Talk:Carolyn Farb

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

Neutrality[edit]

I tried to contain this page when it was small, but this has gotten quite out of control, in my opinion. This reads like it was written by the communications director for Carolyn Farb. JHMM13 (T | C) 08:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]


I'll be adding reference materials soon such as Texas monthly articles and the books Texas Big Rich, How to raise millions helping others having a ball, and Path to power. (Previous unsigned comment by Fergiebanks)

Sounds good..I'll be keeping a watch. JHMM13 (T | C) 08:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'll repost what i had with refrences soon. I took it off temporarly. (Previous unsigned comment by Fergiebanks)

Thank you for your help in the matter :-). Every once in a while I see someone like you on Wikipedia and I almost get insulted: "How dare that user be kind and respectful?!?!" Unfortunately, often times the opposite is the norm. Thanks again, JHMM13 (T | C) 18:55, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, I'm taking the neutrality tag off the page until the new content is reviewed. Thank you! JHMM13 (T | C) 18:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
p.p.s. Please sign your comments with four tildes like this: ~~~~. Thanks, JHMM13 (T | C) 19:56, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Farb[edit]

Note: this discussion was moved here from User talk:Postoak

why are you deleting the entirely accurate description of carolyn farb recieving the 'worstof houston' award? a friend of hers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.45.243 (talk) 23:07, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The awards are not notable, POV and sensationalism [1]. Apparently the Free Press Houston also considers the awards pure bull since "awards below are arbitrarily based upon hyperbole, rumors, bull-scheizzer, and sometimes facts." [2] Postoak (talk) 01:11, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


The awards are indeed notable when a publication with a readership of 100,000 makes that distinction. The Free Press does not consider the awards pure bull just feels it important to let folks know that they are purely opinion just as the other accolades you so readily mention. I am sure you are a friend of hers and your editing on her behalf both violates any sense of jounalistic standards and wikipedia protocol. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.194.91.128 (talk) 21:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is not notable when this stuff comes from a publication that states "The Free Press is an open forum. We do not endorse any of the ideas, products or candidates included in this publication. The Free Press is not liable for anything, anywhere, ever." Curious, why is it that you only edit the Dr. Farb article? There are other people/places on this "worst of" list? [3] It sounds like you are an enemy of hers. Postoak (talk) 01:55, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion of the editors in question, but from my review of the link in question, it does not meet the WP:RS and WP:V guidelines, and thus does not merit inclusion. Also, this article, while not tagged currently (I'll rectify that), must follow the BLP guidelines as the subject is a living person. -MBK004 02:30, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also, personal attacks against other editors are not allowed or tolerated and will lead to a block if it occurs again. -MBK004 02:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a personal attack. Farb's current entry looks like her PR wrote it. Also- There are a limited amount of FPH Worst of Houston award winners on Wiki... Why bring up the Free Press disclaimer? It is comparable to any other editorial disclaimer that every other paper carries, they just add a touch of humor. Ultimately, there has to be a way add the distinction to the entry and note the 'humorous' nature of the Free Press Houston while maintaining objectivity. Why the over-zealous motive to protect Farb? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.32.112 (talk) 16:24, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is no protection of Farb, I'm only reverting the not-notable references to a "worst of Houston" list in an open-forum newspaper that doesn't claim any responsibility for the published content...That's all. Please see WP:RS, WP:V and especially WP:SOAP. And speaking of jounalistic standards, apparently FPH does have concerns with Dr. Farb (among other things). Besides making the list in 2006, her Icon magazine also made it last year. From FPH Worst Of Houston 2007 - [4]- Worst Magazine: Icon Magazine. Text follows...

"Have you seen this utter and total piece of shit? The Carolyn Farb ( 2006 Worst of Houston winner) types of our city finally have a place to huddle their collective scumfuck faces to read about abhorrently rich folks that need to dissipate their white, capitalist guilt. Imagine a glossy magazine dedicated to nothing other than bourgeois socialite garbage. Many of the other glossy mags touch on this but Icon focuses entirely on local socialites. The magazine typically covers philanthropic events from the previous month and features pictures of the attendees all holding the same glasses of white wine. Speaking of white ‘whine’, I counted two African-Americans in the entire mag that featured more than 350 people. One of the two was a valet. Get the idea? Ladies and gentlemen, this is the reason people fly airplanes into our buildings. They don’t hate our freedom, they hate our publications."

-- Postoak (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Your missing the point. Your decision that this is not notable is completely arbitrary. Wiki guidlines for media sources do not pertain to your personal feelings about that particular media source. How can you in the same breath admit that the award was indeed made yet cite accuracy as the same time? There is no specific wiki guideline against using an open-forum media source. The criticism is valid as it comes from a longstanding publication with a large readership. Though opinion is arguable, there is no question as to the authenticity of whether the award was given or not. Criticisms do not require to be popular, just to be made on a popular level. By the way, the awards are given based on reader submission, feedback, and such which ultimately means that Farb, who you protect without any objectivity, is not accurately described in the standing entry. The current entry reads like a press release which is strictly against wiki standards. I again implore you to answer why you have such a vested interest in protecting her honor? You are at danger of chiseling away at your own credibility. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.243.32.112 (talk) 04:18, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia policies WP:BLP, WP:V and guildeline WP:RS. Thank you, Postoak (talk) 06:40, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note re edits[edit]

I took out the "Dr." bit. The honorary degree is not important enough to be the first word of the article. Titling the lady as "Dr." with Dr. in quotation marks is both confusing and rude. If the honorary degree is considered important enough to be noted at all, it can be noted properly in a sentence later in the article. Otherwise it should be left out.

I changed 'first lady of fundraising' to 'first lady of philanthropy' based on what I found in the references.

Perhaps she is noted for her "divorce settlement" but this is unsupported by the references so I removed it.

I changed: "she is the first woman and Texan to raise a million dollars in a single gala" to "she is the first woman and first Texan to raise a million dollars in a single gala" as I think it is clearer.

I have not seen her book, but based on the title it is obviously closely related to her work as a fundraiser. Perhaps it should be added to the article. Wanderer57 (talk) 17:36, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, please note that the questionable edits reported to BLP review were removed as soon as they were added..see history. Thanks, Postoak (talk) 17:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Carolyn Farb. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Carolyn_Farb&oldid=1207180983"