Jump to content

Talk:Sarah Ashton-Cirillo/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

It should say "trans woman" in the first sentence.

It should say that she is a trans woman in the first sentence of the lead, because it refers to her as "she", which is very confusing without the clarification that I am proposing. Polar Apposite (talk) 06:20, 22 September 2023 (UTC)

@Polar Apposite: Per longstanding consensus, we refer to trans people by their chosen pronouns. There's nothing confusing about using "she" to refer to a woman, so there is nothing for us to clarify. (In cases where pronouns might actually be confusing, like people who present as a binary gender but take they/them pronouns, we usually do note this by footnote.) The lede explains Ashton-Cirillo's trans-ness to the extent that it is relevant—in the third paragraph, describing her status as the first transgender war correspondent. But it would not be due weight to mention it so early on, given that it is a secondary aspect of what she is notable for. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 06:50, 22 September 2023 (UTC)
Trolling and misgendering tagged onto a thread that ended months ago
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There's nothing confusing about using "she" to refer to a woman, so there is nothing for us to clarify.
Right, but surely Polar's point is that there is something confusing about using "she" to refer to a (Redacted). Actually I think even better than getting out front with the fact that Cirillo is trans would be just including that information wherever it due weight suggests, but using correct pronouns throughout to refer to (Redacted). 24.147.20.133 (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
If I understand you correctly IP, you are worried about the confusion that might arise if we use feminine pronouns to refer to someone named "Sarah"? Dumuzid (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Did you know nomination, ALT2.

Forgive me for butting in on a function where I have no experience, but couldn't the two points be combined into one DYK thought?

  • ALT2 = ... that Sarah Ashton-Cirillo, the only transgender journalist covering the Russian invasion of Ukraine, has said that Ukrainians are less concerned than Americans are about her being transgender?

Source: https://xtramagazine.com/power/trans-war-correspondent-sarah-ashton-cirillo-ukraine-227220
Thank you for your time, Wordreader (talk) 23:28, 7 October 2022 (UTC)

Hey, Wordreader! Unfortunately, this article had its moment in the sun on September 29, so we couldn't really change that retroactively. I'd welcome more of your thoughts around DYK, though :) feel free to jump in with reviews and nominations! theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 00:22, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

Twitter deactivation

Moved from User talk:Tamzin
 – Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Hey, did Sarah get suspended by Musk on twitter in the latest purge? Not seeing any prominent RS about it yet but it's something that probably belongs in the article. Volunteer Marek 18:29, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Volunteer Marek: Moving this here since this article has a decent amount of watchers by now, and is a joint effort with theleekycauldron.
Hmm. Account's definitely gone. (Gone gone. Our DMs from when I got her to release those two photos have vanished, which seems to indicate it's not a voluntary deäctivation.) At [1], someone's asked her what happened to her Twitter, but no response yet. Probably best to wait on a response from her, since a Twitter account going dark isn't inherently noteworthy, and sadly my DM-related evidence is, what do they call it...
Sidenote, @anyone, is there any way for us to figure out who took the aforelinked Instagram pic? Would be great if it's {{PD-USGov}}. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:24, 18 December 2022 (UTC)
Note that she was suing Twitter as of August (Denver Co. Dist. Ct., 1:22-cv-02692, complaint from October) although per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:DUE I don't think we can include that at this time. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 00:14, 19 December 2022 (UTC)
Looks like she’s back. Volunteer Marek 05:48, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

RS wishlist before taking to GA

Well I've put a lot more into this, but fear I'm running into fundamental limitations with the quality of the sources. The way I see it, we need the following for this to be GA-ready:

  • In-depth, non-interview RS coverage of her military service. Current state of caveated in-text attribution for key claims is acceptable from a policy perspective, but not GA material
  • Either in-depth RS coverage of one of these four, or moderate-depth RS coverage of two:
    • Her political journalism/activism in Vegas, beyond stuff about her time with the GOP
    • Her time in Syria on the Syrian border, beyond the brief mention in Zivo (Xtra) 2022
    • Her reporting in Ukraine, with more of an emphasis on journalistic activities than personal details
    • Her personal life

