Talk:Michelle Ferguson-Cohen

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

Sources[edit]

If GOOD sources can be found to substantiate some of the claims here, then I have no problem keeping this article. The problem I have right now, is that the article is making unsubstantiated claims and the sources being used do not reflect what they actually say. For example the Fay Observer does not substantiate the claim that she is the "the first commercially available childrens books for military brats and the first children's picture books for children coping with deployment." That is such a ubiquitious description that it is probably true, but it needs a source or it is unverified original research.

"During the first deployments of the Iraq War, Ferguson-Cohen worked with Family Readiness Groups nationwide to host readings of the books and convey coping skills to small children faced with separation from their parents" None of the sources say that. The sources are all links to list or trivial coverage. This needs a reliable source---as is, it is pure original research.

"The books were the first commercially published children's picture books for military brats to be presented at the Military Child Education Coalition." This needs a fact and the significance needs to be explained.

"Her books were recommended by many educational and child development experts." links to lists does not make this so, and reeks of OR. You need sources to say so.

"Sought out by the press as an expert in the military community" One of the links belies that assertion, the other doesn't really say anything.

"Ferguson-Cohen consulted with Sesame Workshop encouraging them to create programming and content to help military brats and inform their civilian peers." Again, a source is needed.

If these claims can be substantiated with verifiable non-trivial sources, then this article might be salvageable.Balloonman (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn AfD[edit]

I went ahead and withdrew the AfD nomination. Sbowers3 showed me she might be notable. I'm not fully convinced of it... but I went ahead and withdrew it to give the article the benefit of the doubt. Having said that, this article needs cleaned up and at least half of those references need to go!Balloonman (talk) 03:51, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

For example the Fay Observer does not substantiate the claim that she is the "the first commercially available childrens books for military brats and the first children's picture books for children coping with deployment." That is such a ubiquitious description that it is probably true, but it needs a source or it is unverified original research. This feature article was written by an FRG leader who claims that she did not "personally know of any other books" like these before. Because the statement comes from an independently verifiable sources it could work as a citation. Otherwise, I'm not sure how to verify the first claims besides my attempts at disproving them. Since you value Amazon as a source, I have used Amazon and some library catalogues as research. I don't know that this would be conclusive, but it's the best I can do to attempt verification:

  • The first children's picture books for children coping with deployment: In fact, the next earliest publishing date I can find with a book about that topic is "A Year Without Dad" which was published in November 2003. The Second Edition of Daddy You're My Hero Paperback was published in Februrary 2003. There are obviously an abundance of books that followed the Daddy, You're My Hero! 2001 original edition publishing date. Which actually bears some fruit to the claim that she "pioneered a trend".
  • The first children's picture books to feature a mother as a soldier: There is no other children's picture book with an earlier publishing date. "When Mommy was a Soldier" is the only other children's picture book I can find that shows a mother as a soldier and it was published a month ago in Feb. 2008.
  • The first children's picture books for military brats and featuring military brats: Daddy, You're My Hero! may win by a technicality. My 'Daddy is a Soldier' was published in 2001, but not commercially available until 2002 as their publishing company New Canaan didn't exist until then.
  • Books for BratsTM is the first children's book series for military brats: I still do not find any other children's book series or brand that is specifically devoted to military brats.

"During the first deployments of the Iraq War, Ferguson-Cohen worked with Family Readiness Groups nationwide to host readings of the books and convey coping skills to small children faced with separation from their parents" None of the sources say that. The sources are all links to list or trivial coverage. This needs a reliable source---as is, it is pure original research. Several of the authors appearances were referenced also there were a number of FRG, AUSA, and other official military newsletters citing the the use of these books for Deployment Resources. I'm not sure how else this can be verified.

"The books were the first commercially published children's picture books for military brats to be presented at the Military Child Education Coalition." This needs a fact and the significance needs to be explained. I have not found any source to verify this.

"Her books were recommended by many educational and child development experts." links to lists does not make this so, and reeks of OR. You need sources to say so. List of recommended resources by psychologists, medical professionals and library journals is precisely a written recommendation of the books.

"Sought out by the press as an expert in the military community" One of the links belies that assertion, the other doesn't really say anything. I'm not really sure how to verify this. She was interviewed as an expert for the Parenting radio show which is a civilian show. I'm unsure if you don't count the Fox News referenced feature on military moms and mother's day.

