Talk:Elise Andrew

Neutral?

Not sure if this person / facebook page belongs to Wikipedia, but even if it does this article is not neutral. Her facebook page "I Fucking Love Science" has also received a lot of criticism for not always posting science-related news, and getting involved in political and anti-religous agenda. --91.152.235.120 (talk) 17:28, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That's irrelevant to notability. ScienceApe (talk) 17:36, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Re-read. I made two separate points; one being I don't know if the article belongs to wikipedia (probably does?) and second being if it does the article is not from a neutral perspective and includes none of the given criticism. If anything, it's almost like a commercial for the fb page. --91.152.235.120 (talk) 17:43, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The first point is wrong, and the second point needs to have verifiable citations. ScienceApe (talk) 17:49, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

It's a question, it cannot be right or wrong. Those people who are interested in the subject can google those citations and edit. I'm simply here asking a question and mentioning the fact that the article is not neutral and suitable for wikipedia. --91.152.235.120 (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The article is about Elise Andrew, not specifically IFLS. If there are reliable secondary sources to back up criticism related to Andrew, as long as it's balanced, go for it. If it's specifically about IFLS, then perhaps an article about IFLS should be started and appropriate things be moved around and a see also added to this article. I was only using what I found that specifically focuses on Elise Andrew, source wise. SarahStierch (talk) 18:22, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

I'm not sure why the Neil DeGrasse Tyson tidbit is in the header instead of in a trivia section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.146.59 (talk) 18:46, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

The article still needs some work. Samwalton9 (talk) 01:04, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

sofixit. And please see WP:TRIVIA. SarahStierch (talk) 08:32, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't mean to say that it should have been done better, just meant to point out why the article doesn't read flawlessly. Samwalton9 (talk) 10:59, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

I don't think I know a single Wikipedia article that does :) Hence the concept of a collaborative editing project! SarahStierch (talk) 15:10, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request

Could someone add some of this to the article: First Link Second Link. --91.152.235.120 (talk) 10:23, 25 April 2013 (UTC)

One of those (the SciAm blog) is in there along with a summary sentence.--A bit iffy (talk) 17:54, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

Someone might like to check that she actually has a degree. Although she has stated that she does, she missed a lot of time in her third year at Sheffield University (not Leicester as stated in the bio box). Although she didn't miss a heartbeat on Facebook in that time. To the best of my knowledge, she wasn't allowed to sit the final exams due to absenteeism and was offered a resit. I do not believe that she took that offer. As a result, I propose that the only evidence of a biology dgree is from Elise herself. There are ways to check. Not least of which being asking her directly, which you would have to do in order to check with the University. As this is a wiki page and not just some blog, it is in Wikipedia's interests to make sure that the information given is correct. http://www.shef.ac.uk/ssid/verification — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.89.195 (talk) 13:16, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Hi there. 1) Wikipedia has to use Multiple reliable sources in their articles. Oddly enough, the University website isn't quite reliable, but, and it's trusted that the press is doing their research to make sure what she says about herself (and others say) is true. We have to assume good faith for many things. Second, we can't request verification as we don't have permission from Elise Andrew to do so, which is the first statement in the non-commerical organizations section. We also can't verify "our" relationship with the subject, Elise Andrew, to do so. Therefore we're unable to go through the university website to get this information. According to most news sources, she started the website while attending the University of Sheffield and then received her degree this year. SarahStierch (talk) 15:33, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• Hello, if you can find a reliable secondary source that has information about her having or not having a degree, it could be discussed in the article. Otherwise, that sounds like a pretty contentious assertion to make without proper sourcing. A 2:2 undergraduate degree is a pretty mundane credential, so it's not unreasonable to expect that the primary source is telling the truth in this case. Breadblade (talk) 15:44, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Fine. Some people know her in real life. If you're happy she's telling the truth, fine. (unsourced or poorly sourced information about a living person redacted by Breadblade (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)) That's what happened, sources or otherwise. 88.109.89.195 (talk) 19:29, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• I will assume good faith in that you want to put a more complete picture of this person on Wikipedia, but we can't include unsourced or poorly sourced information about a living person on here if it might damage their reputation, as per Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons. Original research will not suffice for such a claim unless it winds up published in a reliable secondary source. If you and/or people you know have notable information about this person, I would speak to someone in the media about it first before editing these assertions into the article. Breadblade (talk) 20:04, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

