Talk:Nicole Lapin

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

Biography assessment rating comment[edit]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

Education section sourcing[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Beverly Hills High School[edit]

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)[reply]

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

External Links[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Awards[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

Edits[edit]

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)[reply]


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)[reply]


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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

Nobel Nominee Parent[edit]

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

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)[reply]

Sources for use in discussion of edits[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

this article is plagiarized from chickipedia[edit]

This article is definitely plagiarized —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.111.199.226 (talk) 23:42, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If she was born and raised in L.A., why does she have a British accent?

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Nicole Lapin. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 17:43, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Nicole Lapin. 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, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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) 05:39, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy[edit]

Nicole Lapin was one of many individuals accused of purchasing social media followers. This controversy was published by the NY Times and her followers were removed. This is referenced and meets all requirements to be published. She should go on the record to dispute if inaccurate otherwise, it's a material face that should be disclosed in her Wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.201.10.130 (talk) 21:35, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from ToBeFree's talk page for convenience and information[edit]

Content related to Nicole Lapin

Dear To. Be. Frei:

I hope this finds you well. Our client, Nicole Lapin, consulted with us about her wikipedia page and content that has been published about her.

Controversy Lapin was one of many celebrities, sports stars, journalists and politicians that was outed by the New York Times for allegedly purchasing fake followers on social media network Twitter – some of whom used information stolen from real people – in order to overstate her following and influence. Lapin addressed the allegations recently stating, "I have a great social media team. I use special teams for my books and other project launches. Unfortunately, this was a staff level decision and I’ve addressed it so it won’t happen again. But the larger picture here is how reflective this narrative is of lessons we are all learning in this digital era."[58] [59][60]

The header seems to unfairly convey information that remains an allegation. Additionally, the content uses scathing vocabulary to describe the allegation in the most negative light.

While we respect that wikipedia publishes wish to include such information as pertinent to Ms. Lapin's biography, we kindly request that the header of "Controversy" be changed.

We respectfully suggest that the header and the content be revised to reflect a more objective account of the stipulated details.

Thank you in advance for your time and cooperation.

Sincerely,

Eyal Aharonov, Esq. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aharonovlaw (talk • contribs) 21:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Aharonovlaw: Dear Eyal Aharonov:
Sorry for the confusion, and welcome to Wikipedia.
Your edit summary, "this is a minor edit", made the not-minor edit suspicious to me. You seemed to have been trying to hide this edit from scrutiny. Without stating a reason in the edit summary, you had deleted an entire section of the article. For this reason, I had undone the edit without throughly verifying if the removed information (which was referenced by two media sources, one of which being the NY Times!) was factually correct.
Wikipedia has a very strict policy concerning how we write about living people, and we really do our best to keep such articles accurate and clear. Of course, nobody here wants libellous allegations to stay. We remove them whenever we notice them, and we carefully deal with reports about such problems. Thank you for helping us to identify such material.
Because your explanation on my talk page seems to be very reasonable, and because the time you've taken to sincerly explain the issue, I understand that you are really here in good faith and see no reason to keep the controversial material in the article. I have undone my edit, as you can verify here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Nicole_Lapin&diff=834460916&oldid=834457258&diffmode=source
Should another editor re-add the material (click here to view the history), for example by undoing the above-linked edit, please point them to the talk page of the article. You can use the following link to do so:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Nicole_Lapin#Controversy
In an edit summary, you can use the following syntax instead, creating a clickable link: [[Talk:Nicole Lapin#Controversy]]
I will copy our conversation here to the article's talk page, so that other editors can quickly learn and understand why the removed section is problematic in its removed form.
Thank you for taking the time to explain the issue, and thank you for improving this encyclopedia. I will add a "welcome box" to your user talk page with more links that might be interesting and useful to read.
Best regards
~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I received a nice Thank You and was wished an awesome Thursday. :) ~ ToBeFree (talk) 22:51, 5 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion of controversy section[edit]