"Ferguson-Cohen consulted with Sesame Workshop encouraging them to create programming and content to help military brats and inform their civilian peers." Again, a source is needed. Found no source for this statement.

If these claims can be substantiated with verifiable non-trivial sources, then this article might be salvageable.Balloonman (talk) 23:22, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

I still contend that regardless, the author is "notable" by Wiki standards. --JSane (talk) 21:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't read the entire post above (about to go home for the day) but regarding the comments about her books being the first to do something. Again, it may be true, but in order to include it on Wikipedia, you have to show it from an independent source. (EG Michelle/BooksforBrats or another source that is using her press releases isn't a reliable source on this claim.) Likewise, your research, is not reliable it violates one of the core policies of wikipedia---no original research.Balloonman (talk) 22:36, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Interest[edit]

Comment: This was originally posted on JSane's talk page

FYI: IP address 72.229.10.154 is also me. Sometimes I get logged out, but that is my IP address, so it's not related to the author. I can't vouch for the other IP address I'm afraid. Looks like it's in Atlanta or Florida. --JSane (talk) 19:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I just read the COI standards. I'm new here. Because I defended the references I provided and contributions I made, does that give me a non-neutral point of view? I also asked another editor to stick to criteria and not insult the subject matter. Is that regarded as a COI? --JSane (talk) 19:49, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

I hope you don't mind this clarification, it not meant to be hostile, but the posts that Hu hit you with are part of some standard templates. Hu12 possibly is unaware of AfD/discussions going on around this subject, but saw the multiple links that were added and appear to be spam and as part of some clean up patrol. Thus he tagged your page with some generic templates that address some questions/concerns that he might have because he doesn't know if you have a COI or not. Excessive linking is frowned upon.Balloonman (talk) 20:00, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
Looking at the post above a little closer, there apparently is a bot (short for robot---electronic tool) that tries to identify accounts that may have COI issues based upon their edit history. Using that bot, Hu12 somehow tagged this article as one which may have COI issues based upon some algorythm. It probably hit the bots radar because of your recent additions of various links---and based upon taht it probably checked your edit history (and those of the other three accounts) and discovered that those accounts only edit on an extremely narrow band of articles.Balloonman (talk) 20:06, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
THANK YOU for your helpful response! So I was just trying to fix an article and contributed too much and now I made it worse, huh? After seeing this, I got curious about these claims and I went back in the history to see what the other COI "spams" were and after looking at the contributions from the Booksforbrats username and other Anon Address I see that Booksforbrats started the article in 2007 and appears to have been on the site one other time a month later. I use the term 'article' loosely, was about two paragraphs with no references or citiations. However, since then several of those contributions have either been deleted or verified by other editors, except the 'Sesame Workshop' statement in question and the claim she established the series to "encourage pride in the term Military Brat". So unless, those can be verified, I'd be fine with deleting them. The Anon IP address appears to have made one contribution. Editing the categories to include the author as a Military Brat. --JSane (talk) 20:25, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:JSane"

As for the second Anon IP that WHOIS' Atlanta/Florida. The copyright of the book and the contact page of the publishing company says the company is based in New York. --JSane (talk) 21:24, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to resolve this because apparently, I cannot make any edits to this article because Wiki view me as having a COI. I've included comments on sources above in the meantime. --JSane (talk) 21:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up comments---1) cross posting is often frowned upon, but if you are going to, it is best to indicate where it came from. Some people get very touchy about their posts being cross posted elsewhere---especially, when they are unaware of it---even in benign situations such as this. 2) If you are going to copy text, it is best to copy it from the edit mode. That way you capture any links or details that might be missed. For example, when you copied text to Sbowers3 page, you missed the link that was included in the text.Balloonman (talk) 22:43, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

old References[edit]

I've salvaged these from an old version of the article. Some of them may be appropriate references to include in the article as inline citations.

