User talk:Bridget
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. |
Birthright citizenship in the United States
[edit]Hi Bridget. This edit by you caught my eye. I disagree with your assertion that the term "illegitimate" is not NPOV in this context. I have not reverted your edit because, AFAICS, the specific assertion impacted by your edit is incorrect irregardless of whether of not that term is present (see section 309 on pp. 237-238 here). IMO, this entire article section needs a rewrite in summary style to both better reflect the linked main article and to correct inaccuracies; I'm not going to attempt that myself, however, because I don't have the topical expertise to do it properly and cannot presently devote much time to doing that. Wtmitchell (talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 01:44, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
- Hi Wtmitchell, thanks for reaching out. I agree, and I think I actually totally misred where the editor added "illegitimate" in that case. I don't think that I would have even edited the article if I had read it as "illegitimate children", given my lack of expertise. Bridget (talk) 01:46, 7 May 2025 (UTC)
Separation of "Career" and "Controversies" on Hasan Piker article
[edit]Hi Bridget,
Thanks for your edit to the Hasan Piker article. I noticed you merged the "Career" and "Controversies" sections, and I wanted to understand your reasoning a bit more.
From my perspective, separating “Controversies” from the broader career narrative helps maintain clarity, neutrality, and alignment with the structure of other BLPs (e.g. similar public figures whose controversies are distinctly notable and independently sourced). I believe it also alligns with WP:CRITSP.Keeping the two sections distinct allows readers to differentiate between professional milestones and contentious issues, which seems consistent with Wikipedia's approach to due weight and sectioning in biographies.
Would you be open to discussing whether keeping them separate could be more encyclopaedically appropriate, given the volume and notability of coverage around certain incidents?
Looking forward to hearing your thoughts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForayHistory (talk • contribs) 14:42, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- This is a pretty clear case of WP:CSECTION – you are basically throwing all negative and/or critical coverage of the subject into a dedicated section. Specifically, a relevant quote from WP:CSECTION:
"Other than for articles about particular worldviews, philosophies or religious topics etc. where different considerations apply (see below), best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section."
If you would like to discuss this further, please start a discussion on the article's talk page. Best, Bridget (talk) 14:53, 10 May 2025 (UTC)- Duly noted, I must have misunderstood this:
- According to Wikipedia:Criticism:
“The topic of the controversy is best named in the section title (when there are distinct groups of controversies, the section title can be ‘Controversies’, with subsection titles indicating what these are about).”
- The intention was to have a clearer separation of career achievements and separate section for the contentious issues. But I shall follow your lead as a seasoned Wiki editor :) ForayHistory (talk) 15:16, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
I've reverted the changes. The article has a history of BLP/POV problems, and similar content has been repeatedly removed. --Hipal (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
- Agreed – thanks. Bridget (talk) 18:11, 10 May 2025 (UTC)
ITN recognition for Julia Alexander
[edit]
On 11 May 2025, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article Julia Alexander, which you nominated and updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 03:06, 11 May 2025 (UTC)
Leaning in
[edit]Hello Bridget. I noticed that in this message to me, you babbled on and on before getting to the point. In the future, it would be helpful to others if you remembered to Lean In. If this was a mistake, don't worry, you can always Lean In. If you think I made a mistake, or if you have any questions, you can make sure to Lean In. Thank you. Jjollyy (talk) 16:14, 16 May 2025 (UTC)
Women in Red June 2025
[edit]
Announcements:
Progress ("moving the needle"):
Tip of the month:
Other ways to participate:
|
--Lajmmoore (talk 06:02, 29 May 2025 (UTC) via MassMessaging
DYK for Samantha Kane
[edit]
On 1 June 2025, Did you know was updated with a fact from the article Samantha Kane, which you recently created, substantially expanded, or brought to good article status. The fact was ... that the Lady Carbisdale led an unsuccessful takeover bid for Sheffield United F.C. and, after a gender transition, was interviewed to become its chief executive? The nomination discussion and review may be seen at Template:Did you know nominations/Samantha Kane. You are welcome to check how many pageviews the nominated article or articles got while on the front page (here's how, Samantha Kane), and the hook may be added to the statistics page after its run on the Main Page has completed. Finally, if you know of an interesting fact from another recently created article, then please feel free to suggest it on the Did you know talk page.