• From http://www.cjr.org/cover_story/elise_andrew.php -"Elise Andrew was hardly who I expected that evangelist to be: a 22-year-old college student from suburban England, armed with a nearly completed degree in biology and no experience in journalism, who began a Facebook page to share her passion for science.". "Nearly completed". She does not actually have a degree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.130.236 (talk) 15:14, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

Seems like an old article. The dates are close to here getting her getting her Bachelors based on the dates of her LinkedIn profile. Bachelors of science, Biology/Biological Sciences, General 2009 – 2013. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 18:28, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

"SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 2014". Also check the graph half way down. It runs to July 2014. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.130.236 (talk) 15:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

If she was born in 1989 and 22 during the interview, it took place no later than 2012. The article may be more recent, but her bio data reflects her status back then and is congruent with a degree in 2013.--Gorpik (talk) 15:20, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

References

Splitting hairs, Elise as a biologist

• Elise is listed as a blog writer, biologist and webmaster. Although Elise has a degree in biology, has she worked as a biologist? I think her current occupation might be better described as science communication, science journalism, popular science or science publishing. Might be better suited to say something like "blog writer and webmaster," or possibly "blog writer, science communicator and webmaster." (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

Update: I went ahead and made the edit. 23:40, 30 April 2013 (UTC) Breadblade

Disclosure

A note that the subject of this article is a friend of mine, and as a result, a conflict of interests may be construed. WilliamH (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

You are free to revert vandalism and violations of BLP, and you can add uncontroversial information. If there is a larger issue you are concerned about, post here or at WP:BLPN. I think you will find a lot of support for your wish to keep this article as neutral as possible. Binksternet (talk) 12:37, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

Oh yep, I'm aware of all of that. I've just been passing through and thought it does no harm to leave a note for posterity. WilliamH (talk) 13:11, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

The article does NOT seem to be neutral

User SarahStierch tend to be in close association with Elise, and both are Facebook friends. The article is includes excessive advocacy and contains wording that promotes the subject in a subjective manner. For example, the part about her being called "Neil deGrasse Tyson of Facebook" is completely unnecessary. Wikipedia is meant to be factual and not be be used as a means of advertisement. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wormatic (talk • contribs)

If you think it's not written neutrally then change it. Samwalton9 (talk) 16:58, 16 January 2014 (UTC)

I have attempted several times, however, the user Binksternet, also in close association with the subject - Both are Facebook friends - constantly attempts to revert my edits and engage in Editing War. Every time I tried to use more factual and neutralised words he changes them back. Is there a way I can report this user to wikipedia for his unacceptable behaviour? (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

You think I'm Facebook friends with Elise Andrew? That's a new one. All I'm seeing is that you hatethe fact that Morris compared Andrew to Neil DeGrasse Tyson. The bit helps the Andrew biography retain its notability and should not be removed. Binksternet (talk) 19:13, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Nice one! Simple Facebook search would give evidence to the contrary. The wikipedia is here to include facts and not to be subjective. That sentence regarding Neil DeGrasse Tyson is used for advertisement and is not wiki material. Before I started editing this page, the whole article was full of unreliable claims. She was mentioned as "a scientist", "a biologist specialised in evolution" etc. Please stop using Wikipedia as a tool for promoting people you are in close association with. She is also currently listed in science and academic category! She writes blogs and Facebook posts, she never goes to the lab nor teaches in the university. wormatic (wormatic) 19:22, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

Before you started editing this article on 15 January it looked like this. As anyone can see it says nothing about Andrew being a scientist, nothing about her practising as a biologist. It says she specialised in evolution during her studies, not professionally. So the article does not support your assertion. Or are you talking about some time prior to 15 January? In that case you are returning here with a newly registered account, after editing the article anonymously or with a different registered name.

