Talk:Claudia De la Cruz

Latest comment: 2 months ago by Superb Owl in topic Citing campaign website

Criticism and controversies section

edit

Propose re-adding an updated version of the criticism section. The New York Times verified the Daily Beast reporting in August 2023 about Singham. These critiques are on solid footing. Superb Owl (talk) 18:51, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

As I posted in my previous edit comment, most of the sources for your criticism section are editorials, and criticism of the PSL belongs in the PSL article. Funcrunch (talk) 19:53, 27 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I removed the POV tag as nothing in that section indicated it was written from a "fan's perspective" and there was no explanation on this talk page.--User:Namiba 16:14, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
I agree with your tag removal, but for clarity the section Superb Owl proposed re-adding is the criticism subsection you removed earlier. Funcrunch (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply
Looking at it again today, I withdraw my previous suggestion and think the article is good enough as-is. Thanks for pushing back on that. If more notable coverage arises, I'll start another discussion Superb Owl (talk) 21:09, 28 August 2024 (UTC)Reply

Citing campaign website

edit

@Namiba, I am very confused as to why citing a campaign website is appropriate? How does that establish notability of the event? Superb Owl (talk) 16:14, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply

The policy can be found at Wikipedia:SELFSOURCE. There is nothing controversial about the claim.--User:Namiba 16:17, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for pointing that out. It still seems a bit on the self-serving side for me but not as opposed as I was before Superb Owl (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2024 (UTC)Reply