Talk:Powtawche Valerino

PowHERful Summit is general, not specific to women of color
PowHERful Summit and Foundation have no "Black and Latina" mission, but young women in STEM education generally. The Rice.edu source is just wrong about that. See PowHERful Foundation's own mission statement. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  17:53, 16 January 2018 (UTC) Valerino has pursued the participation of under-represented groups in science.[1] This has included working with Soledad O’Brien to encourage black and Latina young women to pursue careers in STEM at the PowHERful Summit.[2] However, the first source does not support the broad claim, and only the second supports a Black and Latina claim, and this version doesn't even mention the name of the other program. I also rewrote around the "black versus Black" style problem, presently under dispute at WT:MOS. And spelled out what STEM means on first occurrence, per MOS:ABBR. And got rid of strange marketing buzzword crap like "has pursued the participation of" (which sounds more like opposition than encouragement). Explaining what SEE is also helps make the context clearer for Valerino's involvement, plus provides a link spot should SEE be notable, which it might be (lots of coverage though most of it seems local to Fresno and Clovis, California; there may be some that's not, and all it takes is two in-depth-coverage articles that aren't). — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  02:04, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Agreed,, PowHERful seems to be there for any and all college-aged young women. Atlantic. I think its possible the Rice U source is stating that Valerino may have focused on Black and Latina students. What do you think? Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I understand it the same way as Megalibrarygirl. There's no implication that PowHERful itself focuses on minority women; it's Valerino who's focusing on them, to encourage them to get involved in it. Largoplazo (talk) 00:48, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * But there such an implication, even if we're choosing not to draw the inference. It's poor writing (though this is ultimately the fault of the non-independent source used).  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;
 * That does seem the most plausible interpretation. We could (and should, since our text verges on a copy-paste) re-word to identify this as Valerino's focus and to not mis-identify Powherful's actual mission, and to just do a better job overall. Something like: The original wording is this:


 * Sorry, I honestly don't see where you're getting that interpretation. If you read, "Davis ran a program that encouraged and prepared talented minority students to apply to Ivy League colleges", would you infer that Ivy League colleges are specifically for minority students, or would it arouse concern that others might understand it to mean that? Largoplazo (talk) 02:47, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Even if you don't agree that interpretation is possible, the change would serve several other improvement purposes.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ &gt;ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ&lt;  17:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I like SMcCandlish's rewording. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:46, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The article currently says what the source says. Your language says something different from what the source says.
 * The source says "She has worked ... to encourage Black and Latina females to pursue careers in STEM at the PowHERful Summit." In other words, her efforts with respect to STEM and The PowHERful Summit are focused specifically on Black and Latina females. Your language says "young women, including women of color in particular," which first means young women in general, giving us no indication that color even comes into it; the specifies "including women of color", as though to make a point that some of them the women are of color, even though not all of them are; then "in particular", which says, OK, not there are not just women of color among the women she works with, but women of color in particular. The sentence runs through several nuances concerning the representation of women of color among those who have her attention, all in the course off a few words; and none of those nuances matches the original, which states, flatly, that the group of women she's working with in connection with the PowHERful Summit doesn't "include" black and Latina women, nor does it "include in particular" black and Latina women, but that they are black and Latina women. Largoplazo (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Have to look at both sources, not just this one.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  22:06, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 February 2019
Please remove the image for privacy purposes. The original photo was not given permission for use. 2600:6C50:417F:F100:D12F:5D63:643E:CFEE (talk) 07:43, 2 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The person who has taken the photograph has given anyone the permission to use it for any purpose, and that's the only permission we need to consider. You can find it here. Do you have some evidence that the photographer didn't do this? While the subject has some c:Commons:Personality rights and privacy rights, using a neutral photo of her in an encyclopedia article about her does not violate them. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 13:18, 2 February 2019 (UTC)