Talk:Madinah Wilson-Anton

As a courtesy to other contributors, could we discuss complicated or controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries...

This is the second time KidAd excised coverage of Ms Wilson-Anton's leadership role of a demonstration supporting the rights of immigrants.

When I reverted the first excision my edit summary was ""As a courtesy to other contributors, could we discuss complicated or controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries..."

KidAd, the edit summary you used when you repeated your excision "section cleanup" is essentially meaningless as a justification for the excision.

Could you please return here and either offer an explanation as to why you think the RS coverage of the demonstration does not merit inclusion in the article, or restore the passage?

The body of the article doesn't explicitly say she took a leadership role, but the video clip attached to the article showed her on stage, holding a microphone, and giving what looked like a stirring speech to the demonstrators - which I think is sufficient to have used the phrase "leadership role" as per WP:SKYISBLUE. Geo Swan (talk) 16:10, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

Instead of getting nasty, I will respond to your passive aggressive word salad with brevity. This edit introduced a giant blockquote into the middle of the section. In addition to being ugly and bad for readability, a statement on immigration from a candidate for the Delaware House of Representatives is not directly relevant to her biography. So I cleaned it up. If you really want to include it, that's your responsibility per WP:ONUS. KidAd talk 17:16, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

1. I am sure you have found, in real life, the occasional person who will interpret even the most tactful questions and expessions of concern as if they were personal attacks. You will find people who make this mistake here on the wikipedia too. I encourage you to not follow their example.
2. Make no mistake, inadequately explaining controversial edits, solely in a brief edit summary is the most common trigger for edit warring. Edits, well, like yours, are a huge trigger for the parties that disagree with them to respond in kind, and leave their replies in their own edit summary, by reverting your reversion.
3. "Discussions" that occur solely in edit summaries should be avoided, for many reasons, including:
   1. Uninvolved third parties can't follow those discussions, can't understand what they are really about, without painfully stepping through each edit, one at a time, and figuring out its meaning by also examining the actual edit to see what was being changed. Even then they may not be able to understand what is going on.
   2. Uninvolved third parties have no way of knowing they should be looking at the article's revision history for a discussion.
   3. After a few days, or a few weeks, even the parties in the conflict can't follow what the dispute was about, without stepping through each edit, one at a time.
4. I suggest that, when you saw I reverted you, with the edit summary "As a courtesy to other contributors, could we discuss complicated or controversial issues on the talk page, not in our edit summaries..." you should have explained your first reversion, here, on the talk page. I think you should have considered making your explaination of your first reversion, instead of immediately making a second reversion.
5. You wrote that the passage you excised was "ugly and bad for readability". Well, that is not grounds for excision. It is grounds for a re-write.
6. You went on to say the passage was "...not directly relevant to her biography...". Okay, if it really weren't relevant, that would be grounds for excision. So, how about explaining WHY press coverage of her taking a leadership role in a public event is not relevant to an article about her?
7. WRT WP:ONUS, I think you have that backwards. That passage wasn't "controversial", until you challenged it. As the challenger don't you think you were the one who had a responsibility to explain why you thought you should challenge it?
8. I am not an RS. I know I am not an RS. You aren't an RS. Jimbo Wales is not an RS. No wikipedia contributor is an RS. After he died it was determined that the much loved Roger Ebert, who had said positive things about the wikipedia, had quietly made about three dozen edits to the wikipedia, as just another wikipedia contributor. Even Roger Ebert, whose broadcasts and columns we would recognize as a RS, was not an RS, when editing as just another wikipedia contributor. I point this out to you to remind you that neither you or I should edit based on our own opinions. You are free to think Ms Wilson-Anton's leadership role at a demonstration about the rights of immigrants does not merit television coverage. Go ahead and hold that opinion in your personal life. Go ahead and act on that opinion if you start a blog, start a youtube channel or even start your own newspaper, or your own radio or television channel. But the fact is that the editor in charge at WBUR disagreed with you. He or she sent a film crew to the demonstration. That film crew quoted Ms Wilson-Anton. That film crew filmed her on stage giving a stirring speech to the demonstrators.
9. Now you may have been hinting that, since she was was running for the State Legislature, her role in a demonstration over the rights of immigrants wasn't relevant, because immigration was a Federal responsibility. Is that what you meant? If that is what you meant, let me say I think your decision to be brief wasn't fair. I shouldn't have to do this much work to figure out what you really meant.
   1. That the decision over who can or can not immigrate may be a Federal responsibilty, once immigrants arrive isn't their treatment by State and Municipal agencies, including State and Municipal police, a State and Municipal responsibility?
   2. Ms Wilson-Anton is an energetic young, articulate person. Win or lose in 2020, she may run for a Federal office in 2024, of some other date in the future. Is it your position that her position on Immigration is only relevant to her BLP once she announces her candidacy for a Federal office?
10. You seem to think I am picking on you. That is not my intention. I haven't called you names. I haven't mocked you. If you think I am picking on you, and you can identify what makes you feel picked on, please identify that element, and I'll try to avoid doing that.
11. I know my reply is long. My long reply is not a sign of bullying. It is my attempt to follow my own advice in Every question, every disagreement, is a teachable moment. Please read what I wrote in the spirit of cooperation I drafted it under...

Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 18:20, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Cropped Portrait of Madinah Wilson-Anton.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:26, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Cropped Portrait of Madinah Wilson-Anton.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:33, 21 October 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Madinah-WilsonAnton.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:40, 26 August 2022 (UTC)