After a while, we'll incorporate them or delete them. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:17, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I believe at least some of those (the colorado springs gazette one I remember) are ones I added to this article. My research at that time led me to think she was notable. Though that article is not available online anymore free, it is still an available one for citation as it's in the print version and available online for a fee. Felisse (talk) 19:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a quandry. Is this worth looking into? There are a number of additional press clips that might help make are case in citations that are no longer available on the internet. They are noted in various press releases and websites and exist in a downloadable hardcopy on the author's site. Here are a few more references in case they are relevant in making citations. But it raises an important question. What happens if the references we're using to make citations now come down off the web? Is it then possible to consider the author "non-notable" because citations can no longer be found?:
  • New York Woman Writes Books to Help Kids with Parents in Military - Radio 104 02/03/2004
  • New York Woman Writes Books to Help Kids with Parents in Military 101.9 The Mix 2/5/2004
  • Iraq War Veterans Org- recommended
  • At Ease- Magazine for Military Families
  • KSON 97.3- nationally syndicated radio broadcast of dj's daughter reading the books! book contest!
  • KGAB- The Morning Zone with Dave Chaffin and Amy Richards
  • WBIX BOSTON- Boston Business Journal Morning Show "Dealing with Deployment"
  • WLOX ABC 13- Biloxi, MS 7/2/2004
  • Father's & Families, the Mike "Radio Dad" Austin Show- Nationally Syndicated Radio 7/15/2004 —Preceding unsigned comment added by JSane (talk • contribs) 03:58, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wichita Eagle/ Kansas.com Books tell children what 'deployment' means
  • Books help children whose parents are in the military- The Arizona Republic 2/6/2004
  • Book helps children cope with parents in the military- Tallahassee Democrat 2/17/2004
  • Books help kids deal with parent's deployment - The Honolulu Advertiser 2/10/2004
  • New York woman writes books to help kids with parents in military- Ft. Wayne Sentinel 2/2/2004
  • Till Daddy Comes Home- King County Journal 2/8/2004
  • The Celebrity Cafe Review 1/27/2004 The Celebrity Cafe.com
  • In the Line of Duty- Gaston Gazette
  • New York Woman Writes Books to Help Kids with Parents in Military - Radio 104 02/03/2004
  • New York Woman Writes Books to Help Kids with Parents in Military 101.9 The Mix 2/5/2004
  • Books Help Kids Understand Deployments - South Bend Tribune 2/10/2004
  • DOD Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools Sources for Parents to Explain War Resources for Parents
  • Military Child Education Coalition- Recommended by the Military Child Education Coalition
  • AOL School- Stories For Primary School Children
  • Walla Walla Union-Bulletin
  • TCK International- Resources for Military Kids
  • U Magazine- USAA Magazine for children “Shades of Blue- - help kids today cope with separation from parent”
  • Today's Officer- "(books) reassure and instill a sense of pride in the children of military parents."
  • Iraq War Veterans Org- recommended
  • At Ease- Magazine for Military Families
  • Commander in Chief - House.com - Tips for Coping with Deployment
  • Tony Fletcher's IJamming
  • Solo-ops- Book Review
  • Operation Soldier Support
  • The Oregon Herald.com
  • WISTV: http://www.wistv.com/Global/story.asp?S=1839293
  • KCNC TV CBS 4Denver
  • Summer Reading Program Rita Maduell Army Child Services New Family Support Program

Couldn't recall if this was one of the things previously deleted, but adding it anyway. Will research for links if its relevant. Recommended Reading

  • National Association for Educating Young Children
  • National Military Family Association
  • Recommended by the American Press Institute
  • US Army Family and Morale, Welfare and Recreation Command Child & Youth Services
  • Association of the United States Army
  • United Through Reading
  • DOD Dependent Elementary and Secondary Schools Sources for Parents to Explain War
  • Army Community Services
  • Army Child Services
  • 4-H Operation Military Kids
  • Testimony to the US Senate by COL Elisabeth Stafford, MD, FAAP, FSAM - Resources for Youth Serving Professionals Caring for Children and Adolescents with Deployed Military Parents
  • Mental Health Resources for Operation Iraqi Freedom/Operation Enduring Freedom Veterans and Their Families - Compiled by Michelle D. Sherman, Ph.D.
  • AOL School – Stories for Primary School Children
  • San Antonio Military Pediatric Center
  • Pediatric Psychology- Gyro Psychology Services
  • Coping with Terrorism and War– Leslie Packer PhD
  • School Library Journal
  • Military Homeschoolers
  • Life Transformed
  • Ft. Bragg FRG
  • Pennsylvania Dept. of Military and Veterans Affairs
  • Missouri National Guard
  • Iraq War Veterans. Org
  • TCK International
  • Operation Soldier Support
  • Spouse Buzz
  • Commander In Chief House.com
  • Georgetown University; Resources for Youth Serving Professionals Caring for Children & Adolescents with Deployed Military Parents
  • Summer Reading Program Rita Army Child Services New Family Support Program