Disagree. She is responsible for her brand. Needs to be disclosed in its own section just like accolades and personal life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.201.10.130 (talk) 14:42, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Ms. Lapin was cited in New York Times for purchasing social media followers. She does not denie this and in fact she still has fake followers on her Twitter account. I fail to see why this should not be included in her biography. Look at other individuals, controversial behaviors are frequently listed separately much like her accolades. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackbelt whitetails (talk • contribs) 18:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • It is true that Lapin was mentioned in two NY Times articles as one of many well known people who purchased fake twitter followers. But in each case it was a 1-line mention in a list of "influencers" who have allegedly made such purchases, with no details. The Times does not state specifically where the info on Lapin comes from, but much of the info in the articles is said to come from the records o the company selling these 'bots". How reliable that is hard t say. A third cite was to an interview with Lapin. This had no content relevant to the issue, and I have removed it. There is a quoted response from lapin, but this is currently uncited. I have marked it with a {{cn}} tag. I think the sourcing on this is a bit weak from a WP:BLP standpoint. Does anyone have better sources or a view on the matter? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:05, 8 April 2018 (UTC) @ToBeFree, Aharonovlaw, Blackbelt whitetails, and 209.201.10.130: your input would be welcome. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:26, 8 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hi DES, you're a godsend. :) Until now, unregistered and newly registered users have basically been long-time edit warring here, each of them in good faith. In this light, it makes me a little sad to see that the Controversy paragraph has been deleted again before consensus is reached. On the other hand, when dealing with negative content on the biography of a living person, I think that additions should be carefully looked at. Good-faith deletions, even with a conflict of interest, might often be less problematic than unsourced additions.
About the citation with the CN tag, that seems to come from an interview available here: http://celebrityfashionista.com/checking-in-with-fashionista-and-financial-expert-nicole-lapin/
I have no idea if that's a reliable source, though. Is it a fashion shop with a little blog next to it? The article footer "To find out more about Nicole, visit NicoleLapin.com or follow her on Twitter and Instagram @NicoleLapin", in my opinion, might be indicating a website accepting paid articles and article-like advertisements. The NY Times would probably not write that below one of their articles.
For this specific type of quote, "Lapin addressed the allegations recently stating", however, even a message from her official Twitter account would probably be a valid source. If I understand correctly, there is no reason to believe that this quote is inaccurate, and Aharonovlaw is probably not contesting the authenticity of this specific quote. It just made no sense to keep it when removing the whole context. Is this correct? @Aharonovlaw
About the first part of the section: Better sources for the accusations are probably hard to find - the New York Times created an original article there. "Reporting was contributed by Manuela Andreoni, Jeremy Ashkenas, Laurent Bastien Corbeil, Nic Dias, Elise Hansen, Michael Keller, Manuel Villa and Felipe Villamor. Research was contributed by Susan C. Beachy, Doris Burke and Alain Delaquérière."
Maybe let's have a closer look at the exact text the discussion seems to be about:
"Lapin was one of many celebrities, sports stars, journalists and politicians that was outed by the New York Times for allegedly purchasing fake followers on social media network Twitter – some of whom used information stolen from real people – in order to overstate her following and influence." (1) (2)
Reference link 1 is indeed accidentally broken here by @Javert2113: using the ProveIt tool. This was later used as a somehow unconventional excuse for this edit. I would have tried to fixed the link instead.
Reference link 2 quotes reference link 1 in a not really encyclopedic way. It might have a reason to stay for context because the "uncited" interview (see above) refers to "Perez Hilton" instead of the NY Times.
  • "One of many": Positive, isn't it? She wasn't the only one, that's a positive message to me.
  • "celebrities, sports stars, journalists and politicians": Positive. Same here: Even sports stars (god beware, idols!) did this. She's just one of many.
  • "outed": "Outing" implies revealing something that has previously been hidden. This could be sexual orientation, a social taboo, or secret activities. "Controversy" and "outing" are two words belonging together, so at least some people will view "outed" things as being negative.
  • "allegedly": Positive. Questions the validity of the source.
  • "purchasing": Neutral
  • "fake": Neutral unless you know a "more" neutral word. It has a negative connotation, of course, but these followers have not been real individuals, and they have been using fake, stolen identities.
  • "followers": Neutral term used by the Twitter UI itself.
  • "social media network": Neutral, widely used term to describe Twitter.
  • "some of whom used information stolen from real people": It is clear to me that, no matter how accurate the list of celebrities in the NY Times article is, this specific statement is strongly sourced by a reliable source. It's not in a footnote, it is the Times article's main topic.
  • "in order to overstate her following and influence": (Emphasis mine.) Biased. Delete or modify. "Their", referring to the whole group, might be neutral enough. There is no source for this sentence when personally attributing it to one of the people in the list. We can't know if that was really the reason for Nicole Lapin to be involved in this matter.
Next, we need to make sure that the following two sentences, which are put together in a logical order, do really belong to each other: WP:SYNTH
  • Lapin was one of many celebrities, sports stars, journalists and politicians that was outed by the New York Times for allegedly purchasing fake followers on social media network Twitter – some of whom used information stolen from real people – in order to overstate her following and influence.
  • Lapin addressed the allegations recently stating, "I have a great social media team. I use special teams for my books and other project launches. Unfortunately, this was a staff level decision and I’ve addressed it so it won’t happen again. But the larger picture here is how reflective this narrative is of lessons we are all learning in this digital era."
This seems to be the case, as this article containing the second quote explicitly refers to the first sentence:

We saw you listed on Perez Hilton with the likes of Lisa Rinna, Kathy Ireland and Michael Dell about buying twitter followers, basically every celeb from Kardashians on down does anything they can to rock the social game so it doesn’t seem like breaking news to us in 2018, but what happened there?
I have a great social media team. I use special teams for my books and other project launches. Unfortunately, this was a staff level decision and I’ve addressed it so it won’t happen again. But the larger picture here is how reflective this narrative is of lessons we are all learning in this digital era.

Before continuing to decide what to do with the "Controversy" section, can we - both those wanting to have it removed, and those wanting to keep it - agree that this analysis is accurate? Are there mistakes in my analysis? Please point them out, as we might use this as a base to decide what to do next. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, ToBeFree. First, apologies: I must have accidentally broken that link in my haste to iron out the reference itself. Whoops. Second, I have no horse in this race, but your analysis seems spot-on to this editor. Finally, if better sources could be found, I'd appreciate that. And one last thing: thank you so much for your hard work and dedication to this topic. Really. It bodes well for the future of the Wikipedia project. — Javert2113 (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@DESiegel, Aharonovlaw, Blackbelt whitetails, and 209.201.10.130: Your input would be appreciated on the above analysis. Thank you. — Javert2113 (talk) 23:15, 9 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response below. Aharonovlaw (talk) 00:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-Up to Further Discussion of Controversy Section (ToBeFree's analysis)[edit]

Dear ToBeFree, thank you for taking the time to put forth a well-thought-out analysis.

In the interests of full disclosure, I have had several personal conversations with ToBeFree about my position on ToBeFree's talk page. At the time I involved the help desk, it was upon ToBeFree's guidance and assertion that ToBeFree would be taking the position of "neutral observer."

Furthermore, the individual contributor behind the numeric IP address contacted me offline, and we had a nice discussion about the reasoning, motive and purpose behind the content (and its re-addition over 3 consecutive months). By the end of the discussion, it was concluded by the user that he would "cease" (not intended to assert any legal position, as that was not my choice of word) re-posting the content and/or citations and he agreed that the content should remain off Ms. Lapin's page.

