Talk:Shellyne Rodriguez

Violent

She appears to be a violent individual. Very scary scenario unfolded. https://nypost.com/2023/05/23/nyc-college-professor-shellyne-rodriguez-holds-machete-to-post-reporters-neck/ 209.164.157.68 (talk) 18:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Looks like a racial hate assault against that reporter 173.89.235.86 (talk) 19:09, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

Evil and violent, if a white dude did either they are fired and jailed. It put a machete to ny post journalists throat, then chased down street with machete. It’s on camera… 108.176.96.188 (talk) 19:10, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The reporter had gone to the professor's home after the professor had previously been filmed in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOCK11VZlks

Neither that YouTube video, nor anything from the New York Post, would usually be considered a reliable source for a wikipedia article, especially when it is critical of a living person. We should be on the lookout for more reliable sources. I am 100% sure that these things happened, but wikipedia has higher standards for sourcing, which is perfectly reasonable and understandable.

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:35, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

FYI the New York Post was founded in 1801 by Alexander Hamilton. It is a long standing accredited conservative newspaper. It is a good source which is good enough for WP sourcing. I'd suggest attending college and learning how research before stating an accredited newspaper is not appropriate. My source concerning the the New York Post is from Wikipedia.

MissDaisy

retired print journalist with a degree in English and history MDaisy (talk) 01:30, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

@MDaisy, please see WP:NYPOST (and also WP:BLPRS). For Wikipedia purposes, the New York Post is not a reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 13:28, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

It is a reliable source as it is a mainstream newspaper as it’s been published for 200 years after it was founded by Alexander Hamilton. OSU says this too: https://guides.osu.edu/newspapers/why_use#:~:text=Because%20newspapers%20also%20contain%20commentaries,provide%20a%20valuable%20research%20tool. Yes, newspapers are good sources for writing research papers which should be good enough for WP. Sent from iPad MDaisy (talk) 05:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

National Review was founded by someone who had his own TV show on PBS, so it's got to be more reliable than the New York Post. That being said, I'm not sure if it's reliable enough for a wikipedia article about a living person. But it does serve as proof that this incident did indeed happen, so I'm putting this link on the talk page. This incident deserves to be included if we can find better sources. My guess is that Associated Press will eventually report on this. I would normally expect the New York Times to ignore something like this, except in this case it's something that is local to New York, so maybe that would prompt them to report on it.

https://www.nationalreview.com/news/fing-propoganda-cuny-college-professor-destroys-pro-life-table-at-hunter-college/

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 19:56, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

WP broke the story about Hunter Biden's laptop which was discounted by both media and government sources. All media sources have bias (even my newspaper did) but it seems to have gotten worse through the years. As I posted earlier OSU states newspaper reports can be used for research paper sources as secondary research. In this instance the Shellyne Rodriguez story was dependent on newspaper reporting as it was breaking news.Using newspaper sources would be appropriate as that was what was current. A good balance would be to include sources from both conservative and liberal sources to make sure there is balance in the WP article. MDaisy (talk) 20:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Ms. Rodriguez can be seen can be seen harassing pro-life students at Hunter College, using expletives and physically disturbing their table. https://nypost.com/2023/05/22/nyc-hunter-college-professor-cursed-out-anti-abortion-students-tabling-at-school/ 216.212.48.214 (talk) 19:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

The current "controversies" section doesnt mention her chasing the Reporters outside with the machette, nor that she physically assualted them by kicking. This section needs more detail added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.57.55.50 (talk) 23:19, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

I see that someone added this Daily Beast article to the article. That's a very reliable source:

https://www.thedailybeast.com/professor-shellyne-rodriguez-threatens-new-york-post-reporter-with-machete

Here's a BBC article on it - about as reliable a source as we could ever possibly hope for:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-65692232

SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 07:38, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Description as a Professor

Hunter College has apparently dismisses this person. Is it still appropriate to describe them as a professor? 72.213.143.247 (talk) 21:47, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

You can write former or fired profesor

MissDaisy MDaisy (talk) 01:31, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to revert her description to "professor." Given the fact that a committee of artists and educators has committed to supporting her, we can assume that they're trying to help her find new teaching positions somewhere else. In short, she's temporarily unemployed.

