Talk:Emily St. John Mandel

  1. Home
  2. Wiki


RFC: attempt to correct the Wikipedia article

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is clear consensus not to include the material. Although there is a consensus that the material is allowed, there is also consensus that it is undue trivia for this biography. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]



Should Mandel's attempt to correct this article (about her divorce occurring) be mentioned in the article? Ovinus (talk) 22:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC) (Reworded non-neutral original RfC opening statement.)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Original opening statement: Should there be censorship and no mention of Mandel's attempt to correct the Wikipedia article (about her divorce occurring) despite multiple reliable source, including the BBC, reporting about her problems with Wikipedia making the correction. Or should mention of this Wikipedia incident be allowed? NewGeorge2 (talk) 22:17, 21 December 2022 (UTC) User has been indefinitely blocked for abusing multiple accounts. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think that it warrants some mention in personal life, which does seem like a section that does need significant expansion if possible. InvadingInvader (userpage, talk) 02:50, 22 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not include, or keep mention brief, as in the current version.(Summoned by bot) First off, I'd suggest the OP review the WP:RFC guidelines and be more careful when they write their next prompt, because these are meant to be written as a neutral presentation of the dispute, that does not inherently prejudice respondents to view one perspective or the other as the correct outcome. Describing one outlook as "censorship" is hardly that, especially when the use of the term clearly does not align with what that term means in the context of this project. But that caveat aside, clearly there is no per se rule keeping content of this sort out. But I don't see where any editor in the foregoing discussion was suggesting that as the reason to exclude, except in the OP's strawman argument.
The argument for exclusion, rather, hinges on WP:WEIGHT. The suggestion that the subject is marginally notable and "only became famous because of this event" is clearly belied by all evidence available and any reasonable reading of policy: she has written several best-selling novels, won and been nominated for major literary awards, and (most relevant for our purposes here) is covered by a wealth of reliable sources--as the robust reference section in the article clearly illustrates. Further, this article has been well sourced since 2014, as far as I can tell. The implication that this event is not just a significant source of her notability, but in fact the major cause, is clearly some combination of someone's hot take and a lack of understanding of what makes someone WP:NOTABLE for purposes of this project.
In that context, this event is clearly a pretty trivial event in the subject's public life, adds little or nothing of encyclopedic value to enhance the reader's understanding of the subject, and frankly looks a little like naval-gazing for us to include. The only quasi-noteworthy thing about this story (and as others have noted above, this is not an unheard of situation for a public personality looking to amend their Wikipedia article) is that in this case, the subject did the smartest and quickest thing necessary to create sourcing sufficient to meet WP:V. But that alone warrants a quick one-sentence mention at most, no matter how many drive-by news sources (not understanding the context of how this project works) repeated the story with the vague, clickbaity implication that it was an outrageous event.
Per WP:ONUS, the mere fact that a detail can be sourced (even redundantly) does not automatically guarantee that it is encyclopedically relevant for inclusion, and likely to enhance the reader's understanding of the topic they came here to read about. It's up to the party arguing for inclusion to demonstrate that value, and I don't see any argument above that does that. Indeed, I'm not sure I can see any argument for why this little event is WP:DUE for inclusion, beyond possibly a very brief mention. SnowRise let's rap 02:28, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allowed. Wouldn't call it censorship, either. If something is wiki-notable then it should be included. This whole thing has been kinda silly. At least the article's accurate now. RexSueciae (talk) 22:21, 23 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allowed It should be mentioned, but only briefly, as some previous users have pointed out. Iraniangal777 (talk) 08:32, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allowed But the content could be much briefer and more neutral (widespread attention?? … as being unable to edit??). Pincrete (talk) 13:07, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pincrete, I tweaked that a bit:[1]. Still think of it as navel-gazing, though. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:45, 27 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment and Allow No offense intended but I mentioned censorship in the RFC because User Grbers Graa Sang was engaging in edit wars, immediately removing all traces of the Wikipedia problem that Mandel had to put her divorce in the article. Rather that edit war, I started the RFC. It could be considered censorship if Wikipedia is so sensitive that it wants no mention of the systemic problem that Wikipedia has. That problem is that truth is not important in Wikipedia and anything that is not glowingly positive about Wikipedia must not appear in articles. This person, Mandel, got a huge amount of worldwide attention just because Wikipedia behaved like it did. It's good that the current version is no longer has harsh censorship regarding the divorce. I also vote that mention of the divorce and the problems Mandel had with Wikipedia to include it should be mentioned. She even had to arrange interviews just to get it changed. If she didn't, Wikipedia would still be fighting her. NewGeorge2 (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2022 (UTC) Striking