I did not include promotional appearances and press surrounding them that could be construed as commercial such as the Intrepid 'Hometown Heroes', Winner's Circle For Children (Kentucky Derby), Florida's Hometown Heroes, Waldenbooks, Barnes & Noble or MCEC. —Preceding unsigned comment added by JSane (talk • contribs) 02:21, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sources don't have to be on the web. But if they aren't on the Web, you need to have the full reference---just like you did when you worked on that dreaded paper. People have to be able to look it up if they are so inclined. Sources that are on the web, but removed are generally no longer valid. In other words, suppose that Time Magazine has two versions an online version and a print version. An article appears in the print version that is not on the online version, that article will forever be a valid source. On the other hand, an article appears in the online version, but is removed 3 months later---with no trail/archive. That source is no longer valid. Why? Because the print version can always be found. Somebody could go to the library an look it up to validate the source. The online version you can't do that.Balloonman (talk) 02:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What about sources that could potentially be used for the "media expert" claim like radio or tv shows? Is there a way to source those? --JSane (talk) 02:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We have to have a source that says, "she is a media expert" on the subject or something. The fact that we might be able to find a few hundred sources where she is interviewed as an expert is considered OR. To be included it has to be an independent source that calls her that. (again it has to be independent of her or her book---her book cover/bio is explicitly deemed a non-reliable source.)Balloonman (talk) 20:00, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A possible source for a comment along those lines might be Brats.com. They have a series of podcasts where they interviewed brats and/or authorities on brats. Did they every interview Michelle? If so, they might have introduced her as an expert?Balloonman (talk) 17:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Brats.com doesn't have any podcasts. It's a website for "business registry." Also, given the claim, I assumed we needed to verify she was interviewed on her expertise, not that she has been called an expert.--JSane (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, wrong site, I should have suggested military-brat.com... they have a bunch of podcast with different authors. But I checked, Michelle is not one of them.Balloonman (talk) 21:59, 20 March 2008

(UTC)

I see the site now. military-brat.com is a website/blog written by one person as far as I can tell. Based on the claim "Sought out by the press as an expert in the military community", I think it would probably be more substanial if we could find the citation from actual press instead of a website. Perhaps one of the many tv, syndicated radio or news sources listed here that have interviewed or written about the author rather than use a source that can't be verified as independent or news. A couple references stand out the WBIX BOSTON- Boston Business Journal Morning Show "Dealing with Deployment" or the two syndicated Radio shows about parenting. --JSane (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Things to do[edit]

There are several {{Fact}} tags in the article. We should:

  • Find citations to verify the statements
  • Reword the statements
  • or delete the statements

We should improve the references, incorporating some of the old references (above) into inline citations, perhaps adding statements that could use some of the references, and formatting them better.

