Talk:Angela Stanton-King

Name change?

Appears first publications up to 2017 were published under name Stanton. 2019 publication under Stanton-King. Any reason or references to the the double-barrel? Doesn't appear to be marriage.

The cynic in me suspects it was to literally profit (with her book sales) by emphasizing her six-degrees-of-separation connection to King. Grandpallama (talk) 00:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

May be so, but do we a source? Djflem (talk) 19:39, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Date of birth

1967 or 1977 any ideas? going with

• famousbirthdays.com/people/angela-stanton not RS

She was 19 when arrested. https://www.google.com/books/edition/LIFE_BEYOND_THESE_WALLS/V066DwAAQBAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&bsq=19 Peregrine Fisher (talk) 02:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

• https://edailybuzz.com/2020/03/10/angela-stanton-king-wiki-2020-husband-age-net-worth-son-birthday-daughter-bio/

Suspended from Twitter

She's probably not noteworthy enough to even bother updating her article, but it appears her Twitter account (theangiestanton) has been suspended for posting violent threats. Ben (talk) 18:15, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Might be worthwhile, but we need secondary sources commenting on it, and reasons why it might be notable; inciting violence could potentially meet that bar. It's not something we should note on our own, though. Grandpallama (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Having dug into this a bit, I doubt it's notable enough to put on the page without much better sources discussing it, per WP:BLP. Grandpallama (talk) 20:08, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Edits - QAnon and Far-Right Claims

Hello:

I read the article about A.S.K. and I noticed some gross mischaracterizations in there. First, the claim that ASK is far-right and, second, that she supports the Q Anon conspiracy theory. Both claims are supported by very sparse and skimpy evidence, at best. I made two attempts to correct the claims but the corrections were reversed. This article also received a C-Class rating which shows that my edits were appropriate and added to the bigger picture for the individual reader. For the record, I am neither Conservative nor Progressive but I know bias when I see it. I ask that my edits/corrections be accepted. Thank you... Dburruel (talk) 21:09, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

You removed claims sourced to The Guardian and The New York Times, two highly reliable sources, and then introduced verbiage which did not match the language of the provided sources. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say, and the reliable sources support the content and wording of the article. You must provide reliable sources, per the guidelines that were provided on your user talkpage, to even begin discussing such changes. Grandpallama (talk) 21:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the response. I'm new to editing on Wikipedia so please forgive me for my shortcomings. Since the article has a class-C rating, I understand that the article can be expanded upon with reliable sources. Thank you for providing examples of what you consider to be reliable sources. If I match the verbiage with sources that dispute the claims of ASK's support for QAnon and being labeled as, "far-right wing extremist," can I then contribute to the article to show a balanced, bigger picture? Thank you... Dburruel (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

If you find reliable sources refuting these descriptions, then you can discuss such inclusion. Please read WP:RS, and take a look at WP:RSP to see some common sources that are considered unreliable by the community; it's important to note that simply because it's sourced doesn't mean the source is one which Wikipedia finds acceptable. Please also consider reading the WP:FALSEBALANCE part of our WP:NPOV policy to understand that when there are differences in what the sources say, we go with what the preponderance of the sources are telling us; consensus is everything here, and the purpose of WP is to reflect the sources, not to show a balanced, bigger picture. Grandpallama (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your response. What if that, "preponderance of the sources" is explicitly biased and one-sided? I used the words, balanced, bigger picture because it clearly isn't. I will be sure to read, WP:RS, WP:RSP, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:NPOV. Thanks again for all your insight and knowledge.

Dburruel (talk) 11:54, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

What if that, "preponderance of the sources" is explicitly biased and one-sided? As I said, you'll need to read WP:FALSEBALANCE and probably WP:BALANCE and WP:RGW, too. Wikipedia is a tertiary source, which means we gather and condense information from secondary sources; we don't argue original ideas or attempt to refute what those sources are telling us. Reliable secondary source consensus on Stanton-King is pretty clear, so I'm skeptical we would ever remove any of the material currently present in the article. Grandpallama (talk) 14:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Qanon espouses various theories, which do not need to be specified in the lead for this bio. It is linked and that is sufficient here. If there's a need to explain, better done in subsection and focus on Angela Stanton-King's particualar focus of Qanon, which is pedophilia. Djflem (talk) 19:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, the inline refs used in lede barely mention anti-semitism, and then in conjunction with racism.Djflem (talk) 19:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

I'm good with "far-right"..thnx Djflem (talk) 22:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)