Talk:Disappearance of Tiffany Whitton
 | A fact from Disappearance of Tiffany Whitton appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 13 September 2018 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||
.svg){kind=small}
RSN noticeboard
editI've raised a question about the use of the main source in this article at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. MPS1992 (talk) 19:13, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
Fragment
editThe sentence fragment in question seems to have been reintroduced by this revert. 2600:8800:1880:1084:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 06:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- I don't know why you removed it. Without those five words at the end, "without" leaves the reader hanging. The point was that, as the cited source says, he didn't realize she was using heroin until she went through withdrawal one morning, because even though he's an admitted methhead he avoids heroin so he wouldn't have recognized the signs of her addiction. Daniel Case (talk) 06:37, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- I parsed it as "Whitton, however, also became addicted to heroin without Caudle[.]" which seemed to be a complete statement. The phrasing, as you have restored it, is stilted and awkward to understand. How about "Whitton had been addicted to heroin for some time before Caudle found out. Caudle told Esquire that he avoids the drug." 2600:8800:1880:1084:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- OK, fine. Daniel Case (talk) 16:12, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
- I parsed it as "Whitton, however, also became addicted to heroin without Caudle[.]" which seemed to be a complete statement. The phrasing, as you have restored it, is stilted and awkward to understand. How about "Whitton had been addicted to heroin for some time before Caudle found out. Caudle told Esquire that he avoids the drug." 2600:8800:1880:1084:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 06:49, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
Adoption
editThe main reason I cleared up the language about her adoption is because the original wording linked her comment only to her pregnancy, when the article indicates it was also about placing the baby for adoption. 2600:8800:1880:1084:5604:A6FF:FE38:4B26 (talk) 18:38, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
- OK, I see your point. We'll work with this. Daniel Case (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2018 (UTC)
excessive comma use
editWith regard to this edit, it's ugly. It breaks the flow of the sentence and makes for harder reading. The lack of the second comma in the sentence is not grammatically incorrect, so why have it? Chaheel Riens (talk) 08:59, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
- On further reflection I suppose we could recast the sentence to avoid the issue. I felt the second comma was necessary because without it, "he noted" points to the phrase after it; I put it in that way because a) without it the statement looks like the article itself is taking a point of view and b) I meant for "he noted" to emphasize what came before it. Daniel Case (talk) 23:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)