Talk:Lyse Doucet

message: There's a 2002 article about Lyse on the Guardian web site: http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2002/jan/08/broadcasting.bbc
Would it be appropriate to link to it?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dinch (talk • contribs) 22:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [Untitled]

message: I've added a disambiguation reference to Élise Lucet because, with Lyse Doucet's name following a French manner of pronunciation, the names sound confusingly similar.  Philh-591 (talk) 17:00, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Similar sounding Élise Lucet 

message: Especially the introduction and Early Life and education paragraphs read a lot like a linkedin intro, leading me to believe that the article has at least in part been created by LD herself. While this is not really an issue in principle, adding comments like "Doucet speaks English and French (and is always trying to improve her Dari and Arabic.)" seems like a misuse of Wikipedia. (Note there are no sources for this claim either.)Archach (talk) 02:07, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely agreed. I recall seeing her interviewing someone in Egypt years ago when there was a new constitution coming out and she walked into a cafe on camera and managed to fumble out the words "constitution? good?" with very poor pronunciation. The men in the cafe did not look impressed. I find the claim about Arabic highly dubious. 2C0F:F698:C108:DED6:15F6:8C6B:B48F:C7F4 (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2024 (UTC)

text: I agree.  Wikipedia needs to decide whether it aspires to being an encyclopaedia, in its articles about living people, or a premotional vehicle.  Currently, its lack of editorial standards (I'm not referring to the rules by which Wikipedia 'editors' operate, but to the editorial expertise and control that would apply to a real encyclopaedia) results in a lack of consistency and quality.  So many articles about living people lack the sort of information that would be expected in a properly and consistently edited encyclopaedia (in this case, schooling, personal details, spouse / partner, children, etc) and, instead, are overloaded with a cv, often self-aggrandising, such as might be attached to a job application.  This really is something that needs to be addressed for Wikipedia to be taken seriously.  As it is, parts of it are little better than the sort of self-promotion that would be expected of social media.  Unfortunately, its modus operandi (volunteer editors but no overall editorial control, so no quality standards - a set of rules really does not address this gap) does not lend itself to a consistent reference work and makes it highly vulnerable to being usurped as a means of promotion, as seems to be the case here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.218.171 (talk • contribs) 09:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: IP 86. Just like every other editor, you are free to improve this article. If you think this article is just "self-promotion that would be expected of social media", by all means go ahead and improve it, and give explanations in your edit summaries of what you're doing and why. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:27, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

text: Why ever do you think LD needs to massage her WP article to make it more promotional? She isn't some sort of reality TV 'celeb' trying to build a career. If you think there are WP:COI issues with the article, you should present some evidence. --Ef80 (talk) 21:02, 11 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Self-serving article? 

message: Is there any supporting text in the article for this Category? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:45, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: The BBC source "here says "Canadian with Acadian, Irish and Migmaw ancestry". So I guess that's just an alternative name for Mi'kmaq. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:42, 1 September 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[:Category:Mi'kmaq people]] 

message: On the radio this morning, she introduced herself as leeze. 86.4.118.201 (talk) 10:13, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Just after 7 a.m. on BBC Radio 4's Today? Not convinced. To me it sounded more like this. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text:  For sure it is li:z.  I say that as a Canadian and a French-speaker who knows many Lise/Lyses, and who also has training in phonetic transcription.   Thanks IP.--Slp1 (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not doubting your phonetic transcription skills for a moment. And I'm sure all your lovely French-Canadian Lise/Lyses are all really super and that... But can we go anywhere that's regarded as WP:RS?? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it sounds like you are doubting my skills, as well as those of the IP.... Do you have a reliable source for li:s?  --Slp1 (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Your skills as a transcriber or your skills as Lise/Lyses-knower? Do we have a WP:RS reliable for either? Talk page claims don't really make it. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:24, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Phonetic transcriptions are often unsourced, as you seem to know, as you earlier argued for li:s  based on what you personally heard in a youtube video or on Radio 4.   In this case, two editors disagree with your perception of what you heard.   One has phonetic ear training, IPA transcription and other experience... whether you have any respect for subject experts is up to you, although some wikipedians seem to see their value at times WP:EXHELP  But I agree with your basic suggestion though.  If you want to overturn the consensus here, please find some reliable sources for li:s.  --Slp1 (talk) 22:11, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Shucks. I knew I should have kept up with those phonetic ear sessions. 😢 Martinevans123 (talk) 22:56, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pronunciation of first name