The sentence about Tyson is from Morris of the Daily Dot, who says "What's far more interesting is the story behind Andrew's success: How has she turned a simple science page into a Web behemoth and became the Neil DeGrasse Tyson of Facebook?" Morris thought it was a valid comparison and so do the many editors here, except yourself and some person from Surrey.

You complain about "advertisement" but it is a fact that Morris wrote what he wrote. The comment put Andrew in a good light, certainly, but we should not shy away from it.

On Facebook I "liked" the page "I fucking love science" but I have not "friended" Elise Andrew. Those are two quite different things. You are wrong about me having some kind of close connection to Andrew.

If you continue to vent your anger at Andrew by edit-warring over this material I expect some administrator will block you. Binksternet (talk) 20:03, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't know about all the personal attacks being thrown around, but some parts of this do sort of read like a CV, such as "Writings for The-Scientist website," which I plan to trim down. Breadblade (talk) 15:24, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Tweeted wedding photos with tarantula

In this version of the bio I wrote the following:

On 13 September 2013 she married her fiancé Jake Rivett.[6] On Twitter she posted a photo of herself in a bridal gown holding a tarantula spider in her hand.[7] She said she would wait "a long time" to have children.[6]

Some of that information comes from Tim Teeman's "Why millions love Elise Andrew's science page" in The Guardian. Teeman quotes Andrew saying "I'm about to marry my fiancé, Jake. He's my best friend and I don't know how I'd cope without him. I don't want children for a long time, but we may get a springer spaniel."

I mixed up my references and said in reference #7, the actual Twitter post, that Teeman linked to a Twitter photo by Andrew showing her holding a spider. This was wrong: it was Barbara Fletcher's piece written for Ozy magazine: "Elise Andrew F*cking Loves Science", from 3 January 2014. Fletcher wrote:

Despite all the 'crazy' she continues to update the site daily and even invites people into her personal life via her personal social media pages. Like when she bought a pair of Catwoman pumps and when a creepy guest showed up to her Sept. 13 wedding.

The link posted by Fletcher under "creepy guest" was a Twitter photo posted by Andrew. It was plainly visible a week ago on 20 January when I added that bit to the article. However, the photo has since been removed. Google has cached it here, showing a watermark which credits the image to Justine Ferrari Photography based in Suffolk. (This photographer obviously shot the wedding, having listed it as a client under Elise and Jake at Long Melford Wedding.) Other photos of the same funny spider/bride combination were posted, such as this one with Jake Rivett and Elise Andrew both holding the tarantula, and this one with Andrew bending toward the photographer while holding the spider. All of these have since been removed from Twitter. Apparently, the IP editor 178.21.232.54 in Suffolk, UK, who repeatedly removed this bit, has administrator access over Andrew's Twitter account, even though Andrew lives in Canada. Directly after the IP ceased editing, the account EliseOfficial was started and began doing the same removals, leading me to think that there is an IFLS administrator working from Suffolk, one who is very protective of Andrew, one who just started a user account.