There is no legitimate reason to use the word "unemployed" in her description. Anyone who adds that word to her description is maliciously trying to keep her unemployed. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 18:20, 24 July 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia should be factual and it should be "former professor" 2600:1700:D591:5F10:8C92:3A65:9880:2BB4 (talk) 04:25, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

She is Violent and Disturbed

She made history with 05-23-23 by assaulting at journalist. 2600:4041:524B:9E00:1CB4:FA32:B10:5F28 (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Corrections:

She didn't "ask" them to leave, she told them to. Also, she held the machete to the throat of reporter Reuven Fenton and later followed Fenton and his cameraman to the street, threatening them and kicking one in the shins. (This is confirmed by same sources.) 166.199.7.23 (talk) 19:04, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

I've adjusted the wording per the BBC source. Schazjmd (talk) 19:08, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Great job! SquirrelHill1971 (talk) 22:14, 24 May 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. 166.199.114.64 (talk) 12:54, 25 May 2023 (UTC)

Local Sources

The only local source for the "violence" story is the NYPost. With the sole exception of a single ABC 7 news report on her arraignment, other local news outlets did not report the "violence" story. The only local source is the NYPost, which (to avoid a defamation lawsuit) now has a financial interest in her prosecution. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 00:59, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

link to the ABC 7 report: https://abc7ny.com/hunter-college-shellyne-rodriguez-new-york-post-assault/13299690/ Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 01:03, 10 July 2023 (UTC)

You’re not suggesting that an event didn’t happen simply because the NY Post instead of The NY Times reported it, re you? 108.147.2.23 (talk) 22:55, 11 July 2023 (UTC)

The event happened. There's a photo of her holding a machete to the neck of a New York Post reporter at her home. There's video of her telling them to: "Get away from my door! Get the f**k away from my door!"

What I am suggesting is that those two journalists should have gotten the f**k away from her door. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 12:25, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

videos of the incident at her home

When viewing the videos below of the incident at her home, one must remember that Rodriguez cannot make a public statement in this case. Anything she says "can and will be used against her in a court of law."

As a consequence, the only primary source is the account of the NYPost reporter. Below are links to his two videos.

Video one -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ObeKMZLGBG0 -- contains raw footage from the moment that she opened the door. A more helpful video would show us what happened before she opened the door.

Video two -- https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTC_LYXcc9I -- provides some information about what happened before she opened the door. It's the reporter's own account of the incident.

He must have spent a lot of time ringing her bell because at the 0:33 mark of the video, he recalls: "and she said, uh, what is now sort of becoming, uh, almost famous line about cutting me up with a machete, if, uh, if I didn't get lost."

That's a conditional statement. She never had any intention to harm him. She just wanted him to get lost. He even said so. At the 1:51 mark of the video, he says: "I don't believe that she, for a second, that there was ever any intention to actually do me harm." Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 12:33, 12 July 2023 (UTC)

To say that they "ring ring ring"'d doorbell is an editorializing the video, it is not a claim present in any of the sources, and in the video we don't see anything approaching the harassment implied in this characterization. I think it makes sense to remove the editorial comment until it can be substantiated. 2600:8805:A15:C200:9554:FD54:EFD0:BB93 (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Please see: WP:NYPOST. Wikipedia considers the source unreliable. The summary even claims: "a number of examples of outright fabrication." So, in fairness to the accused, we must also consider the possibility that this story was fabricated.

From the reporter's own account (video two, above), she had already told him to "get lost" before she came out swinging a machete. So by his own admission, he was doing something to drive her crazy at her door. At the door of her home.

He went to her home. She did not invite him. She told him to "get lost!" He did not leave.

So it is entirely fair to say that he "continued to ring ring ring her doorbell" until she came out screaming: "Get away from my door! Get the f**k away from my door!" Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 04:59, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Nowhere in any of the statements from the reporter does he say he repeatedly rang her doorbell, or “drove her crazy” or anything like that.

Going to the home of a << LIBELOUS CHARACTERIZATION >> is perfectly normal reporting practice.

Again, you are editorializing. You’re adding in this concept that he “ring ring ring”’d her doorbell (which I should add is horrible language use anyway) because you want to paint this as harassment - when it is simply standard reporting.

As there is no basis for the claim that she was harassed, and given your response here you’ve made it clear that is what you’re saying, removing the editorial comment is the only reasonable course of action. 2600:8805:A15:C200:57F:FC5C:E61D:E6C0 (talk) 11:05, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Also, I must say this seems like you are engaging in edit warring. There’s no consensus that your editorializing is supported by sources. I think, at least until a consensus is reached, the editorial comments you’re repeatedly adding back into the article should be put on hold. 2600:8805:A15:C200:57F:FC5C:E61D:E6C0 (talk) 11:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, and I will continue to edit war out your libellous statements about Prof. Rodriguez.

