Talk:Kristin Goodwin

recent move
moved the article from Kristin Goodwin to Kristin E. Goodwin on 18 June 2019 at 03:29 UTC saying, "Middle initial is more clear". I performed a couple of basic Google Searches and found that "'Kristin Goodwin' 'Air Force'" came back with 12600 results, while "'Kristin E. Goodwin' 'Air Force'" only returned 1480 hits. Her official USAF biography includes the "E", while her flight suit does not. I want to suggest we eschew the "E", but wanted to bring it up for discussion, first. —  fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  21:40, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Thanks for bringing this up! I'm not sure if there is a Wikipedia policy somewhere, but I wanted to follow the general practice of including middle initials for significant military personnel.  John E. Hyten and David L. Goldfein both get more Google hits without the middle initial, but their WP pages have the initial.  I believe this is to conform with how they are referenced in what is usually the most reliable sources for military personnel which always use middle initials if available.  Novabrahm (talk) 21:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, the WikiProject Military history manual of style doesn't say anything about it, and the naming conventions (people) guideline just says "use the most common format of a name used in reliable sources". —   fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124;  22:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

succession
Since these have been implemented, is there any SOP for which positions-held warrant such templates? I would generally only advocate for listing positions that have their own articles (e.g. Chief Master Sergeant of the Air Force). If that's not the established consensus, then Goodwin has been an actual commander of several units that have their own articles (as opposed to a chief of staff position), but didn't include those, and I don't understand why. —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 00:07, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

update
Gen Goodwin retired Dec 31 2021. She divorced in 2020 and remarried in Dec 2021. Best way to properly update? FarmGirlRR4 (talk) 19:03, 31 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, the short version is: you need a published, reliable source that already says what you're trying to include. Both times you've added these claims, I've looked online for any sources that could be cited for the marraige and career change, but nothing's come up.  Do you have a link to (or a physical copy of) some publicly-published verification for these changes?  (We require such sourcing for anything that's written on the English Wikipedia, but we're especially stringent about these policies when it comes to claims made about living people.)  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 19:17, 31 October 2022 (UTC)

So is continuing to edit without discussing the details thereof, and they're finding themselves reverted yet again. First of all, these two edits don't pass muster due to our reliable sources guideline, which I linked above last October; that guideline requires that additions to articles be cited to reliable published sources, and doesn't meet that requirement.Furthermore, even if there were sources for adding new information, it doesn't explain the removal of the previous information cited to sources; please don't do that. Lastly, I've yet to see any rationale for removing the 1993 photo of Goodwin. Please join us in this discussion before you find yourself blocked for what I believe are well-intentioned edits. —  Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 23:32, 28 April 2023 (UTC)
 * I have a copy of the valid marriage license to Dr. Traci Paulsen : 17 Dec 2021 (the July 9 2022 date you reference was simply a family ceremony. I ref the license in my latest: El Paso County Co marriage license # C000249565.
 * As to removal of the picture.... it's a poor photo and one that would find appreciation in being removed.
 * Trying to keep with the rules, but obviously hitting some hiccups FarmGirlRR4 (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether you have a copy of Goodwin's license or not isn't exactly relevant, though, because our guideline on reliable sources requires that we only cite what's been publicly published. As for the new source, American Marriage Ministries seems sufficiently reliable per our standards, and currently the only one available to us (that I've found).  For anything contrary, we would need access to a source that's at the very least (a) public, (b) published, and (c) reliable.  Lastly, the 1993 photo of Goodwin isn't of poor-quality at all; the resolution is at worse middling, but easily sufficient at the size used in the article.As for working on the English Wikipedia, there's two things I want to point out.  Firstly, I'm going to assume good faith on your part, unless you give us reason to think otherwise.  Secondly, you will never hiccough by communicating first and communicating well.  The English Wikipedia's over 22 years old, now, and has grown thickly in policies, guidelines, manuals, and rules; nobody can expect you to know them all, but by reaching out here (and at any talk page), you can avoid the sorts of round-robin reversions and repeats we've experienced here.  You're here: feel absolutely free to ask any questions about this article, any sources you have or find, and edits that are made.  Furthermore, if you have any broader questions about the site that aren't specific to this article, I invite you to my talk page where I'll gladly help.  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 02:16, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Changes to Wikipedia
Hello. I appreciate your attention to General Goodwin's profile, but after discussing with her personally, she wants these changes as they are the truth and read better for the end user. Can you tell me what the issue is please? And why you keep changing it? Thank you in advance. Pagecd (talk) 13:14, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Well, first of all, you and Goodwin should read Conflict of interest, the nutshell of which says  That doesn't apply this discussion page, it should be said.  As for the edits themselves:
 * You've removed&mdash;without explanation or cause&mdash;information from the article about Kelly Goodwin and their children that is sourced & cited to the Shreveport Times (Judy Christie's 30 April 2016 article).
 * You've removed&mdash;without explanation or cause&mdash;the in-text attribution to American Marriage Ministries. It's a secondary source, which is allowable, but less reliable than a third-party source; that's why we make it up-front and clear to the reader from where the claims originated.
 * You've added claims that Goodwin divorced. Our policy at Verifiability says   Now, it can be assumed that she divorced, but (a) that's original research, and (b) the source we have for the subsequent marriage isn't great.
 * You've left claims about Goodwin's children wholly uncited in contravention of the verifiability policy.
 * What policy-, guideline-, or manual-of-style-based rationales do you have for these changes?It should furthermore be noted the following from BOLD, revert, discuss cycle:  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 14:19, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Hello. I find it very disturbing that a person doesn't have the freedom to make corrections on their own Wikipedia page without harassment. Goodwin is not making changes in her own interests, but would like the truth to be told. Shall she just live with lies on Wikipedia? You seem very knowledgable about the platform, perhaps you could assist us with the changes to be made? Pagecd (talk) 02:23, 20 May 2023 (UTC)
 * The conflict-of-interest guideline has been in place for a very long time. If you have issues with it, specifically, then you want to bring it up on that talk page, not this one.  If Goodwin herself has been editing and suffered harassment, then she may benefit from the information at this policy page.As for "lies", specifically which of the 19 sources in the article are you accusing of lying about Goodwin?  As of the 19 May 2023 12:02 UTC version of the article, every bit of information in the article is cited to a sufficiently reliable source.  If there are "lies", then they were published by the cited sources, because Wikipedia articles only contain material from other publications; that's a core policy of the project.  Now, it's certainly possible that some of our sources were retracted or corrected by their original publishers, or are contradicted by a different reliable source; if so, please provide those URLs, and we'll update the article.Yes, I'm absolutely disposed to assisting you if I can.  If you want something removed from the article, you need to either (a) demonstrate why the cited source should be considered untrustworthy, or (b) provide [a URL for] a published contradictory third-party source that is equally-or-more-reliable than the original.  If you want to add something to the article, you just need a published reliable source that can be cited.  Does that make sense?  —   Fourthords  &#124; =Λ= &#124; 03:17, 20 May 2023 (UTC)