comment from indef blocked user abusing sockpuppets in this discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Systemic problem? Wikipedia had a momentary hiccup that was pretty quickly resolved and now everybody's got a funny story to tell and an RFC on the talk page that'll probably wrap up soon-ish. Edit wars aren't new. Disagreements about interpreting Wikipedia policy aren't new. As long as the wording is neutral and accurate...I dunno. It's good to be cautious, but I'm not nearly as worried about this whole thing. RexSueciae (talk) 18:22, 30 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. It's navel-gazing on our part and has no bearing on her actual biography. If sources cover her "Wikipedia incident" as a significant event in her life, i.e., if it has enduring coverage, I could see the case for it, but for now it's trivia. This RFC was not phrased neutrally; I don't see how WP:CENSORSHIP has any bearing on this discussion and I don't think this is a matter of "allowed" or not—it's simple editorial discretion. czar 01:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of Wikipedia does not have enduring coverage. So wipe out 95% of Wikipedia? No. Look at lots of 14th century Popes, no coverage in the news at all. Look at randomly selected Wikipedia articles, same thing. I get it that Wikipedia doesn't want coverage that makes it look bad but the way to fix that is to stop being bad and start being good. Denmarkforever (talk) 05:47, 10 January 2023 (UTC) Striking comment from indef blocked user abusing sockpuppets in this discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Irrelevant, per Czar. Think about it: Were this a biography in a news publication written five years from now (see WP:RECENTISM), would this information be present? I've added a more neutral opening statement. Ovinus (talk) 22:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove As noted by Czar and Ovins, this media mention about wikipedia is a trivial fact which should not be mentioned in the article per WP:RECENTISM and WP:PROPORTION. When first reading the article the sentence about wikipedia in the article sounds out of place. The reason it sounds out of place is because the information is trivial and not of lasting effect on the general retelling of Emily Mandel's life. --Guest2625 (talk) 07:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    A google search reveals a significant proportion of Mandel's life is the Wikipedia story. Denmarkforever (talk) 05:48, 10 January 2023 (UTC) Striking comment from indef blocked user abusing sockpuppets in this discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Allowed - Can't see the harm in having a brief mention of an incident relating to the subject's personal life if it has enough reputable sources backing it up. PraiseVivec (talk) 12:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove per Czar. In the grand scheme of a person's life, what is the importance of "that time I got annoyed and tweeted about Wikipedia once"? As Czar said, it's navel-gazey self-importance on the part of Wikipedia editors believing every article subject's (negative) interaction with the encyclopedia is of utmost and world-changing importance. It's not. As far as I can tell, this whole discussion has spiraled out of control because of two brand new single purpose accounts, Denmarkforever and NewGeorge2. It's not that big a deal, bro. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:16, 4 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't you call me a Communist pedophile? After all "brand new single purpose account" is the same thing in Wikipedia lingo. I have no single purpose so that is a personal attack on me. Denmarkforever (talk) 08:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC) Striking comment from indef blocked user abusing sockpuppets in this discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Because single purpose account is WP-jargon, see Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, Communist pedophile is not. Per [2], the WP:ESSAY fits, fwiw. That said, IMO you have not been WP:DISRUPTIVE. I disagree with your position that Mandel's claim to fame is the media mentions of her WP-whatever, but that's just disagreement, it happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    STOP PERSONAL ATTACKS!!!!!!!!!! I do not have a single purpose account. Grabergs Graa Sang is an edit warrior, very disruptive, not here to build an encyclopedia. Denmarkforever (talk) 05:44, 10 January 2023 (UTC) Striking comment from indef blocked user abusing sockpuppets in this discussion. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Came here from the Signpost about this. I agree with the opposing editors here in that this incident does not have lasting significance (hundreds of such BLP COI requests have been made on Wikipedia, some unusual such as this but nothing out of the usual course of business, if we were to start including them this might as well turn out to be an encyclopedia on Wikipedia). I dont think it is of much notability either for this article or even articles relating to Wikipedia's coverage (under TRIVIAL, RECENTISM, DUE and other cited policies/guidelines by users above). Gotitbro (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove Either she got a divorce or she didn't. Her "attempt to change Wikipedia's article about her to include the divorce" is non-notable trivia. Some1 (talk) 02:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove. Wikipedia editors may be fascinated with how Wikipedia works, but the rest of the world likely sees this as navel-gazing trivia. Can you imagine a professionally edited encyclopedia, maybe from the pre-internet days, mentioning in an article that they'd received a letter from the subject of an article, asking for a correction or update? I can't. It's not encyclopedic. So why would we mention it here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:38, 18 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove just because a fact is reliably sourced does not automatically make it of encyclopedic value, NB WP:UNDUE. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 02:17, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