Please see biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.

Accusing someone of violence is libellous. Citing unreliable sources, like the NYPost, perpetuates the libel. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 18:12, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

You’ve wildly misunderstood the situation. She is on video threatening people with a machete, that is not up for debate.

The only poorly sourced or unsourced claims in the article are yours that she was harassed.

Edit warring is against the rules. You need to refrain from adding in your editorialization, and edit warring over it as you just admitted to doing, until a consensus is reached on the talk page. You’re clearly more than aware that there is an issue, and continuing to add your your comments on the issue back in without sourcing is the only thing going on here.

It isn’t libelous to say she threatened people with a machete. It IS libelous to say that the reporters harassed her. Again, she is a public figure who has just been involved in a news worthy incident. It is not harassment for reporters to come to her house.

Since you’ve openly admitted to edit warring, I think it would be smart for you to back off your editorial comments until you have sources for them or until a consensus is reached on language to be used. 108.147.2.53 (talk) 18:18, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes. People, like you, who accuse me of breaking the rules hide behind an IP address. Maybe you should create an account? Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 18:23, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

My having an account or not has nothing to do with this. You openly admitted to edit warring and you are not trying to reach a consensus with other editors, simply trying to steamroll your erroneous beliefs about this situation into the article. You again have no support whatsoever for either this characterization being common on Wikipedia or applicable in this situation. 108.147.2.53 (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

One Wikipedia editor thanked me for my edits. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

You ignored everything said to you and posted a non relevant opinion. 108.147.2.53 (talk) 18:41, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, per WP:3RRNO, Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. counts as an exemption to the edit warring rule. Yoshi24517 (Chat) (Very Busy) 18:53, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

He was adding content that was libelous to the NY Post reporters. 108.147.2.53 (talk) 19:04, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Plea for Fairness

As I and others have written below, Wikipedia considers the source unreliable. The WP:NYPOST summary even claims: "examples of outright fabrication." So, in the interest of fairness, we must also consider the possibility that the "violence" story was fabricated.

We must wait patiently for her case to be presented in court. She cannot make a public statement until after the case has been disposed. Until then, anything she says "can and will be used against her in a court of law."

Until she can defend herself, we must find her defense in the words of her accuser. Searching for her defense in the reporter's own account, I notice that she first told him to "get lost!"

Evidently, they did not "get lost" because she came out screaming. So in her defense, I would say that those two journalists were doing something to drive her crazy. At her door. At the door of her home. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 05:49, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Again, it isn’t fair to characterize reporting as harassment. In your plea for fairness you’re being unfair to reporters going to a home to attempt an interview. It’s strange to me that going to the house of someone who is in the news is an action you condemn, but drawing a machete on people, and holding it to someone’s neck, is something you want to wait and see about. 2600:8805:A15:C200:57F:FC5C:E61D:E6C0 (talk) 11:15, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Making an unwanted visit to someone's home is harassment. She did not invite them. They put her in the news against her wishes. Their behavior was contemptible and unacceptable. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

That is not the case. They are media reporters , she is a high profile figure, and she had just done something newsworthy. Can you show me another article on Wikipedia that refers to reporting in this way? Or any articles framing it this way? 2600:8805:A15:C200:C0FF:2537:5E96:2665 (talk) 17:55, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

Please see biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous.

Accusing someone of violence is libellous. Citing unreliable sources, like the NYPost, perpetuates the libel. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 18:08, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

You said this elsewhere. The only unsourced thing in the article is your claim that the reporters harassed her. As you’ve admitted to edit warring, you should probably leave your editorial comments out of the article until a consensus can be reached.

I’m aware of the policy. How exactly are you claiming it is related to what I’m saying at all? I’m not adding anything to the article, other than the accurate descriptor “disgraced” - which means having fallen from a position of power which she has - whereas you are adding lots of editorial elements not supported by sources. Where is your support for the harassment claim? 108.147.2.53 (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

If you're not aware of the policy, then click the link! And stop making libellous statements about Prof. Rodriguez. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 18:25, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

You aren’t reading anything anyone else is saying are you? 108.147.2.53 (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

I have read everything that others have said. That is why I know more than you do.  ;-) Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 18:35, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

You clearly haven’t as you’re just repeating yourself and not answering any questions posed to you. Stop edit warring and attempt to reach consensus. 108.147.2.53 (talk) 18:39, 20 July 2023 (UTC)

she had a final exam that day

S.Rodriguez, Hunter, spr 2023

Hunter final exams, spr 2023

I added some information about the courses she was teaching at Hunter College along with the corresponding final exam schedule. What's most relevant is that she was supposed to give a final exam on May 23, the day the reporters visited.

