Talk:Carole Lieberman

This article was nominated for deletion on 5 March 2011 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Authorship

Did Dr Carole write this herself? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.169.68 (talk) 08:16, 9 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It's also been scrubbed of this: http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=gdjd&searchTerm=ejiO.jSIa.aadi.YecN&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW --Alexc3 ^(talk) 22:29, 12 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue for removal of the page as well. The primary purpose of the page as i read is more to bash Dr. Lieberman for criticizing Bulletstorm than provide any factual information about her. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.45.180.108 (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be removed as it doesn't bring anything up that's relevant. The only noteworthy thing this woman has done is the whole video game incident.

On the contrary, the list of publications in this article is a tremendous help in putting her latest claims in a proper context. The page really should stay, or at least that listing should... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.32.74.71 (talk) 13:44, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claims

Can anyone verify her claim of "winning three emmy awards"? The Emmy site http://www.emmys.com/award_history_search shows nothing for her name or the name of her show... Bitnaut (talk) 20:19, 14 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

POV issues...

Um.. I can't stand this lady as much as the next guy... but the entire "Video Games Incident" seems rushed and in direct violation of POV. Lets see...

"she failed to cite a single study, statistic, or piece of evidence that proved her point... [She] has responded with a single study to support her case " -What?

"Interestingly, no mention of sexual crime is mentioned in the article, let alone a scientific correlation between the two, making Dr. Lieberman's claims seem like a ploy for attention rather than a call to address an important societal issue." -If I have to explain why this is not NPOV... Ploy for attention? Very subjective.

"Dr. Lieberman is now attempting to rectify her relationship with gamers by offering a more detailed explanation of her thoughts to anyone who would take the time to email her. This change of heart was in response to plummeting ratings of her book, "Bad Girls", on Amazon.com." -Again... subjective, or at least written subjectively.

"Nevertheless, she is staying by her position." -Okay... and what about that? 98.198.83.12 (talk) 22:22, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'd change this but as an IP, we tend to get reverted by bots or idiots who think that because we took something out of an article, we must be vandals... You guys go ahead and see what better way this can be written. 98.198.83.12 (talk) 22:24, 21 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Frequently what happens is IPs remove things without providing a reason. If what is being removed isn't obvious vandalism, then yeah if there's no reason given as to why it's being removed, it's almost certainly going to be reverted. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

BLP, advert, and third-party tags.

I am restoring tags on this article that were removed without the problems being addressed.

That it's an advertisement is seen is things like claiming she is the "go to" expert without that point of view being sourced to anyone. That it lacks sources is shown by whole sections having no source at all. It relies too much on non-third party sources goes to usage of things like ExpertPages and experts.com (clearly subject-submitted descriptors) for the sections that are sourced at all. Please do not remove these tags without the problems being fixed.

Additionally, I am again removing her post-nominal degree letters from the opening sentence, per the guidelines at MOS:DOCTOR. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:12, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Credentials

Can anyone give a good reason why the article should include her MD and MPH in the opening line when such is specifically contra-indicated by the Wikipedia Manual of Style, as seen at MOS:DOCTOR? --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:32, 20 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Carole Lieberman. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160304215710/http://healthprofessionalradio.com.au/2015/11/13/health-supplier-segment-terrorism/ to http://healthprofessionalradio.com.au/2015/11/13/health-supplier-segment-terrorism/

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 01:10, 16 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Official website

Just a quick note that I have changed the official website. The site we were linking to does not appear to have been updated in a decade; the front page talked about a book as coming in 2009 (although there was another page discussing some controversy over statements used by Fox that was labeled as Feb 14, 2011.) The new one is linked to on her twitter profile (as is the old one) and identifies itself as her official site (as did the old one), so I'm erring to the side of recent updating (new site includes her recent tweets; old one had plenty of Adobe Flash, a defunct technology.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:28, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Notability

I have tagged this article for notability. The existing sources are examples of Lieberman being used to talk about other matters, rather than going into depth about Lieberman. This runs afoul of WP:BASIC, where we're looking for significant coverage of the subject. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:43, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that her claim on her website to having won three Emmys would qualify her as notable, if they were national Emmys (most are actually local) in her name. However, I've not found a reliable source citing those awards, and even what appears to be her 2017 CV only uses the term "Emmy" to refer to her being a consultant for a show that was nominated for an Emmy, which is neither a win nor attributable to her. (Looking a bit more closely, her old site refers to her as having "garnered Emmys", but her newer site and Twitter refer to her being "Emmy-Honored", which could be a way of making a nomination sound like a win. But I'm not finding a reliable source for even a nomination.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:33, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

There is an latimes article that mentions here soap work -- https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1992-12-13-tv-3668-story.html and there are some articles about her that could be added, like https://variety.com/2013/tv/awards/tv-creators-tackle-mental-health-1200496412/#! and https://newrepublic.com/article/125596/hollywood-psychiatrist-thinks-knows-theres-dearth-female-directors-womens-daddy-issues -- and I saw an Emmy pictured for her work in 1999-2000 for Young and the Restless on her site http://drcarole.com/dr-carole-emmy.htm and referenced on the Huff Post (although probably provided by her) https://www.huffpost.com/author/carole-lieberman-md and there are her TV appearances mentioned here https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0509370/?nmdp=1 so it seems widely accepted that she was at least involved in those soap operas. Ihaveadreamagain 21:30, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]