Talk:Laura Harrier

Check of citations to article text proposed, see today's edit
Coming upon the seeming pejorative of Spike Lee demanding the actor's immediate presence, next day in NY, from Greece, and this sounding suspect, I checked the source. This language did not appear—indeed, the word "demanded" is nowhere in the cited source. Moreover, there is not even an implied tone to any part of the interaction from which one could rightly editorially decide to say he imposed upon the actor. (I therefore edited the sentence, to reflect the actual content of the source.)

It is possible that the word "demanded" appears in another source describing the events; this must fall on the original or another editor to determine, and to make the edit—addition of the second source—that actually allows this strong, even judgmental language about the referenced living individual. Apart from identifying a source that makes the case for this, the original wording should not be returned. (Per WP guidelines, BLP expectations obtain beyond the titular subject, if others that are referred to are also living subjects of the article.) Note also, when supporting such a claim about the individual or event, it is insufficient to have the inline citation nearby. Having the one citation at end of sentence implies that one as source of all sentence content. If some is drawn from a second source, that citation must also appear, for the editing task to be complete.

Finally, and more generally, as one who has read many, many student papers, I realise it is not uncommon for creative license to enter in, as one attempts to paraphrase published source content. However, editor's inferences that alter the actual dynamic between people as stated in the source cannot be permitted—this amounts to editorialising, and is prohibited at WP—and discovering even the one example raises the specter that editor's involved here may lack experience in doing acceptable paraphrasing from sources. This suspicion should be laid to rest.

As such, good article designation notwithstanding, I propose it necessary for an experienced WP editor with WP:BLP experience to begin a review the content, sentence by sentence, against the cited source or sources, ensuring that this "demanded" slip up is not representative of a broader pattern of misuse of sources. (This may be seen as an overreaction, but I regularly find such creative license in WP articles, as often as not, in those representing figures from popular American culture.)

I may be incorrect in worrying so, but the way to lay it to rest is to begin a check, paragraph by paragraph, and report here what is found. (My other commitments to other subject areas here prohibit me from being the one to dive in.) I invite the regular editors of this article to take the lead. Cheers. 2601:246:C700:558:B064:18F2:5274:6CE2 (talk) 08:48, 2 December 2021 (UTC)