@leek (or anyone else), do you agree? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 08:55, 17 November 2022 (UTC), ed. 23:31, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I have my doubts that in-depth RS coverage of her time in Las Vegas would be much of a boon – other than that, I think that's about right in terms of what's needed :) theleekycauldron (talk • contribs) (she/her) 09:06, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
Noting another brief mention of Syria in Zivo (LGBTQ Nation) 2022, but nothing that wasn't in the Xtra profile. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 23:30, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

@Theleekycauldron: Alright, bit more work to do still, but I think criterion one above has been met by Lavers 2022, and I'm done-ish for the day so this seems a good time to stop and check in. Gonna do some more trimming, and some more migration from primaries to secondaries where possible; any thoughts on what's needed beyond that, before I put it up for GA? Thoughts from Marek or anyone else welcome too. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 10:08, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

Self-assessing source quality

Mostly a note to self but may be of some use to GA reviewer / others. Using sources from Special:PermaLink/1129782518. Excluding ones used only to verify tangential details (Appleton 2019, Appleton 2021, Shuham 2022). Sources cited 5 or more times are boldfaced.

Prestige broad-audience national/international sources:

Other broad-audience national/international sources:

Limited-audience national/international sources:

Prestige local sources:

Other local sources:

Notes

  1. ^ a b c d Interview.
  2. ^ Blog post.
  3. ^ a b c Opinion piece
  4. ^ Non-independent.

-- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 03:47, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Sarah Ashton-Cirillo/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Vami IV (talk · contribs) 00:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)


Preamble from Vami

Hello, and thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. My name is Vami, and I will be your reviewer. During this review I may make small edits such as spelling corrections, but I will only suggest substantive content changes in comments here. For responding to my comments, please use  Done,  Fixed, plus Added,  Not done,  Doing..., or minus Removed, followed by any comment you'd like to make. As my comments are addressed or rebutted, I will cross them out, and only my comments.

If I have demonstrated incompetence or caused offense, please let me know. –♠Vamí_IV†♠ 00:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Political journalism and advocacy

  • Some were indifferent to it, while Republican attorney Sigal Chattah saw it as a positive and referred to Ashton-Cirillo as a "unicorn". "Unicorn" may need a footnote or a link to wikitionary since while everyone knows what a unicorn is, the reader might not be familiar with its use in this context.
    plus Added link to Wiktionary. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Also worth introducing the Proud Boys. As of time of writing, the people reading this article are almost certainly going to know who they are, but we can't assume that for future readers or readers unfamiliar with contemporary American politics.
    plus Added brief explanation in body and even briefer explanation in lede. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • This led Ashton-Cirillo to contact a group of far-right activists, at least one of whom was a member of the Proud Boys. [...] One of those banned was a Proud Boy who Ashton-Cirillo had contacted when recruiting for the Clark County rally. Are these the same guy?
    It's actually not 100% clear to me? The way I read Scherer 2021, probably, but it's a bit complicated because initially the article doesn't name who A-C contacted, and then later says Yankley (the banned party in question) was on her list and is a self-described Proud Boy. @Theleekycauldron: Any thoughts? -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • [...] Ashton-Cirillo haled him at a press conference [...] Did you mean "hailed" here?
     Fixed -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:37, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Foreign journalism and military service

  • There, two men invited her to come to Kharkiv, saying other journalists were fleeing it because it was too dangerous. Recommend replacing "it" with "the city".
     Done -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • She developed close ties with the Ukrainian army and police, sometimes delivering food and weapons to them. Would be worth clarifying this. To Ukrainian military and police brass, or just the guys in and around Kharkiv?
     Clarified, to the extent the sources are clear on it. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
  • Her work included interviews with gay men fighting for Ukraine[33] [...] But a comma after "Ukraine".
     Fixed -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 15:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

GA progress

Good Article review progress box
Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV ()
3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant ()
Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

MOS:DATETIES

Understood, Tamzin, that she is fighting in Ukraine. A significant part of this article talks about her work in Nevada in 2020. This is the biography of an American who happens to be fighting in Ukraine, not the biography of a Ukrainian. MOS:DATETIES of the U.S. are MDY and this article should be as well. (BTW the infobox birth date is still presented as MDY after the revert.) – Muboshgu (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