I want to share my impression of this sequence so that editors here will understand what happened to the tarantula bit. Binksternet (talk) 22:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

It makes sense. There did seem to be some COI stuff happening earlier today, so it's good to see some confirmation of that. Breadblade (talk) 03:22, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

I don't really see the value in adding the tarantula information to the article. I think it's fairly obvious that EliseOfficial is Elise, she is originally from the UK and it wouldn't be much of a stretch to assume she may well be there thus why the IP is based in the UK. Samwalton9 (talk) 11:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

My reasons for thinking otherwise are that Andrew works in Canada, and that Andrew tweeted the photo herself, indicating that she wishes the world to know her status. And wedding tweets such as this cake photo were left up, not deleted. I think the Suffolk IP is a close friend or family member who was given admin rights and is overprotective. But I'm not 100% sure... Binksternet (talk) 13:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

Lower-case

"I fucking love science" should be written with only the "I" in upper-case, as the official Facebook page displays the title in this way. I have changed all instances that I could see.--Soulparadox (talk) 22:23, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

I agree. Talk:Elise_Andrew#capitalization_of_.22I_fucking_love_science.22 24.97.201.230 (talk) 17:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

One of 8 Founders

This is not a content page, but a discussion page. Despite what people think, you don't have to cite sources here. Thus, the following comment has been restoredJackFloridian (talk)

The fact that she was one of 8 admins who founded IFLS, and that the moment the page started getting celebrity and media attention, she booted the others out, should be noted somewhere on this page, I think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.188.178.14 (talk • contribs) 01:00, 11 March 11 2014

I've looked into this, and I've found about two dozen people who all say the same thing: "I fucking love science" was originally created by eight people, not just Elise Andrew. And the moment they began to get media attention, Elise Andrew booted her fellow admins and claimed credit for everything. They also say she has a bad history of plagiarism.JackFloridian (talk) 18:22, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Interesting, but without specifying sources it's hard to comment about whether this should be in the biography. Binksternet (talk) 19:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Maybe you should have them talk to reporter or something? It sounds like a big deal. But without reliable outside sources it can't go into the article. Breadblade (talk) 21:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I actually found a record of a lawsuit being filed against her for plagiarism, but using it as a basis would be first-hand research. So... 107.145.197.15 (talk) 14:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

If there is a source that can be read by all it's not original research. Cite your source but as stated previously without specifying sources it's hard to comment about whether this should be in the biography. CanadianLinuxUser (talk) 16:07, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

There is now an article on Skepchick.org talking about Elise Andrew and her treatment of the other founders of IFLS, specifically how she booted them and took all the credit as soon as the site started generating revenue. I'll try and find a specific link.JackFloridian (talk) 16:32, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Found it. http://skepchick.org/2015/08/i-fucking-love-science-ex-admins-speak-out/ JackFloridian (talk) 00:27, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

capitalization of "I fucking love science"

re: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elise_Andrew&diff=602469725&oldid=602468306

Elise Andrew is the founder of "I fucking love science" not "I Fucking Love Science."

See the page: https://www.facebook.com/IFeakingLoveScience 24.97.201.230 (talk) 17:33, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

A preponderance of WP:Secondary sources spell it with all caps. Binksternet (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Secondary sources should be unimportant in this matter. Since we can access the original work (Facebook page, in this case), how others call the page is irrelevant.--Gorpik (talk) 15:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

MOS:TMCAPS says the opposite, and to follow how secondary sources write it. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Elise Andrew. 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/20130323115059/http://www.thechemicalblog.co.uk:80/interview-with-elise-andrew/ to http://www.thechemicalblog.co.uk/interview-with-elise-andrew/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140125182526/http://www.conferencescientificcultureunab2013.com/ to http://www.conferencescientificcultureunab2013.com/#!elise-andrew/cois

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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) 17:03, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

blogs.scientificamerican.com

The blogs are usually not usable for a WP:BLP, there may be exceptions... —PaleoNeonate – 08:57, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Site name - "I Fucking Love Science" or "IFLScience"?

Did they politely and exhaustively rebrand themselves at some point in the last few years? The website and Facebook page now use the name "IFLScience" exclusively, and a Google search limited to the iflscience.com domain returns only three minor blog entries that use the phrase "I Fucking Love Science". --Lord Belbury (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2021 (UTC)

Updated, a year later. Turns out they rebranded in May 2020 and sold to LabX a few months later. --Lord Belbury (talk) 16:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)