Talk:Meghan Murphy/Archive 3

Semi-protected edit request on 31 October 2019
I am a Male Canadian feminist and stating Meghan Murphy is a feminist let alone Canadian is insulting remove this garbage 99.243.81.144 (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC) "over time it has been subject to the interference of editors who were contacted and/or lobbied by the subject off-wiki." and not about any particular individual, I have as much right as you have to add my opinion about the subject. Look in the mirror before huffing and puffing about what other editors say. Pyxis Solitary  (yak)  02:47, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. &mdash; KuyaBriBri Talk 16:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Personal opinions are not how Wikipedia articles are created and edited. Like it or not, the biography is supported with reliable sources. ALL Wikipedia articles must include reliable sources that verify content. Furthermore, all Wikipedia articles must be written with a neutral point of view and without original research. The policy for biographies of living persons is strictly enforced. Pyxis Solitary   (yak)  07:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * What Pyxis said, though my reading of the current version of this article is that it does not reflect the consensus of the most reliable sources or respect NPOV. In its current version it is overly deferential to the views of its subject, and over time it has been subject to the interference of editors who were contacted and/or lobbied by the subject off-wiki. I have not seen any evidence of this over the last few months, but that previous interference is still evident in the tone and content of the article, as of this writing. Newimpartial (talk) 10:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
 * About the off-wiki contacting and lobbying: yes, it happens way too much. It's comparable to when someone turns on a light and bugs quickly head to it. But the irony (or better yet, hypocrisy) is that the very same editors who accuse other editors of canvassing off-wiki in order to influence a discussion or edit an article, are themselves canvassers and activist editors. Pyxis Solitary   (yak)  09:18, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That would appear in context to be either an ASPERSION or an unfounded generalization, Pyxis. I suggest you retract it per CIVIL. Newimpartial (talk) 13:39, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Since I am commenting about the idea of the statement
 * So, But the irony (or better yet, hypocrisy) is that the very same editors who accuse other editors of canvassing off-wiki in order to influence a discussion or edit an article, are themselves canvassers and activist editors was an abstract or conceptual observation on your part? I thought it was a mis-statement concerning my role in the present discussion. My apologies if I misunderstood. There is a difference between commenting on the previous behaviour of other editors and casting ASPERSIONS about interlocutors, and I'm sure you're aware of that distinction, all "huffing and puffing" aside. Newimpartial (talk) 11:05, 3 November 2019 (UTC)