We should examine the text for POV, especially because some of the early text was written by someone who may have had a conflict of interest. When the tone is unarguably neutral, we can remove the COI tag. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:35, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I want to help. Please see my research on statements requiring citations above. But since I've been identified as a "spammer", I don't think I'm allowed to. --JSane (talk) 21:38, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not to worry. You are not under any kind of restriction. Please do continue to contribute.
I've read your research and I appreciate that it was well-intentioned but I'm afraid that it is not acceptable. It may be entirely accurate but it violates one of our policies: WP:No original research. The only acceptable way to verify the truth of those statements is to find references that say essentially what those statements say. If a newspaper (e.g.) says xyz then we can say xyz and provide the newspaper as a citation. If we can't find a source that supports a statement, we can't make the statement. Sbowers3 (talk) 21:55, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Related to what Sbowers3 said, it should be noted that the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth. This statement frequently surprises people, but it's one of the core policies behind Wikipedia. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:13, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That's my favorite phrase: "Verifiability, not truth". I often quote it. Sbowers3 (talk) 00:04, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I hope the format of my response is correct! I feel like I've been to Wiki bootcamp :). It's nice to know I can still contribute. But, I see how the research doesn't work for the citations. Will review again. --JSane (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
For example, you gave about 5 links that show her books to be on various lists. Those links are pure spam and immaterial---and detract from any claim of notability. From a wiki perspective, this is clear Original research (OR). A better source would be the Fay Observer article where it explicitly states that her books are among 28 to be included on a specific list.Balloonman (talk) 22:33, 17 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reworded some sentences to remove claims requiring citations. I think we might be able to substantiate them with some of the new references I've read, but I don't have time to do that now and thought it best to remove them in the meantime. I need to get back to my job or I may not have one! --JSane (talk) 03:20, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Should these go somewhere besides reference? Children's Book of the Year MWSA & Children's Book of the Year 2004 Runner Up. --JSane (talk) 03:24, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I would try to find some documentation for those---some source to substantiate these claims. The reason why, is that IMHO, they are some of the stronger arguments that she might be notable within the specified community. While the awards are not "notable" on the larger scale, they do support the notion that within her niche she might be.Balloonman (talk) 17:57, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sources for the awards are listed above in references, as discussed. Sbowman3 added them here after they were deleted from the article by Balloonman. As for "niche" or "specfified community", one award is from the military writers society, wherein the specialized notariety the author received you might be referring to is from the military community. That is unusual for a children's author to be recognized by such a specialized community. The other award however is from a book festival run by an independent arts organization. Especially for this article which is the bio of a childrens book author, I would not regard books or the arts as a "niche" or specialized community per se. --JSane (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just for the record[edit]

