iffy based on formal policy. However I tried to look up a few German sources on the issue which might be more precise with regard to the German legal terms.
Also note that the term "Beleidigungsgesetz" criticized in the request above isn't even mentioned in the current sources, i.e. it seems an imprecise translation of "defamation law" into German by a Wikipedia editor. Also according to the current sources in the article (rather Fair's huffpo's piece) Fair also admitted to have used the term nazi, but in somewhat different manner than the German police claims. Essentially the police claims (supposedly conirmed by witnesses) that Fair used the term loudly and repeatedly (basically throwing a small rage fit), whereas Fair says, she angrily muttered it to herself (rather than loud at the police).--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:40, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I did a quick fix, so that the description is correct and lin line with the cited sources. An overhaul towards a more precise description might still be desirable. However one has to keep in mind, while a detailed explanation of the event does provide for a better understanding of the event by readers, it is also likely to violate WP:UNDUE. It is not appropriate for an encyclopedic biography to devote a large share of its content towards minor incident of ultimately little relevance, which on top of that paints the concerned person in an unfavourable light.--Kmhkmh (talk) 10:52, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Twitter account suspended[edit]

https://twitter.com/cchristinefair 217.72.104.75 (talk) 07:39, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request unprotection[edit]

It appears that this page has been semi-protected since December 2017, and protection is due to expire in September 2019. In my estimation, this is likely a greatly excessive duration of semi-protection, even for persistent disruptive editing, since controversies tend to blow even in a matter of days or weeks, not years. To my knowledge, the subject of the article has not been involved in any controversies lately, which would warrant continued semi-protection. Therefore, I would ask Samsara, the most recent protecting administrator, to remove protection for this article. Ergo Sum 04:47, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This article has needed semi-protection repeatedly:
  • 6 September 2016 Airplaneman talk contribs block protected C. Christine Fair [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 14:53, 10 September 2016) (Violations of the biographies of living persons policy) (hist | change) (thank)
  • 14 October 2016 KrakatoaKatie talk contribs block protected C. Christine Fair [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 18:05, 21 October 2016) (Persistent disruptive editing) (hist | change) (thank)
  • 15 November 2017 Dlohcierekim talk contribs block protected C. Christine Fair [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 20:38, 19 November 2017) (Persistent disruptive editing) (hist | change) (thank)
  • 20 November 2017 Doug Weller talk contribs block protected C. Christine Fair [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 21:23, 4 December 2017) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 21:23, 4 December 2017) (Persistent disruptive editing) (hist | change) (thank)
  • 6 December 2017 Samsara talk contribs block protected C. Christine Fair [Edit=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 17:51, 6 September 2019) [Move=Require autoconfirmed or confirmed access] (expires 17:51, 6 September 2019) (Persistent disruptive editing: via RfPP) (hist | change)
In addition, the visibility of revisions on this article has been changed on five separate occasions (six log entries) by three different admins (not me), including during this current protection. So, yes, this article is very much a worry child, and I will not lower protection on a BLP that has received very clearly worded personal attacks even during and in spite of this current protection. Samsara 20:31, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:C._Christine_Fair&oldid=1207170372"