Talk:Molly White (writer)

Second sentence
Is there any objection to this change? The subject-verb agreement was off. That could be fixed either by making Molly herself the subject of the sentence, or by making the website the subject of the sentence. I now understand that the website name should be mentioned in the lead section, so the latter solution is probably better. 200.63.104.44 (talk) 16:44, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I have no objection. * Pppery * it has begun... 16:46, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * How about Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 17:20, 3 July 2023 (UTC)


 * Folks. I think we are being taken for a ride here. This IP looks a lot like yet another IP sockpuppet of Belteshazzar. (See Sockpuppet investigations/Belteshazzar and Long-term abuse/Belteshazzar) As he is ban evading I'm going to nuke all his edits irrespective of content. If any of you (i.e. anybody who is not Belteshazzar with a new IP address) think that any of the edits are worth reinstating, in whole or part, then please feel free. --DanielRigal (talk) 18:01, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Per article history, seems like someone or other's sock, but this is indeed a dangling participle, so I like FFF's solution. --  Tamzin  [ cetacean needed ] (she&#124;they&#124;xe) 20:37, 3 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Implemented your proposed change, having seen no dissent. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:32, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Current number of edits
The "Wikipedia editing" section includes a note "Replace with this after update." I tried to do that, and it displayed "25,000 as of 2019". 103.178.42.233 (talk) 18:09, 28 July 2023 (UTC)


 * This doesn't answer your question, but including the current edit count in the article seems to me to be too "inside baseball" for an encyclopedia article. No one cares about (or even understands!) edit count except WP editors.  Do our articles on books, for example, give a word count (too scared to look before I hit save on this)? If it were me, I'd remove that sentence.  I have a feeling, though, that I might be in the minority on that. Floquenbeam (talk) 18:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. I removed the hidden comment and simplified the wording. I think most non-editor readers will see 100,000 and appreciate that the number is big. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:24, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * Please note that the anonymous user who started this thread is an IP sock of the de-facto banned user Belteshazzar. I'm not sure what he is up to here but I advise treating it with grave suspicion. --DanielRigal (talk) 02:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Last sentence
I found out about Ms. White on November 8, 2023, by reading her piece in the NYT. Curious, I went to Wiki. I write here because I found the last sentence of the article to be vague to the point of being unworthy of an article in an encyclopedia. Worse, the citation is behind a paywall. I am not a regular or a particularly skilled editor, but I do want to suggest to those who are regular editors (and Wallace Stevens fans!) to consider deleting that sentence, or at the very least attributing to a person those judgments about White's politics. AcheronLupus (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)


 * I dunno, seems pretty clear to me? She has left-wing political views, overlapping with or inclusive of socialism? A fairly bog standard statement found on many articles. And there's no issue with using a source behind a paywall (see WP:PAYWALL). What's the issue? Alyo  (chat·edits) 20:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Not to mention it's archived without a paywall. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Wrong link. I'm tired. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't have an opinion either way—and I can't get to the article myself to see what's being referenced (not a problem as per PAYWALL)—but I'm curious: this sort of categorization feels like a kind of original research/synthesis—is it not?
 * I would also judge the subjects views to be basically left-ish socialist-ish, but I don't know that I would add the sentence in question unless I came across a reliable secondary source that described them that way, or could cite a primary source of the subject describing their politics as that. Isn't this the kind of analysis that's usually frowned upon? I also broadly agree with the topic creator that this sentence doesn't tell me much. There are so many views that go into leftism and socialism, and descriptors of the specific ones being summarized would be useful. Thanks! Handpigdad (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Having now read the article being cited, it's not an appropriate source for the sentence its attached to. Her political views are barely discussed, mostly obliquely in terms of her editing of subjects "she absolutely doesn't like" (as per a wiki editor quoted in the article), which are listed in the article as "controversial viewpoints and male-dominated spaces, including right-wing extremism and 'involuntary celibates,' or incels." There's also a description of an open letter she signed on concerns about the blockchain's suitability as a "potential source of public benefit", which is more or less a universalist concern, but I don't think either of these examples from the article are enough to count as a positive descriptor of her political views, so much a negative description of those the subject finds objectionable. Ok sooooo I read the complete wrong article, thanks to Moboshgu's honest mistake. That's at least two tired editors on this page.
 * This isn't a sky is blue kind of claim, and I think it needs actual sourcing, and I don't think it's essential at the end of the article which consists mostly of description of her work and claims. I'm in favour of just deleting the sentence. Handpigdad (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * @Czar I believe you added the relevant text here -- would you mind just pasting the relevant portion from the article since this has come up a couple times? Alyo  (chat·edits) 21:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ special:diff/1184216932 czar  01:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Would changing the sentence from "She holds left-wing views that skew towards socialism" to "She holds left-wing views she describes as skewing towards socialism" be acceptable? That makes the self-labeling clearer, which both adds meaning to the sentence, and makes clear this isn't OR. I think that would address the complaints of the topic creator, and improve the article. Handpigdad (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see why the claim would need to be further qualified. It's already not OR and quite straightforward. czar  13:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Yeah I also don't see a need for this to be qualified further. How exactly is this OR? Alyo  (chat·edits) 23:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)