Does any editor in the last six months have a personal or business connection to the subject? The original author did and that was a conflict of interest. But if nobody since then has had such a connection then I think we can remove the COI tag. Sbowers3 (talk) 12:51, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPA accounts with(170+) few edits other than related to The Books for Brats/Michelle Ferguson-Cohen.
Accounts
Booksforbrats (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) [2]
JSane (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) [3]
147.134.177.69 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) [4]
72.229.10.154 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
70.187.47.205 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
Ragenot (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
One of Wikipedia's pillars is neutrality. Conflict of interest is about self-promotion in general. It is quite evident that the accounts and IP are only contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent promotion will result in accounts and/or IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia. --Hu12 (talk) 18:18, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Prior to the Article for Deletion Request and the COI where my contributions were explicity requested on my talk page. my contributions included creating subject headers, adding a bibliography, removing large amounts of text and some trivial edits. Since you've taken the extreme measure of threatening to block my IP, I'm curious to know how this or any other of the contributions made by the users identified above are regarded as "advertising" or especially "self-promotion". I do see a conflict of interest on this article as opposed to other children's book author articles and a lack of neturality, but it does not in anyway appear to be from my end or to the benefit of the subject matter or any of its editors, but rather to the detriment. I would like to know how it is "evident" that I am only contributing to promote please. What exatly am I or any of these others editors promoting? I think it's really only fair if we're keeping things neutral here. --JSane (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just saw your comments on your talk page, and for the record, the photo I uploaded was googled (which I believed to be an acceptable and encouraged means to find references) and found on the Books for Brats website. It is my understanding that those kind of photos that are publicly available have NO copyright limitations on Wiki. --JSane (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Let's take a look at the edits of these users:
  • 147.134.177.69 - changed the wording of an existing EL from slightly positive about Booksforbrats to something neutral. Hardly something that "promotes" the company.
  • 70.187.47.205 contributed once (two consecutive edits) almost a year ago to add a Category to the article. How is that a "promotion" of any company?
  • 72.229.10.154 is JSane when she forgot to login. When she posted from the IP she occasionally manually signed JSane to identify herself.
  • Booksforbrats had an obvious COI - but his contributions to this article were more than a year ago.
So we come down to JSane. Let's look at the latest edits that you keep reverting:
Please tell us exactly what is wrong with these edits. What is promotional about any of them? What is not neutral? What is not verifiable?
JSane should be applauded for improving this article. She does not deserve to be bitten. Wikipedia should not lose her useful edits and future contributions. Sbowers3 (talk) 23:53, 23 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've actually gone one step further and given Hu a warning for incivility... The use of some bot to show that SJane doesn't edit elsewhere does not prove a COI exists or that unbiased edits cannot be made.Balloonman (talk) 00:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Bot?.. I don't have a bot, Balloonman. Its apparent your one step, is one too far. Your lack of reviewing the contributions and the accounts/IP asociated with it, along with acusations of incivility is in itself incivil. I seriously question weather you fully understand these guidelines adequetly enough to be in a position to warn another administrator. You have even been accused by the subject in question of vandalism and personal vendetta'sand accused of Bite and incivility perhaps you should distance yourself from this topic? BLP neutrality, and conflict editing are not to be taken lightly, perhaps a request for CheckUser and sockpuppet investigation can assure that COI has not occured, or that Little Redhaired Girl Publishing, Inc[5] isn't acting out of process.--Hu12 (talk) 03:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hu12 I've been very clear that I don't have a COI and I can't see in any of the other edits or contributions above that any of these people have a COI either. It appears that anyone who says anything good or bad about the the author or Books for Brats on Wiki is identified as having a COI. In fact, I was encouraged to continue to add my contributions despite being put off by that claim. Can you please address Sbowman3's analysis of the COI claims above? --JSane (talk) 05:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COIBOT... also, yes, personally JSane and I don't get along. And I do question some of her earlier efforts... but since she has been made aware of policies/guidelines, she has tried to act within their bounds. To wantonly revert her efforts because of a perceived COI, without discussion is IMO inappopriate.Balloonman (talk) 05:51, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
COIBOT is red-linked and empty (see links above). Nothing there. --Hu12 (talk) 07:26, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I thought that was what was being used to identify these accounts. My apologies there. Personally, I would not be opposed to having a 'check user' run on these accounts. I am inclined to give them the benefit of the doubt, but if it would make you feel better about them, go for it.Balloonman (talk) 07:32, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hu12 I am not sure why you are listing me as spam. I have not made ANY edits to the Ferguson-Cohen page. My only related contribution was to the delete discussion page to argue that the Ferguson-Cohen page should not be deleted based on wikipedia rules (the delete page has been removed since - so it seems that others agreed). As a result of the tone of that discussion I decided not to comment further - only to find out your entry above declaring me as spam. I am new to wikipedia but I am not sure I deserve this abuse. --RageNot (talk) 06:35, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just for the record: So far, the COI has played out this way. Of all the Usernames and IPs listed as "spammers":
  • JSane and 72.229.10.154 are mine. I have stated numerous times that my Username and IP are not a COI. In fact, my contributions were minimal until being called back after an AFD was posted on my talk page.
  • Ragenot has posted that he has no COI. He made no contribution to the article, but to the deletion debate page. From what I can see he has also edited Military Brats, but not in relation to the author, but the term "brat".
We have not heard from Booksforbrats or the other two IPs named. Here are the contributions of the remaining IPs identified as "spammers". None of whom have contributed to the debate on the AFD page.
  • 147.134.177.69 - made no contributions here, but changed the wording of an the MILITARY BRAT article that mentioned the Books for Brat series changing "the very first" to "a series of". Not sure how this is promotion of the author or the company.
  • 70.187.47.205 contributed once (two consecutive edits) almost a year ago to add Military Brats Category to the article. How is that a "promotion" of any company?
  • Booksforbrats had an obvious COI - but his contributions to this article were more than a year ago.- When comparing that Username's contribution to the existing article[1] only 3 statements remain, all of which have since been cited:
  • During the first deployments of the Iraq War, Ferguson-Cohen worked with Family Readiness Groups nationwide to host readings of the books and bring language to small children faced with separation from their parents.
  • They were recognized by educators and librarians for their unique multicultural illustrations and representing female soldiers.
  • Sought out by the press as an expert in the military community, she became an advocate for military brats.

Besides these, Hu12 and numerous bots, over the past year this article has existed there have been about 8 other editors as well. One of them, Felisse returned to the debate discussion to defend her edits and declaration of the author as "notable". --JSane (talk) 20:44, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ [1]

Objectively analyzing notability[edit]

In my opinion, this article makes a better case for establishing the notability of the person's works than herself. It's curious in the extreme to me that there are apparently no articles on the books themselves, as they are the typical focus of the majority of references currently employed by the article. Since she is called the "Dr. Suess for military brats", it might be useful to compare and contrast this article with Dr. Suess. Even though a sliver of notability has been attached to the books, by pointing out they are recommended by some local mental health professionals, it might be useful to note that the books themselves appear to be of minimal importance to the publishing industry, unlike the works of Dr. Suess.

