Talk:Dasha Burns

A nitpicking revert
I'm afraid I'm reverting two parts of this edit; it was well intentioned, but has a couple minor nitpicking issues.
 * Date of birth: the source doesn't actually say March 1, 1992. It says "I celebrated my 22nd birthday this weekend", so that's early March, but not necessarily March 1. Now I'm pretty sure it is March 1, but the sources that I've so far found that say that are many, but aren't of the highest quality. I'm guessing we can probably find an Instagram post of hers that says that, but we should find it first.
 * Her husband's name is Ben. That's a WP:BLPNAME issue, since he, unlike her, is not a public figure. Now his first name is cited to her own words in the video saying "my husband Ben", on a NBC News national broadcast seen by millions, so that's "widely disseminated". She does not say the husband's last name. Now the registry does, but that's not "widely disseminated", so even though I'm crediting him as an author of the page, I'm not repeating that name in the text. Yes, that is major hair splitting right there, but I think that's what the combination of our citation and BLPNAME requirements dictate. --GRuban (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2022 (UTC)


 * 1) First of all, you should have pinged me, . You should not just assume that an editor is going to come back to see if there have been changes made.
 * 2) If March 1 is not sourced then why is it in the infobox? If it hadn't been there, I would not have added it to the lead. So the day should either be removed from the infobox or a source found for it. Also, putting "...was born in..." as a lone sentence/paragraph to begin the body of an article is highly unusual on WP. It just looks weird (if not wrong).
 * 3) A spouse is not a privacy issue. Marriage isn't a "single event"; they're not loosely involved... Besides, his last name IS sourced. It's actually in the citation given. ...However, when I click on the link, I just see their names and a date. It doesn't say when they were married (or if they are), and that's why I tagged it with "Better source needed". Also, I moved the marriage sentence to the beginning of the section because that's in chronological order. And finally, a "nitpick" is not a good reason to revert (WP:ROWN) – especially when you're the one who created the article. –Musdan77 (talk) 03:39, 17 October 2022 (UTC)


 * Thanks, you're quite right in #2, so I found citations for the actual birth day and even marriage date, added those in. Agree that being married and having a spouse isn't a WP:BLP issue, however, WP:BLPNAME still seems like it applies, and I can't find a "widely disseminated" source for her husband's last name. If you can, that would be great. --GRuban (talk) 14:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

POV material
These IPs keep switching addresses (while referring to themselves as "I", which makes me think it's one person), so I'm pinging the ones I've seen so far, that's the best I can do. Over the past few days, these IPs have added (and re-added, after I reverted them twice) content along the lines of this (it changes slightly from time to time in word choice): {{blockquote|text=However, after John Fetterman struggled mightily putting sentences together in his first Pennsylvania Senate debate in 2022, many critics called for an apology from Gisele Fetterman and other members of the media to Burns after seeing Burns’ criticisms of Fetterman seemed to be accurate. {{Cite web |date=2022-10-26|title=Critics say NBC's Dasha Burns is owed an apology after Fetterman’s debate performance: 'Should be ashamed' |url= https://www.foxnews.com/media/critics-say-nbcs-dasha-burns-owed-apology-after-fettermans-debate-performance-should-ashamed.amp |access-date=2022-10-26 |website=Fox News}} I don't think it's just me who finds this to be taking sides. {{tqq|1=John Fetterman struggled mightily putting sentences together}}: who are we to judge his debate performance? It's possible, and I can find where I read this if for some reason it's really necessary, that he just found the questions difficult to answer. I changed the first portion of the first sentence to {{tqq|1=In response, Fox News called...}}. This doesn't make any claims about the debate, which I consider irrelevant to the dispute with Gisele Fetterman, although I'm open to adding it back with more neutral phrasing. It also doesn't use the vague "many critics" which uses weasel words. I also changed {{tqq|1=after seeing}} to {{tqq|1=declaring}}, for obvious neutrality reasons and removed the now-obsolete {{tqq|1=seem}}. Not to drag in NPA, but I think it is worth noting that during the course of this dispute, one IP referred to me (and another editor, Werner Zagrebbi, who had actually just made a minor grammatical change) as {{tqq|1=you little fuckers, I saw how you tried to twist my edit to seem like it was just FOX news calling for an apology. Change my edit all you want, I will continue to edit it with the right information. You fucking alt-left cocksuckers.}}, encored with {{tqq|1=Fuck you}}. I left a message on that IP's talk page about NPA. I wish for a speedy and productive discussion to end the instability (I haven't reverted the latest additions because edit warring isn't productive).Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 22:51, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

Request semi-protection for the article
If any admins are watching the main page, please consider placing it under semi-protection. Changing IP addresses, always in the net range 2605:A600:: - 2605:A601:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF:FFFF allocated to Google Fiber Inc., keep inserting their own POV, based on a biased source and amplified. They don't respond to attempts to discuss on this Talk page (see "POV content", above) and can't be bothered to add edit summaries. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 14:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Nails
You need to cut them!!! 2600:1007:B037:5ECB:0:D:817A:D701 (talk) 22:53, 30 May 2024 (UTC)