Talk:Julia Marciari-Alexander

Walters unionization efforts
, you need to provide reliable sourced that explicitly discuss her direct involvement. You are citing unreliable sources on the matter, namely the opinion article in The Baltimore Sun, the website of a law firm that works for the museum (which has no mention of Marciari-Alexander), and a letter written by her (a primary source) to draw conclusions on her alleged union-busting. We stick to covering what reliable sources have discussed about the subject, as detailed on our Verifiability page. The Sun's report on the sick employees in August 2021 and the Bmore Art and WYPR articles you cited look to be good, secondary sources on the matter, which I kept in my revision. Bridget (talk) 14:45, 29 June 2022 (UTC)


 * The opinion article in The Baltimore Sun was simply to establish that it was a controversial matter, worthy of public debate and recognized by a major local news source. The law firm website establishes the nature of law practiced. The Bmore Art article already establishes the Walters' clienthood, but I will cite it again. The primary source is reputable and perhaps the clearest and best representation of her position, important to include. Lwnsofd (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your response and for confirming the law firm with a better source. I still think there some parts of the added text that sort of fall afoul of our neutral point of view policy, specifically WP:WEIGHT, which discusses how we need to represent viewpoints proportionally to how they have been covered in reliable sources. We're drawing conclusions from the statements presented in opinion articles and primary sources, which may not be accurate. For example, an opinion writer in the Baltimore Sun might think that this is a "controversial matter", but we need reporting from reputable publications that actually affirms this regardless of how reputable the writer is.
 * Looking down further, this sentence is completed unsourced: Marciari-Alexander has not publicly responded to Scott's 2022 letter requesting that she discontinue her stonewalling efforts and allow the employees to hold an independent union election. While the AFRO article discusses Scott's letter and his support for Walters Workers United, it doesn't discuss Marciari-Alexander's (lack of) response or the museum's efforts to oppose the union. Only one sentence of Scott's actual letter (not the article) talks about how the museum is not "following the path" of unionization.
 * Lastly, I'm not sure why all of these developments at Walters are separated into a new section, since this is all happening as part of her tenure at the Walters. Best, Bridget (talk) 19:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I've just removed those two sources and rewrote the paragraphs based on the secondary coverage you added originally. Bridget (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * @Bridget,
 * I undid your edits. The source you reference is not from an opinion writer at The Baltimore Sun, rather a reader's letter to the editor that was published by the editorial staff. The point is simply the director's administration drew controversy, so much so that the editors at a major US newspaper published a reader's letter on the matter.
 * The Union Busting header is necessary because it refers to the subject's professional conduct and philosophy, less so about the Walters Art Museum itself.
 * The AFRO article outlines the letter and provides context. There has not yet been a public response from the Walters on record, unless perhaps you can provide a source? Lwnsofd (talk) 20:16, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Her lack of public response and her "stonewalling efforts" are not discussed in the cited AFRO article, so that entire sentence is unsubstantiated (even if true). Bridget (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Just edited to remove that language and offer a more reputable source. Lwnsofd (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Divorce

 * Your addition on the subject's divorce only cites a court record and violates Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons, specifically the section on using primary sources located at WP:BLPPRIMARY. Here is a relevant excerpt from this policy:

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

I can't find any press through Google and Newspapers.com covering her divorce. Please only restore the content if you can replace the court record with an appropriate source that talks about the divorce. Best, Bridget (talk) 20:39, 28 October 2022 (UTC) (edited 23:11, 28 October 2022 (UTC))


 * @Bridget Thank you. I doubt there will be any secondary sources published, likely due to the fact that the subject's personal life is of little interest to a wider public. Per the policy you cited, I suppose this article will have to remain factually inaccurate. Lwnsofd (talk) 17:40, 1 November 2022 (UTC)