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 sourcedmust 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.
This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC
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
Stephanie Dowrick is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.AustraliaWikipedia:WikiProject AustraliaTemplate:WikiProject AustraliaAustralia
This article is within the scope of the Australian Women in Religion WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australian Women in religion. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.Australian Women in ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject Australian Women in ReligionTemplate:WikiProject Australian Women in ReligionAustralian Women in Religion
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Literature, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Literature 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.LiteratureWikipedia:WikiProject LiteratureTemplate:WikiProject LiteratureLiterature
This article is within the scope of WikiProject New Zealand, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of New Zealand and New Zealand-related topics 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.New ZealandWikipedia:WikiProject New ZealandTemplate:WikiProject New ZealandNew Zealand
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
The COI alert tag has been attached to this article for months now with no change. The Template:COI page says that "if you place this tag, you should promptly start a discussion on the article's talk page to explain what is non-neutral about the article. If you do not start this discussion, then any editor is justified in removing the tag without warning."
No discussion was ever started.
Can it be removed? Or what changes do you think need to be made to remove this tag? At the moment, it's coming across as a 'badge of shame', which it should not.
Julietteobrien (talk) 23:25, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Julietteobrien, thanks for coming to my talk page. You can always get another editor's attention by pinging them, that is, including {{ping|Schwede66}} in the notice above would have notified me of your query. Sorry for not outlining my concerns at the time of placing the tag. In short, as per the WP:CoI guideline, you should not be "contributing to Wikipedia about yourself, family, friends, clients, employers, or your financial and other relationships". There was/is a lot of intricate detail in the article that isn't referenced that would strongly suggest that we've got a conflict of interest situation here. For example, you will have seen that I have removed names and dates of birth of family members. No problem having these, but only if there is a reliable source for it; these details need to be in the public domain. So, would you like to declare what your relationship to the subject is? As per the guideline, editors are expected to disclose this. Whether the tag can or should be removed depends on what your situation is. Over to you. I've added the article to my watchlist, so will see your reply. Schwede6602:06, 23 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Schwede66, thanks so much for your response and I'm sorry for my delay! Thanks also for your instructions about pinging and declaring my relationship. This is really helpful and I do appreciate your direction and patience. It's my first time setting up a Wikipedia page, so there's a lot for me to learn! Yes, I understand about declaring my relationship, and I am happy to do so. (Please let me know if this needs to be done in a particular place other than right here). I was able to include that specific information because I do know Stephanie Dowrick personally, albeit in a professional capacity. I am also a writer and Stephanie has been my teacher and reader of my manuscript, and I have attended the interfaith services that she runs. The information on the page that was not on the public record has come from a combination of her website (which I understand is not neutral so should not be used as a reference), information distributed to her writing students, and some knowledge just from knowing her. My motivation for creating a page is not to promote her (in which I have no vested interest) but rather for her profile and work, which has spanned decades and is very prominent, to be captured on Wikipedia. I've been waiting these last couple of months hoping that someone else would come and edit the article and remove those tags, but in the absence of that happening, can I propose to you this course of action: 1.) I go through the article closely and make sure all the information is already on the public record and is absolutely neutral. I think that there are still several items in there that will need to be deleted; 2.) You (or another editor who is watching this page perhaps?) read and comment on whether you think that article is now acceptable; 3.) I go ahead and remove them. I hope that my doing this will be acceptable enough to the Wikipedia guidelines. Please let me know what you think? Thanks. {{ping|Schwede66}}Julietteobrien (talk) 11:35, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've now removed the COI tag for the following reasons: 1. The tag has been there for months without any other eds addressing it; 2) I've declared my relation to the subject on the talk page; 3) I've reviewed the content and struck out all language that could be interpreted as non-neutral unless it is referenced. I'm open/keen to discuss all these.Julietteobrien (talk) 11:35, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't respond or react to your 8 May post. I'm not sure what happened at my end. With regards to your COI declaration, thank you for that. With regards to the removal of the tag, I for one shall be happy with your copyedit and the removal of the tag; it certainly reads much more neutral now. There is absolutely no guarantee, though, that other editors will tolerate the removal of the tag. Hence, you may see it being reinstated by another editor. Please note the following from the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guideline: "COI editors are generally advised not to edit affected articles directly, and to propose changes on talk pages instead." Ok? Schwede6609:00, 31 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Schwede66, thanks for your note and absolutely no need to apologise, I do understand. Thanks for your feedback on the article. I'm glad you agree with the changes and do agree that it is much improved, so thanks for helping it to be so. Yes, I do understand re the possibility that other wiki editors could raise their own concerns and if that's the case, I'll do whatever is necessary/appropriate. A note for future eds reading this - re the issue of the COI ed making the changes, my rationale was that I did wait a long time, and also hoped the above counted as proposing a course of action and inviting response, but seeing as no other eds replied, I went ahead with it myself. I just didn't think the tag needed to languish there for months because it does look very negative. Have tried to be as transparent as possible so hopefully it's satisfactory. Julietteobrien (talk) 23:17, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Remove tags related to notability and advertisement
@DGG: A fair bit of work done on this article to rectify issues related to content written like an advertisement and general notability queries. I have a few more edits to make but hopefully it's at a stage where tags can be removed. Would other editors please take a look and remove tags if satisfied? If not satisfied, would appreciate any insights / guidance. Thanks.
This page now has scores of references - many of them high profile and independent, including Dowrick's entry in The International Who's Who of Women 2002, mentions / reviews in major Australian newspapers and media, and mentions in non-fiction books about the history of publishing. I think the notability tag can be removed. I have also revised the copy thoroughly to remove advertisement-like words and phrases and believe the advertisement notice can be removed also.
I understand it would be preferable for another editor to determine whether or not this is the case. But as I have no conflict of interest (professional relationship with Dowrick declared above) and have thoroughly addressed the issues that the notices raised, I believe it is within the guidelines of the Help:Maintenance template removal page for me to remove. I will wait a little longer to see if any other editors will remove / contribute. Ping @DGG, Schwede66, and SwisterTwister: for your previous work on this page. Julietteobrien (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am going to go ahead and remove these tags. I've been as transparent as possible, do not have a conflict of interest, (have declared a past professional non-remunerative relationship with Dowrick above), have addressed the issues the tags flagged as thoroughly as possible, have tried to seek consensus about it, and have waited a couple of months for other wiki-editors to respond. Julietteobrien (talk) 16:12, 25 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
.svg){kind=logo}
.jpg){kind=small}