WP:Wikipedia_Signpost/2023-01-01/In_the_media#How to get divorced on Wikipedia

[edit]

For the interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLPCAT BRD

[edit]

@Gotitbro added Category:Canadian LGBT writers which makes an amount of sense, but note the banner on that page.

I removed it: "Reverting this per WP:BLPCAT, "and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources.""

I was reverted by @Valjean: "Ummm....??? She had a very public fight to get her status changed here at Wikipedia. She divorced her husband and now lives with a woman."

I still think I'm right per WP:BLPCAT here. The WP-divorce-thing doesn't reach "relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." It was public, but not "relevant" per policy is my reading, adding cats like these is just LGBT-tagging. That's my view, opinions, editors? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I only added that because I remember reading something related to that effect, about her work (which is said to include such themes) and her personal life. I can understand if this is not a prominent part of her professional or public life and don't necessarily object to the removal. Gotitbro (talk) 07:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
If the category is based on the awkward sentence "As of 2022, she lives in Brooklyn and has a girlfriend", then both the sentence and the category should be omitted for the time being. It reads as gossipy/fan magazine-y, not something that should be in (what should be) a formal encyclopedia. --Animalparty! (talk) 07:22, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind that much, but in a BLP it's fairly normal to note where someone lives and their "family status", if the sources are good. And they are. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:13, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Valjean, per comments here, are you ok with removing the Canadian LGBT writers category again? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC) Valjean pingfix Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:14, 11 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

She is openly gay, so the category shouldn't be controversial. It's an insult to her and all LGBTQ people to deny her open identity this way. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 00:36, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
That's a heck of a lot of people I managed to insult by removing a category. Hopefully, most of them are unaware of it at this point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:49, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it is a lot of already mistreated people. I'm straight as fuck, but I defend the oppressed, and this is bringing their oppression here. That Wikipedia allows the erasure of LGBTQ people here is reprehensible. We're supposed to document this stuff, and categories should cover something that should not be controversial. If someone is openly LGBTQ, then they should not be denied. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:34, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"erasure of LGBTQ people..." I'm getting worse and worse here. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

While her sexuality may not be relevant to her notability, I believe it is relevant to her public life. Doctorhawkes (talk) 00:58, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If the WP-divorce-thing amounts to that, sure. IMO, it doesn't. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:47, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Ping to Bearcat, incase you didn't see this discussion before you edited. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:06, 14 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Married?

[edit]

Sure, [3] seems to indicate that, and I don't mind a WP:ABOUTSELF source, but is there anything more clearly worded? Maybe it's time to call Slate again. You'd think some media would have mentioned it by now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]


Re: Instagram Post Better Source Needed

[edit]

I saw that the citation for Emily's marriage was a link to her personal Instagram page. Is this not a suitable source? It was tagged "better source needed", but Emily's personal statements seem reputable, and the account has been verified. Madeleinesinging (talk) 25 August 2025

Madeleinesinging Hello, I moved your comment to the bottom of the page, that's where new threads go. The Insta is confirmed, but the post [4] doesn't clearly say "I got married on this date", you have to infer it from the pictures/comments (and the comments aren't acceptable sources, only Mandel's own words). Personally I don't doubt this is what happened, but per WP:BLP, the source should be clearly worded, "Thanks for hosting" leaves something to be desired. Hope this makes an amount of sense. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:07, 6 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I appreciate your comment, thank you. Madeleinesinging (talk) 00:52, 7 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]