This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Jewish Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jewish Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Jewish Women 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.Jewish WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Jewish WomenTemplate:WikiProject Jewish WomenJewish Women articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Biography: Arts and Entertainment 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 This article is supported by the arts and entertainment work group. 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.

In my opinion, NEEDS MAJOR EDITS

I have serious problems with this article. Many of the claims are not sourced. It honestly sounds like this article is written by Ms. Diamond herself. I am not a Wikipedia aficionado so I am not going to try to change much. I would like to see some evidence that her books are best sellers or that she raised as much money as she claimed. As a minor television personality and as an owner of what seems to be a financially unstable magazine (see Forbes magazine article), I question whether she deserves such an extensive entry. Furthermore I worry that Ms. Diamond has had an opportunity to inflate and exaggerate her accomplishments through two bios in which she seems to have exerted a major influence—maybe I am being paranoid. But my point is that if these claims are true, more sources are necessary to establish them. The two biography's I'm speaking of are this one and her Huffington Post biography. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.164.152.227 ( talk) 06:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC) reply

I think you are right that she wrote this herself. However that does not make her an evil person. She seems to be notable enough for a WP bio, but it should be written from reliable secondary sources -- as aways here. Steve Dufour ( talk) 16:20, 4 July 2009 (UTC) reply

Everyone's concerns here are extremely well-founded, and I recommend that this article be flagged for deletion. It has been brought to my attention that Diamond uses her unpaid interns -- whom she fires at will for the slightest annoyance -- to update this page per her instructions. Major conflict of interest issues and self-gloating as another user on this talk page points out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.72.120.167 ( talk) 15:17, 26 June 2010 (UTC) reply

This is some serious self-gloating with poor (inaccurate but mostly missing) sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.131.252.41 ( talk) 04:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC) reply

This article, among other things, insinuates that Wendy Diamond's contributions alone have reduced the number of euthanized animals. This seems highly unlikely, as her magazine is essentially Vanity Fair for dogs, and her claims that this was due to her and that this statistic is true is uncited. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.144.203.51 ( talk) 16:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC) reply

Some info about this is here. Personally, I think the info is appropriate for Wikipedia (considering how fast and loose we are with other matters of even less importance and verifiability), but should not be contained in a "Criticism" section. Rather, I would suggest "Dispute over dominance training for dogs" or something like that. Whatever the outcome, User:Jimbo Wales was wrong to have edit warred over something that was clearly not "staged". What an awful excuse for suppression of verifiable knowledge about a subject. -- Wandering Parsnip ( talk) 16:49, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Unless and until there is a 3rd party reliable source reporting on this as an actual controversy, it has no place in Wikipedia. There is no edit war here. There is policy, nothing more.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 22:51, 28 June 2010 (UTC) reply

There is a 3rd party reliable source (a report published by True/Slant, which is a New York City news network funded with $3 million in capital by Forbes Media and Fuse Capital and sold to Forbes in May 2010). It took me approximately 4 minutes to find on Google. I am happy that this will presumably end the edit war. - Any old someone ( talk) 03:23, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply

To quote the True/Slant article: Tempers can flare at the mere mention of Millan’s name. Take last summer’s reality show The Greatest American Dog, for example. Two of the show’s judges – Victoria Stillwell, another TV dog trainer, and Wendy Diamond, editor of Animal Fair magazine – got into a verbal knock-down, drag out fight after Diamond praised a contestant as the next Cesar.

Happy to have been of assistance! - Any old someone ( talk) 03:26, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply

The argument was also covered in more detail in Entertainment Weekly, another 3rd party reliable source. - Any old someone ( talk) 03:43, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I see no evidence that this interchange on a television program was or is in any way relevant to Wendy Diamond's overall career. In particular, notice that the Entertainment Weekly article which mentions it is not a special story just about the dispute, but a simple recap article, and they do this for other episodes of the show: [1] lists at least 5 of this show, and one of another show, all of which recount incidents that are similarly not notable or interesting in any way.

WP:UNDUE is relevant here - the article, as it stands, will incorrectly lead the reader to assume that there is some kind of importance in Wendy Diamond's life or career to this incident, when there is none.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 13:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I have to agree as well. All we have is an episode recap and a throw-away line. Is there any evidence that this brief fight was in any way significant? Any coverage specifically of the argument, rather than just a general recap or a passing mention? At the moment it continues to feel like far too much weight on a single, minor event in a reality TV show. - Bilby ( talk) 02:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Apparently the two users arguing above for inclusion have been blocked as sockpuppets of a banned user. I'm going to wait until tomorrow before removing the bit in question, in case anyone wants to weigh in further.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 12:47, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply

I'd just want to add my 2 cents to the discussion, and while I don't condone sockpuppetry, it is my opinion that the sockpuppets' position here was more defensible than those provided by the long-term contributors... -- Hrotovice ( talk) 19:38, 30 June 2010 (UTC) reply

Can you explain further? As Bilby says, "All we have is an episode recap and a throw-away line" - there appears to be no argument that this is important to her life story or career. Remember, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of trivia, and so we need to present information in accordance with its relevance.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 13:05, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Well... Wendy Diamond was hired by the producers of "The Greatest American Dog" as an expert on dog behavior and care, I would assume. Therefore, her nationally-televised interaction with another expert and to have invoked the reputation of Cesar Millan in such a way that it led to a heated argument, is (in my opinion) relevant and important to Diamond's career, as it goes to her position on dog behavior, just as we document Julie Bindel's views on transsexual reassignment surgery, based on an appearance of hers on BBC Radio 4, and just as we document the fact that George Lakoff has a different opinion than Steven Pinker. The fact that at least two independent reliable sources took effort to mention this dispute between Diamond and Stilwell, and that it was the focus of perhaps more than 30 different blog postings, lends credence to the side that says this is "due" and "relevant" to a biography about this particular dog expert. Jimbo, do you have special expertise about Cesar Millan or about dog training? It would seem that you have the more pressing burden to prove that this incident did not reach the level of fair inclusion. There is nothing inherently damaging or defamatory to suggest that Diamond passionately believes that dominance training can be an acceptable method, and that she's willing to vigorously stand up for her belief in the face of an opposing expert's view. In fact, from my reading many of the web-based comments about this incident, the public seems to support Diamond quite heartily in this matter. If we're going to start bickering about the suitability of different events in a subject's lifespan, should we look at the Chuck Cunningham Syndrome in the Happy Days article? Should we ask whether or not the Shoe-banging incident was important enough in Nikita Khrushchev's career? How important was the 2007 Neiman Marcus Christmas Book to Regis Philbin's career? No independent source in Wikipedia documents that. Shall we remove it? What about the entirely unsourced section about Brian Williams' appearances on The Daily Show and Late Night with Jimmy Fallon. Are these relevant to the career of American television anchor and managing editor of NBC Nightly News? Why are you picking the Wendy Diamond article to make your stand? Do you know her personally or have you had communication with her privately? Do you consider her a friend? If so, that makes you a COI editor, and you should step away from this article, just as User:Animalfair was asked to leave, and just as User:Luckyanimalfair should be asked to leave. -- Hrotovice ( talk) 21:52, 1 July 2010 (UTC) reply

A while back when this article contained actual vicious libel (possibly oversighted, although probably in the history if you look for it, I don't remember) I was contacted in a routine way by Wendy Diamond, as I am often contacted by biography subjects. I passed her complaint on to OTRS where it was handled almost perfectly, although one small line was left in that was in error (about her wearing fur). I removed that line and considered the matter finished.

At that time, Gregory Kohs contacted her (his obnoxious behavior towards me and others should be well known) and said some amazingly offensive things to her. I complained to him and he apologized.

Since that time, I have not spoken with Wendy Diamond about this article, and certainly not about the issue under discussion here. I have no conflict of interest of any kind in editing this article. Even if she did contact me with concerns, that would not cause me to therefore have a conflict of interest. It is routine work.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 04:05, 3 July 2010 (UTC) reply

(outdent) I would be carefull using the "other crap exists" arguement since this project is not perfect...YET! (no offense intended Jimbo). I removed some unsourced material about this "event". Based on the current size/state of this bio, I would leave this "incident" out as undue weight. If the article reaches the detail of say, Sarah Palin, then it might make more sense if this was some truely "big deal" and widely covered. Anyways, -- Tom (talk) 10:37, 2 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Tom, following your advice I have removed the section entirely. I agree with you that if and when this article reaches some realistic level of detail, it could in theory go back in - but even if the article where of very high quality and comprehensive, this particular event seems to be of no particular importance.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 12:29, 7 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Sounds good to me. Just a note, I would go by how widely this "event" is covered and how "big" a deal it "really" is, ie repercussions, ect, to determine its particular importance, not easy of course :)Cheers! -- Tom (talk) 14:40, 7 July 2010 (UTC) reply

I agree. I'm open to new evidence, should any arise. If I get time - which I won't, this week - I may try to improve this article some more.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 15:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Did I read you are in Poland? I spent the Summer of 86' in Krackow, amazing folks/country...enjoy and safe travels...-- Tom (talk) 20:51, 7 July 2010 (UTC) reply

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Wendy Diamond. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080406183853/http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Apr01/0,4670,ODDDogBoneAwards,00.html to http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Apr01/0,4670,ODDDogBoneAwards,00.html

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 II} _{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:34, 22 January 2016 (UTC) reply