We need to ask and answer the question, "How much notability attaches to a person whose major contribution is two books that are 12 pages each?" Then we need to assess the impact of those 24 pages. One measure that this article currently ignores is some objective determination of sales strength. One way of doing this with books that are long past the heyday of their original issue dates, is to take a look at the Amazon.com Sales Ranking

  • Daddy, You're My Hero has an Amazon.com Sales Rank of #2,286,916 in its (long out of print) paperback form, while it's hardbound 1st edition sits at #338,977 and the 2d edition at #1,107,927.
  • Mommy, You're My Hero has an Amazon.com Sales Rank of #1,845,943 for its paperback form, with #751,496 for its only hardbound edition to date.
Amazon is not a notability standard. However, please use accurate numbers instead of rankings for out of print editions and reference where you got these numbers. In addition,you are referencing the sales ranking incorrectly in terms of its import to sales, particularly for an early education title. These numbers are simply wrong for the most recent editions of the books and do not reflect the sales of the books. Please search Amazon more carefully. You will also note the Daddy, You're My Hero title is currently sold out.--JSane (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Let's compare this with The Cat in the Hat. This seems a fair comparison to me, because we're testing the most popular (and also, only) books of the "Dr. Suess for military brats" vs. Dr. Suess' most popular book.

  • The Cat in the Hat: Hardbound (#655) Paperback (#184,765) Even the library binding comes close to beating F-C's most popular edition (at #346,499), and it's significant that there is no library binding of F-C's works.
It is not significant there is no library binding of a work published by a small press, particularly one available in most educational and library catalogues. It's also not relevant to compare every children's book authors sales to Dr. Seuss' on Wiki. That is not a Wiki standard nor a publishing standard. --JSane (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not saying that Amazon.com's rankings are the definitive test of notability but they are indicative. Another measure is whether the books were award-winning in any way. Far as I can see, they weren't, except for the dubious award from the Military Writers Society of America. (The MWSA is a pretty new organization working out of a post office box in Larkspur, California, having only started handing out awards in the year that F-C won hers. And the award she won was unique to that year. It's not like winning a Newberry or Caldecott or something.) Nor were they the basis for any adaptations into other media. The closest to success these books have come is some acclaim amongst some mental health professionals in the United States dealing with the very narrow segment of the American population at which the books are aimed. It doesn't even fully do this, given that the series is only available in English. Heck, even the Spanish version of Cat does better than either one of these two books. So, at the very least, the quote about being "Dr. Suess for military brats" cannot be allowed to stand in this article, without some sort of objective challenge to that notion. This author can't fairly bear that comparison, in terms relative sales, importance to the publishing industry, amount of published work, widespread critical success, or even content/style of material.

Your comments suggest that any content geared toward a minority population is not relevant or notable by Wiki standards. I would disagree with your assessment and find it too narrow particularly in the world of literature. --JSane (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

However, I think it goes a bit deeper than just countering a single quote in the article. I just don't think 24 pages of a commercially mediocre book "series" gets you a Wikipedia page. You could take a lot of this material and apply it to articles about the two books — or, perhaps better, the series. The utility of these books for English-speaking American military families during the second Gulf War is just barely notable (and citable) enough to make a go of pages about the book. But I'm not sure why we're expending energy to try to find notability for this person, since it's entirely centered around these 24 pages.

