Talk:Cassandra De Pecol

Vandalism
Several users have repeatedly deleted all information relating to De Pecol's role on reality television. This information is well sourced, but claimed as "irrelevant," without further explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.250.157.167 (talk) 02:07, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

One user, test189!, possibly a sock puppet, has been deleting large chunks of text. They describe their edits as "grammatical," even though they deleted large portions of grammatical content rather than correct any grammatical errors — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.87.138.123 (talk) 22:38, 9 March 2017 (UTC)

Occupations
A self-declared WP:COI editor has repeatedly added the words "entrepreneur" and "keynote speaker" as descriptions of De Pecol's occupation and I have reverted them. Seeking consensus here from other editors. While a couple of sources have been provided that do call De Pecol an entrepreneur there is no content in any of these that gives any explanation of what that means. It appears to me that they refer to the fact that she sought business funding for her overseas trip, whereas an entrepreneur is generally defined as someone who designs, launches or runs a new business, which there is no evidence provided of her having done and certainly not of her doing now in any ongoing capacity. Adding the word "keynote" in front of speaker appears to me to be mere WP:PUFFERY and adds nothing but to lean towards the self-promotional side of wording. Cheers, Melcous (talk) 12:20, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Issues with COI and Paid are continuing in this article. It may be time to protect the article from this individuals self-promotion.-- VViking Talk Edits 14:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

proposed changes
I'd like to suggest some changes to this article. My suggestion is to remove the Controversy section as it's not supported with reliable resources and the HuffPost article was written by a contributor so, suggest to remove this sentence too "She received the lowest score of any contestant in the first season who completed the 21 day challenge." Thank you! Weam88 (talk) 20:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Reply 24-OCT-2019

 * Exact, verbatim descriptions of any text and/or references to be removed needs to be given. Reasons why each change is sought should also be provided. Your request states only to remove "the controversy section" without describing the verbatim text which is to be removed. The request will also need to give reasons for each specific claim being removed. Blanket reasons, such as "remove the Controversy section as it's not supported with reliable resources" does not state which claims in the controversy section are to be removed, nor does it explain how and in what way the existing references are insufficient (only one reference has been mentioned in the request, yet the section contains 3 references).
 * In the section of text below titled Sample edit request, an example for how one such claim is to be fixed using an edit request is shown:

 1. Please remove the third sentence from the second paragraph of the Sun section:
 * "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 25 miles in length."

2. Please add the following claim as the third sentence of the second paragraph of the Sun section:
 * "The Sun's diameter is estimated to be approximately 864,337 miles in length."

3. Using as the reference:

4. Reason for change being made:
 * "The previously given diameter was incorrect. The Harinath source indicates that the diameter is 864,337 miles, a figure which has been confirmed by other references listed in Astronomer's Almanac, Science Quarterly, etc."

Regards, Spintendo  09:50, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Kindly open a new edit request at your earliest convenience when ready to proceed with the verbatim text to be removed along with the specific reasons for removal. Thank you!

Some proposed changes

 * Information to be removed: Please remove the Controversy section, heading "Controversy" and the paragraph: "De Pecol claims to be the first woman on record to travel to every sovereign country, but this claim is disputed. According to Huffpost contributor Janice S. Lintz, ten women traveled to every country on earth before De Pecol.", and the second sentence in the paragraph of the Other appearances section: "She received the lowest score of any contestant in the first season who completed the 21 day challenge."
 * Explanation of issue: As for the Controversy section, The section is poorly sourced. The first reference is unreliable source the second reference speaks about DePecol but didn't cite anything related to controversy or dispute also considered as an unreliable resource. The third reference is a HuffPost article which was used two times as reference number 20 and 21 was written by a contributor and not considered as a reliable resource too. As for the sentence: She received the lowest score of any contestant in the first season who completed the 21 day challenge. the reference there is unreliable.
 * References for being the first woman to visit every country in the world.  Thank you.Weam88 (talk) 01:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree with you that the HuffPost link is not a good enough source, especially compared to the more reliable sources that seem to contradict it. I've edited and rearranged the relevant material—how does it look now? Not sure about Naked and Afraid—let's see if anyone else weighs in. —Granger (talk · contribs) 04:08, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The article appears to contain a contradiction. If one is not intimately familiar with Guinness World records, they might not understand the difference between these two indications:


 * I believe that the article needs to better clarify these two distinctions. The fact that Guinness states that they cannot speak to the subject's assertions implies that what she is saying, about holding these records, is her own word and not their own. If her assertions are that she holds these records, then Guinness not being able to speak about them (when they are the spokespeople for world record holders) places them in dispute. Clearly she has achieved some sort of distinction as Guinness says she has, but this additional line in the controversy section confuses things. I've placed the template until this is resolved.  Spintendo  00:45, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've created a Notes section explaining the difference between the subject's secondary claim regarding being the first woman to visit every country and removed the self-contradictory maintenance template.
 * ✅ I've consolidated the controversy section within the main prose of the World travels section per WP:CSECTION.
 * ❌ Regarding the request to delete the Other appearances section, the request is declined. The reason offered by the COI editor for the deletion — that the Herald & Review source was unreliable — does not stand.
 * I'm closing the template, and I'll remind the COI editor that if there was anything we missed, please reactivate the template by changing the template's answer parameter to read from yes to no. Regards,  Spintendo  05:14, 27 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, I hope you are doing well. Can you please check HuffPost contributors at this page? What I’m trying to say that reference number 19 which was used 5 times in the article now is unreliable as long as the HuffPost contributors articles not considered as reliable resources so all related information should be removed. When you merged the controversy section with the World travels section you mentioned that "DePecol claimed that she is the first woman on record to travel to every country", Do you have any reference saying that DePecol claimed that? Another point please related to The New York Times article, the article in the first version named DePecol as the first woman to travel to all world countries and the correction was that she achieved two Guinness records but didn't mention anything related to any other woman who traveled to all world countries before DePecol so, I think there is no need to use reference number 21 in DePecol article and the same happened with Today article, reference number 22 and reference number 23. Please check Business Insider here too, and please review the header in this article which is naming DePecol as the first and fastest woman to travel all the world countries. I hope that now you have a complete image of what I meant by removing the controversy section as no official claim by Depecol but we have the Business Insider article and please I wish your kind support to remove any contentious material in the article. Regards. Weam88 (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Hello, I hope you are doing well. Can you please check HuffPost contributors at this page? What I’m trying to say that reference number 19 which was used 5 times in the article now is unreliable as long as the HuffPost contributors articles not considered as reliable resources so all related information should be removed. When you merged the controversy section with the World travels section you mentioned that "DePecol claimed that she is the first woman on record to travel to every country", Do you have any reference saying that DePecol claimed that? Another point please related to The New York Times article, the article in the first version named DePecol as the first woman to travel to all world countries and the correction was that she achieved two Guinness records but didn't mention anything related to any other woman who traveled to all world countries before DePecol so, I think there is no need to use reference number 21 in DePecol article and the same happened with Today article, reference number 22 and reference number 23. Please check Business Insider here too, and please review the header in this article which is naming DePecol as the first and fastest woman to travel all the world countries. I hope that now you have a complete image of what I meant by removing the controversy section as no official claim by Depecol but we have the Business Insider article and please I wish your kind support to remove any contentious material in the article. Regards. Weam88 (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Reply 28-OCT-2019
Regards, Spintendo  02:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
 * The main assertions of Guinness are not what is in dispute here — rather — it's the subject's own assertion that she was the first woman to travel to every one of these locations. You've asked if there is a reference for the subject stating that she is the "first woman on record to travel to every country". I would submit the subject's book as that reference, whose title states: Expedition 196: A Personal Journal from the First Woman on Record to Travel to Every Country in the World. The main thrust of the Lintz article is to contravene that assertion. I believe if that assertion were removed, the information from the Lintz article would have no purpose for being in the article. I have removed both for this reason. Other claims which were not referenced have also been omitted.

Some proposed changes
1. Add "and the first woman in record to visit every country in the world." after "Cassandra De Pecol (born June 23, 1989) is an American author, traveler, activist, and speaker".
 * Updates

2. Add " Keynote speaker" to Occupation in the infobox.

For update #1: 1,2 and 3 For update #2: The Travel Weekly article here Thanks in advance. Weam88 (talk) 01:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * References
 * Requests declined. 1. This claim has been disputed. The claim (and the disputation) has previously been in the article but has been removed. The WP:LEAD should summarise the content of the article. 2. One reference saying that a person was a keynote speaker at one event does not justify adding "keynote speaker" as an occupation. (Plus I'm personally not convinced it really is an occupation but that's not the problem here). Melcous (talk) 07:09, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Ongoing COI and undeclared paid
Lf02ka has been removing well referenced information from the article and making other changes that could be construed as promotional in nature. The User has used language in their edits summaries such as "We do not believe" and "we've removed" this indicates that this user is not following the policies and terms of Wikipedia and their edits are probably from a COI or paid. I recommend going back to this] version of the article and protecting the article from new users.-- VViking Talk Edits 14:44, 19 April 2023 (UTC)
 * It looks like most of the removals have been reverted. Not much is missing from the current version of the article compared to the version you linked – the material has mostly been rearranged, an image has been added, and some formatting has been improved. I think we should keep the image. Are there any remaining concerns about the current version? —Mx. Granger (talk · contribs) 13:45, 20 April 2023 (UTC)