One note about what is not relevant: a second instructor is included on her teaching schedule at CUNYfirst. The second instructor is almost certainly the emergency substitute who handled the final exam.

In a few months, as CUNY begins preparing for the Spring 2024 semester, this information will vanish from the internet, so I uploaded it to WikiMedia. At next opportunity, I'll try to figure out how to incorporate the uploads into the citations. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 23:57, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

... and on the subject of scheduling: Who scheduled the Anti-Abortion display in the Creative Arts department? Is that where they expected to find Christian Conservatives to join them? Or is that where they expected to find someone to smash their display? Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

What was that person thinking?: "Hmm. Where should we set up our anti-abortion display? Should we set it up on the academic quad? or near an art studio on the 11th floor of the North Building?" Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 06:06, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

It's been bugging me that we don't know when the reporters arrived at her home and how long they stayed.

The car video has a time stamp, but it looks like the time zone isn't set correctly: "2023-05-23 03:50:44 000km/h" And unlike most American cars, this one records speed in kilometers per hour.

We know she had an exam that day. Assuming that the exam was at the same start time of 1:10pm, I think it's safe to say that she would have wanted to reach campus at about 12:30pm (i.e. with time to spare). From where she lives in the Bronx, she can take a subway train and arrive at Hunter in about 30-35 minutes. So she probably wanted to leave home no later than 12 noon.

In the car video, we see that the deli is already open, so it must be after 8am.

All that's left is to look at the shadows. In the car video, traffic on the near side of the Cross-Bronx is traveling southeast, so the car with the video cameras is pointed due east. And the date was May 23, so the sun rose in the east south east at 5:32am.

The only good shadow that I see is the one from the stop sign and that shadow looks parallel to the road -- northwest to southeast.

So perhaps 9:50am??? What time were the reporters at her home? Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 02:59, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

Or if the car's clock is set at 3:50am California standard time, then that would be 7:50am New York daylight time. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 03:33, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

What exactly is the relevance of any of this? This appears to be a personal rant filled with significant amounts of Undue weight and should be removed under WP:SOAP and WP:NOTAFORUM. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 16:33, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

her teaching schedule (again)

Someone who accuses me of "edit warring" advised me to reach consensus on this Talk page. Maybe one day he'll take his own advice.

This person accused me of "including content" for the purpose of "trying to support someone who [I] feel has gotten an unfair treatment." Had this person read this Talk page, he would have seen all of the reasons that I listed for "including content."

And had he asked, I would have told him that I earned a doctorate from the CUNY Graduate Center and I spent 16 years teaching at CUNY colleges. I was looking for information about an international news event that occurred at a place where I spent so much of my life.

I wanted to know what really happened. I wanted to know the truth. I knew nothing about Prof. Rodriguez prior to the news coverage. After the news coverage, I wanted to know everything about her.

Among the many things that I discovered was the fact that the Students for Life video was recorded outside of her classroom while she was (supposed to be) teaching class.

The incident occurred on Tuesday May 2. Her schedule shows that she taught at Hunter on Tuesdays from 1:10 to 4:50pm. And in the video she says: "you're triggering my students."

That combination of facts suggests that the pro-life students disrupted her class session. Their presence in the hallway was "triggering [her] students" during the four-hour painting session that Prof. Rodriguez was teaching.

Interestingly, Students for Life's own report of the incident claims that Prof. Rodriguez "came back to the display a second time to continue berating students," but only the first incident was reported to campus security.

If she came back a second time, then they must have been in the same vicinity for an extended period of time. Why did both stay? Because one was making a pro-life presentation and because the other was teaching class.

So at risk of the "edit war" accusation, I'm going to put Prof. Rodriguez teaching back into the article to emphasize two important facts. First, that the pro-life students disrupted a four-hour painting session which her students were taking for college credit. And second, that the Hunter College administration instructed her to apologize to the pro-life students who disrupted her class session.

It's the truth about a place where I spent 16 years of my life.

Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Edit-warring is edit-warring, whether you wind up being "right" or not--I have already pointed that out to you. By actually reading my edit-summaries, I have been quite clear that I object to including the images of the schedule. Not the idea of the schedule or the facts that the schedule was used by others for various purposes. You clearly have strong feelings about this article's subject, but that does not mean those feelings give you any bit of greater editorial pull than anyone else. Your explanations here all "seem reasonable to me", but they seem like your own analysis and your own feeling about what is important for purposes of fairness. No. "What independent sources have seen fit to explain and highlight" is the rule. DMacks (talk) 00:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Did you not even realize your edits are edit-warring against User:Thriley, who had a totally different reason for a different edit that I made (and that I did not even voice an objection to at the time)? DMacks (talk) 00:18, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

This issue should be reported to the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard. Thriley (talk) 00:34, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Your Conflict of Interest is noted, and under WP:COI policy, you should probably refrain from making substanstial edits without building consensus. However, as evidenced above, you have made several personal attacks on other editors, keep including and reverting removal of Original research which is not allowed under WP:OR, and used the talk page as a Soapbox to make false and unsubstatiated claims about the NY Post personnel, students at the institution in question, and now have reverted to passive aggressive section blanking the article. It would be wise at this point, I believe, to take a break and review wikipedia's policies on editing. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 16:23, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Amazing. These policies exclude any defense on the basis of "conflict of interest" and they include defamatory material on the basis of "newsworthiness."

So now on the basis of policy, the court of public opinion will deprive her of due process, convict her and sentence her to a lifetime of unemployment.

Perhaps instead of enforcing policy, maybe we should enforce compassion? Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

Sources

Eryk Wdowiak has removed the material about the machete incident from the article with a complaint about sourcing. I wish to collect some sources here. I am not hitting undo, because I think the material that was removed from the article falls short of WP:BLP standards. I do think the machete incident needs to be covered in the article -- it is covered by multiple reliable sources, and has apparently had a significant effect on her career. I would suggest that a couple of succinct paragraphs might suffice. The George Floyd incident is less notable, and could perhaps be dropped.

Anyway, sources: The machete incident was covered by the BBC [1], by the local ABC affiliate [2], by the Associated Press (but the ABC coverage is more in-depth and incorporates that coverage), by the Independent [3], by USA Today [4], and by Inside Higher Ed [5]. It's also apparently been covered by the Chronicle of Higher Education, but the paywall makes it hard to find links. All of these are reliable sources; several are US-based (but I'm not aware of any reason we'd be limited to US sources). It's been covered by Art News, which I believe to be reliable [6][7]; and by Hyperallergic, of which I am a bit doubtful. It's also been covered by no-consensus sources Fox News, the National Review, and the Daily Beast (but I don't think we necessarily need to use these sources). I definitely think we should not use the Youtube and probably not the NY Post sources that were previously in the article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:29, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

I am too extremely skeptical of Hyperallergic as a Reliable Source, which appears to have at best a sorely-lacking, at worst none whatsoever, editorial oversight, not to mention its lack of neutrality due to having too close a conflict of interest with the source of the entry. We could probably say in her biography that she has published in Hyperallergic as mention of, but its status as a scholarly publication gives me great doubt about its appropriateness as a source for even that. As far as a source for contentious material, it should most definitely not be used. Cheerio. HoundofBaskersville (talk) 16:30, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

If Hyperallergic has a conflict of interest, then the NYPost has a conflict of interest. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

The BBC re-reported the NYPost's story before ABC7. The BBC reported it on May 24. ABC7 reported it on May 25. With the sole exception of that one ABC7 report on her arraignment, the only major local news outlet that reported the "violence" story was the New York Post.

So if we're going to talk about sources, then one part of that discussion should consider the NYPost's interest in avoiding a defamation lawsuit. Eryk Wdowiak (talk) 19:08, 9 August 2023 (UTC)

There is no defamation lawsuit. The only person facing litigation is Rodriguez herself- in criminal court.HoundofBaskersville (talk) 16:08, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Note: Eryk Wdowiak has (unsurprisingly) been blocked indefinitely. Further discussion of article content can thus be restricted to content matters based on WP:RS, and compliance with WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:28, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I see the material sourced to Hyperallergic was removed. On what basis does that publication have a COI? It was used to say she issued an apology, and an attributed claim about death threats, etc. Hyperallergic seems fine for this sort of attributed statement. It doesn't need to be a "scholarly source" (we don't actually cite any of those). Of all the claims here, "X said she received threats" is the one that's so wild that we need "scholarly sources"? — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 20:25, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, I generally agree with you about Hyperallergic, but also think that we would do better using ARTnews, a longer established magazine that (as far as I know, without looking too carefully) the subject has not published in. I partially restored the material with that source. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:05, 16 August 2023 (UTC)