IN DEFENSE OF THE JENNIFER O'NEILL ARTICLE, AND A NOTE TO ALL READERS: 

IN DEFENSE OF THE JENNIFER O'NEILL ARTICLE, AND A NOTE TO ALL READERS:

     This article has been "tagged" at its beginning since one single Wikipedia editor,MikeWazowski, believes it to be objectionable and defective in three particular respects.      
     First, he finds the article to be defective in HIS opinion and reasons that it "...relies on references to primary sources or sources affiliated with the subject, rather than references from independent authors and third-party publications." It should be noted that this article does contain some references to Jennifer O'Neill's 1999 autobiography Surviving Myself, which was published by William Morrow and Sons Publishing, New York. Apparently, MikeWazowski  does not consider one of the biggest publishing houses in America to be a reliable third-party publication source. The total absurdity of this position speaks for itself.
     Additionally, under Wikipedia policy guidelines, personal and official websites CAN be used as a source and as a citation.  See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Using_the_subject_as_a_self-published_source
     Secondly, MikeWazowski finds this article defective in that in HIS opinion this article contains  "...wording that merely promotes the subject without imparting verifiable information."  The factual material in this article is accurate, and true and correct WITH citations.  MikeWazowski offers his conclusory general opinion that this article is simply Jennifer O'Neill (self-)promoting  without citation to a single example of it in the entire article.
     Third, MikeWazowski find this article defective in that in HIS opinion the article contains improper references to "self-published sources."  Once again, he apparently consider her autobiography which was disseminated by a third party publishing house, William Morrow and Sons, New York, to be an "unreliable" "self-published source".
     Finally, the validity of these negative criticisms must be viewed in light of the source of the accusations in the case.  The reader only needs to go to the user talkpage for MikeWazowski to find it is filled with questions from numerous other editors to explain his edits, strike-outs, and deletion of entire pages and articles, which he simply totally ignores.  It is also significant that MikeWazowski has been invited to make corrections to any material he finds objectionable, but has refused to do so. 
      This fact can and should speak volumes, more than any words.