Talk:Connie Han

New York Times description
I have moved the description from the New York Times from the lede to the body of the article. This is because I don't believe it's strong enough to warrant a spot in the lede. (1) The description is attributed only to one article in the NYT; (2) the article was not specifically about her: she was one of 70 artists whose recent recordings (one recording only) were previewed. In short, it was a description made by one editor in one article in one newspaper about one recording. It doesn't represent a widely expressed opinion on her wider body of work. Just not lede material. My two cents. signed, Willondon (talk) 19:36, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * Any quote regarding a person or public figure is made by a single editor in a newspaper. There is no democratic consensus in journalism - period. Targeting of Han's page when living contemporary pianists include quotes from newspapers is not a valid justification of the description move outside of personal bias. Riker7193 (talk) 20:24, 27 November 2023 (UTC)


 * The question is whether or not it merits placement in the lede. The lede is meant to summarize the content that appears in the body. The statement is not a summary of anything, least of all a summary of various assessments of her entire body of work.


 * And assume good faith please. My edits do not come from personal bias. In fact, in assuming good faith myself, I didn't once question the account "KhanTonesMusic293", curiously named in light of this article (C. Han, get it?), and the zeal with which they fought to put this in the lede despite disagreement from other editors. Nor did I question the fact that your account was created about an hour after the above account was blocked from editing this article, and that you've since edited nothing in namespace but this article.  signed, Willondon (talk)  21:41, 27 November 2023 (UTC)