She is indeed partly known in a context more associated with MDY dates. But better-known in a context more associated with DMY ones. I'm not saying that DATETIES requires DMY here; rather, it's that it doesn't require MDY. Thus, like any "toss-up" article, we should use the established style absence a strong argument to switch. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:54, 26 February 2023 (UTC)

@Red-tailed hawk: I'm not going to revert further on the redlink, because I do think it tends to benefit Wikipedia to have it, but I'm not sure I really agree with your logic. Vanamonde explicitly said in closing the AfD that none of the links provided had "[been] demonstrated [to] constitute substantive coverage", ergo the article as draftified was a GNG fail. Draftification isn't necessarily a sign that someone is notable... Indeed in general I'd say it's the opposite; we only really draftify notable topics if the article is very low-quality, since AfD is for the most part not based on current quality. (IMO this is a bad principle, especially for BLPs, but I don't make the rules.) Anyways, like I said, I agree that linking Lira is in the best interests of the 'pedia, but I don't think we should act like it's compliant with the letter of WP:REDLINK. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 18:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

My understanding of some material in reliable sources that could plausibly grow was that it was an attempt to say that "the material in reliable sources can be used to grow the article". Your reading makes more sense. But I'm now very puzzled; why would we keep a draft if the consensus was that a topic is non-notable? — Red-tailed hawk (nest) 19:02, 21 March 2023 (UTC)
I assume because this is a case where the subject's notability may grow in coming months and years. We do a similar thing with a lot of YouTubers. The way I read it, the "quality" reference in ATD-I is about very low-quality pages encountered during NPP. Insert my usual rant about how, 10 years in, there is no real policy or guideline on when or how to draftify pages, and the explanatory essay on it is probably one of the worst-written and least-consensus-supported explanatory essays on the wiki. ATD-I on the other hand is policy, but I can't say it's very illuminating in this case. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 19:38, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

More background information needed

article lacks a full background of this individual. 67.193.175.93 (talk) 14:51, 3 August 2023 (UTC)

It doesn't look too bad to me. It might be nice to add details of which university or college she went to, if that information is available from Reliable Sources but, given that she has powerful and violent enemies, we don't want to provide any information that might put her, or those close to her, at any risk. BTW, I'm not a fan of the way the citations link to the sources so you have to jump two steps to check anything. That's just a bit weird. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:27, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
@DanielRigal: That's sfns, a very common referencing style. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 17:37, 3 August 2023 (UTC)
While SFNS may be common, in Wikipedia articles I've usually seen it used for books, and rarely if ever to cite news articles. This is almost certainly because it's less reader-friendly—when skimming through an article, it's helpful to be able to hover on the footnote and see the full source. When the source is a news, it's far more convenient and informative to see the name of the outlet, the article title, all authors, and the specific YYYY-MM-DD date)—as opposed to seeing only the year of publication and the last name of a writer, who may well be one of multiple journalists with a byline on that single article, who may simultaneously write for multiple publications, and who quite likely has written multiple articles on the same or a similar topic in any given year. Out of curiosity: is there any reason this form is preferable? Thanks! ElleTheBelle 20:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
My normal rule when writing an article is that I use regular ref tags unless I have more than 3 sources that need in-source locations, because excessive use of {{rp}} gets rather cluttered. O'Brien 2022, Raczkiewycz 2022, Ladisic 2022, CBS 2023, Vorozhko 2022b, and Crawford 2023 all have timestamps or page numbers, with 11 footnotes pointing to them. The other benefit of sfns is that it makes it easy to explain relationships between sources (e.g. "Owen 2022, citing Ashton-Cirillo 2022b", "Vorozhko 2022a. O'Brien 2022, 0:46, excerpting audio from Ashton-Cirillo 2022l") or to include quotes that apply to some claims but not all (e.g. Lavers 2022 on trans-ness and Muslims, and later on hating Russia, with an additional 20 footnotes that neither of those quotes is relevant to). Despite its faults, which I don't deny, the sfn system is the preferable one for complex referencing situations. -- Tamzin[cetacean needed] (she|they|xe) 20:23, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sarah_Ashton-Cirillo/Archive_1&oldid=1204294350"