Talk:Maggie Hope Braun

Latest comment: 1 year ago by Escape Orbit in topic Occupation of subject

COI editing

edit

@User:TheManInTheBlackHat Thanks for the reverts, I've already warned the user who appears to have a conflict of interest based on the username. That is the second time I've mentioned it to that user. I think their edits have all been reverted, so I think the COI tag isn't necessary. Do you agree? CT55555(talk) 14:17, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

That's fair, I forgot to check the edit summary. Removed, but it's been added to my watchlist. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 14:18, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
Thanks. I don't have the ability to roll back, so I'm glad you're watching this one. CT55555(talk) 14:19, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
I think more rolling back may be needed, notwithstanding there may be valid privacy elements made by the apparent COI editor. CT55555(talk) 14:40, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

Occupation of subject

edit

The subjects job title was sourced from her employer's website and the COI editor seeks to remove that on the basis of personal safety. That seems reasonable, but it leaves us unable to say/cite her occupation. I think we should leave it out, considering she is notable, but not very notable. Any thoughts @User:TheManInTheBlackHat or others? CT55555(talk) 14:23, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply

While the website and it's contents are public, I can understand why someone wouldn't want that on Wikipedia for privacy concerns. It should be left out. Now, whether that should be scrubbed from the edit history is another question. TheManInTheBlackHat (Talk) 14:29, 27 December 2022 (UTC)Reply
On reflection, I have removed this info, primarily for the following reasons;
  • It's not really a part of her notability and personal.
  • It's a primary source
  • The source used does not name her as Maggie Braun, but a by different name. The photo of her strongly suggests it is the same person, as she appears elsewhere on other sources. But combining this info, to determine that it's the same person, would constitute original synthesis.
I'd therefore suggest that it should not appear on this article, unless better sourced. --Escape Orbit (Talk) 16:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)Reply