Back to ToBeFree's analysis. I appreciate the piecemeal analysis, but I fear it may be overlooking the greater issue. First, the sum of the content (and its position on Ms. Lapin's page) is what seems to be problematic. Individual words can fairly be analyzed, but there's no question that the content was meant to cast a negative light on Ms. Lapin (again, the individual contributor's position, not mine).

Since the NY Times article seems to be the one authority that is least problematic, I went ahead and did my Wiki research on the other individuals named in that article. As far as I got, I didn't see a single other individual's wiki page even mention the article or any applicable controversy relating to the alleged actions. More importantly, there was NO controversy section related to the alleged activity. I even went as far as to find a similar influencer with a similar celebrity status in a similar sector. I invite you to search for Britt McHenry, conservative writer and pundit.

In light of these facts, I believe that, if anything, fairly addressing Ms. Lapin's alleged involvement can only be accomplished by a simple factual statement under her career section stating that a NY Times article mentioned her. Other than that, and specifically because no other individual named in the article has been written about on Wiki, and it would seem to be unfair and, in the absence of the exact same treatment on other's Wiki pages, biased. I am certain that isn't the Wiki community's intention.

I hope that clarifies and respectfully addresses the above.

Most respectfully,

Aharonovlaw (talk) 00:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks, Mr. Aharonov. @ToBeFree: I should hope I have not breached any neutral interest you have or had; that was neither my intent, nor, I should hope, the consequence of any action I have taken.
Having further examined the article, and having done some investigation myself, I'll note that Mr. Aharonov's claim is correct regarding the possible purchasing of followers: it's not noted on the pages for Ms McHenry, Lynn Tilton, Michael Dell, Brooke Magnanti, Ford O'Connell — cf. Richard Roeper, in which it is only mentioned due to further action being taken by the Chicago Sun-Times. As such, until and unless further action is precipitated, in the interests of WP:NPOV regarding Wikipedia articles, I do believe that the removal of such a claim is quite clearly acceptable, pending consensus and future discussion. — Javert2113 (talk) 00:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That looks like a happy ending to me. Thank you all for your time. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 01:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree, thank you for all of your input. Thank you to all of the wiki community members I've connected with over the last few days. You were all wonderful - and above all else, extremely fair & professional. Aharonovlaw (talk) 01:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@ToBeFree and Aharonovlaw: In light of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS I am afraid that I cannot regard the absence of similar content on the articles about other individuals also mentioned as a significant argument for removing it from here. If it were, that would mean that such information must be added at the me time to all such articles, or never to any, or such an argument would always work for removing it from the place it was first added. That is not how Wikipedia works. My primary question is whether the NY Times mention, which is clearly reliable, but in which Ms Lapin is only listed in a single line in each story, is sufficient to support the mention here. If it is, this should be mentioned here, and quite possibly added to the other relevant articles also. Otherwise it should not. If other independent reliable sources are available to support the Times mention, that strengthens the case for mentioning the matter here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 12:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I feel a single line item is not significant enough to mention in its own section. Blackbelt whitetails (talk) 14:02, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@DESiegel: Yes, that's understandable – My reply was mainly referring to another factor: Consensus to remove the section among these who originally fought for its inclusion. The edit war seems to have been resolved peacefully.
In the interest of not censoring Wikipedia, someone who wants to have the NY Times mention included somewhere in the article could probably add it to the "Career" section, just as Aharonovlaw suggested himself, if I understand correctly. When doing so, please have a look at my analysis again and modify/delete at least the part identified as "Biased." by me. Wikipedia is not censored, but it is also not a platform to be abused for mudslinging. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Rubin[edit]

Lapin and Michael Rubin broke up a few years ago. This should not be re-added without further discussion here. Nicol341edra (talk) 10:09, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nicol341edra, Ballerinatinydancer, Tyehyeya111: Are you in any way affiliated with Lapin, Rubin or BenBella Books? Please read WP:COI, WP:SOCK and WP:PAID. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 16:15, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Nicole_Lapin&oldid=1207825188"