Our job is to debate notability by Wiki standards which has already been done. I question your objectivity based on this statement. You seem personally upset that the author of children's books meant for military brats is the topic of this article. Please reference your statement about "comercially mediocre". Citations are required. It is certainly within your rights to feel we should not be 'expending energy' here, but if you feel that way I'm not sure why you spent so much time writing this derogatory post. --JSane (talk) 08:14, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
CzechOut  ☎ | ✍ 03:12, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
After a long Wiki-break, I find it hard to believe this mess is still going on. It's becoming clear, people without any interest in or knowledge about publishing or children's books are going after this author for some political reason. I have scoured Wiki's children's book authors and have found this article to be one of the best citedI've encountered.
  • First of all, the author was called "Dr. Suess for Military Brats" by the press and a citable reference to the Washington Times has been noted.
  • Secondly, if we're going to compare this children's book author's notability to Dr. Seuss, in order to be objective, we must do the very same for all other children's book author on Wiki. These are not Wiki's standards for notability.
  • Furthermore, if you're going to use Amazon numbers, please use numbers from a current edition of a book. This book is in its third edition, which is a pretty good indication in publishing circles of a success. You have to sells tens of thousands generally to ensure this event in the publishing world. If you to quote sales rankings from Amazon as a standard for notability, yet you use the rankings from a old and discontinued editions. It makes no sense. Also, your concept of sales vs. rankings in terms of publishing success, make no sense. You are making a leap about book sales and Amazon sales rankings that don't make sense particulary for educational texts. This book is often sold as an educational text and through non-profit organizations and FRGs. Those sales are not indicated via Amazon. If you are going to engage in judging a book by publishing success, please educate yourself on the matter first.
  • Why don't you compare this article to other articles on children's book authors in Wiki? If you had done your research, you would see this author is fairly substantial in terms of cited references and press commentary.
  • Furthermore, the publishing world has acknowledged this is not a "fairly narrow population" at this stage, with almost 2 million military brats out there and major publishers as well as the Children's Workshop creating content for this market. That sounds like a personal assessment, rather than the assessment of the publishing world.
  • The relevance of these books is that they were pioneers in books specifically created for military brats. Military Brats and deployment did not exist only during the Gulf War. This is a viable and important community that has heretofore been neglected in the publishing world. The children's book world also acknowledges pioneers of books written for Native American children and children of gay parents (see above).
  • You attack the notability of the author based on the fact that there is no Spanish edition of her books. If this is a standard by which we are now judging all children's book authors on Wiki, that needs to be established as a policy.
  • The author's notability was not confirmed based on any "awards" in fact, the awards were deleted from the article prior to it's acceptance to "keep". They were included again as a reference, since they were the first children's books to receive a military writers' award.
  • I'm confused about the reference to a 24-page book "series" what does that mean? The book series includes two books that are board books for children. I think if you are going to reference publishing terms as defense for your claiming the books are viable, then please use them correctly.
  • If you believe an article on the book series is relevant as you claim, I suggest you start one. I will be happy to contribute, as I'm sure will others with an interest in this area.

This post shows an incredibly lack of objectivity. I have great difficulty seeing how any of the standards by which this Czech person is judging this article is relevant to any other Wiki article or any Wiki article on a children's book author. If they are suggesting that these are the new standards by which all children's book authors be judged on notability and we change the policy on notability, that is another story. For some reason everytime a reference or citation or source is added here that helps the article or defends a statement, it is summmarily removed. That is not objective editing. --JSane (talk) 06:00, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Based on your standards vs. Wiki's this children's book author Leslea Newman is also not notable. Her only award is from a niche community and the audience of gay mother's would not be considered a large enough audience for you. The books Amazon ranking has ranged from 100,000 to 2,000,000 depending on the day or edition. I HEARTILY disagree with you on your assessment and believe that Leslea Newman and Michelle Ferguson-Cohen are both notable authors. --JSane (talk) 06:16, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Short answer[edit]

Okay, there's a long answer to the original comment. Here's a short answer. The analysis of Dr. Seuss vis-a-vis Ferguson-Cohen is original research and so not relevant. What is relevant is that a reliable source drew the analogy to Dr. Seuss. The subject has more than enough references to demonstrate notability, without overanalyzing the Dr. Seuss comparison.

And JSane, "attack" is much too strong a word to describe CzechOut's comments. He asked a legitimate question. I doubt that he came here with any kind of a "political" agenda. Many Wikipedians wander around and comment about all sorts of things they happen to run across. Sbowers3 (talk) 01:43, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Always a voice of reason Sbowers3 :) Perhaps "attack" was a bit strong. I'm just wondering what the point and motivation of this post was. There seem to be few relevant arguments about actual sourced information in the article, and how many times are we going to do this notability and COI debate? --JSane (talk) 03:02, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008[edit]

Removed Military History tag as article is out of scope. --dashiellx (talk) 01:34, 20 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Michelle Ferguson-Cohen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Michelle Ferguson-Cohen. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 10:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Michelle Ferguson-Cohen. 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) 13:04, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Michelle Ferguson-Cohen. 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) 11:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michelle_Ferguson-Cohen&oldid=1207206403"