Talk:Amy Chua

Too Fair? / Too Balanced?

I wouldn't want to see an article which only "trashed" Chua, but this one deserves at least a "Controversy" section which includes information such as: "Once, one of her daughters came in second to a Korean kid in a math competition, so Chua made the girl do 2,000 math problems a night until she regained her supremacy. Once, her daughters gave her birthday cards of insufficient quality. Chua rejected them and demanded new cards. Once, she threatened to burn all of one of her daughter’s stuffed animals unless she played a piece of music perfectly." from http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/18/opinion/18brooks.html?_r=0. Webmanoffesto (talk) 09:42, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Untitled

How is this article related to the Philippines? She's not Filipina. She and her parents are neither fully nor partly Filipino. By the way, I have noticed that some (don't know exactly how many, I've lost count) websites (those written in English-language; not sure about websites written in other languages) erroneously write that she (or sometimes, her parents) are of part-Filipino descent. Don't confuse nationality with ethnicity! Zollerriia63 (talk) 05:17, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Ever heard of Philippine Chinese (Chinoy)?--68.175.35.188 (talk) 04:57, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

The wording "members of the Chinese ethnic minority in the Phils" is choppy at best. Why not the standard "Filipino-Chinese" (or US version "Chinese-Filipino")?

Moreover, the term "native dialect" is incorrect unless she was born/raised in China. I suspect her family spoke a mish-mash of Tagalog, English, and Hokkien. Hokkien (or any other Chinese dialect for that matter) is not "native" to anyone Philippine-born. And she herself was born in the US!

On a similar note, she claims her children "speak Chinese". Really?! Forgive me, but I am skeptical. I'm not even conviced she does.

Oh, btw, are we to believe that the "L" is pronounced "Mei-er" in Chinese?! 66.3.106.5 (talk) 01:35, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

It's fairly strange to highlight Filipino culture as Chua's "own" culture. She was born in the US, and has never lived in the Phillipines. She does not explicitly discuss Filipino culture, nor does she identify [herself] as [being] from there. I think references to "Chinese-Filipino" are inapt here. I propose deletion once the protection is lifted. Qalandariyya (talk) 00:04, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Done.Ncip (talk) 18:30, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone clarify if Chua's mother is from the Philippines or from mainland China? Reference is only made to the rather famous father, who was born in the Philippines, but she was probably educated more by her mother. It would be also interesting how many generations the family lived in the Philippines before emigrating to the USA.93.204.123.214 (talk) 19:26, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

Why is there even an article on Chua? She is clearly not well published (I only see 2 books under her name http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/chuacurriculumvitae.htm ), and she has hardly made any breakthroughs or significant contributions in her field. I am suggesting the article moved to deletion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.76.70 (talk) 04:00, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Chua!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Chua? She is clearly not well published (I only see 2 books—Preceding unsigned comment added by 160.94.47.16 (talk) 17:03, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

While Chua's volume of publishing may not be high, the quality of her work is unmistakable. Her book, World on Fire, is regularly assigned as reading in introductory globalization classes in universities (just google "'world on fire' syllabus" to see this) . And considering the timing of the deletion, it seems like the deletion is more of a reaction to her recent Wall Street Journal column ( http://on.wsj.com/e3XlKH ). 122.163.112.32 (talk) 08:49, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

Reply to above comment - WSJ article is pretty incredible, but it does not in any way augment her notability, which is the issue here. I I performed the Google search as noted, and from the results only saw a few institutions in which it was part of the syllabus (Rutgers, Georgetown, and Townson, as the results). Most of the returned came from .com domains, which could not be counted as educational institutions. While I would still like to flag this article for deletion, I would like to hear from a third person's view (preferably someone with moderation/administrative privileged) on their view on the notability issue here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.114.76.70 (talk) 20:10, 9 January 2011 (UTC)

I think it would be a mistake to remove this article. Whether or not she is known as an academic or in legal circles, I sense she is causing quite a stir with her "Chinese Mothers are Best" message, and that she may soon be known more as social critic than as a legal expert. [anonymous] —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.74.92.89 (talk) 05:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I also think it's a mistake to remove the article. Perhaps to assuage the worries of those who think she's not relevant/important enough for an article, we can add in some clarification on the importance of World on Fire -- namely that it was a NYT Bestseller, selected by The Economist as one of the best books of 2003, and named by the UK Guardian as one of the top political reads of 2003. Between that, the Yale Law professorship, and that discussion of Tiger Moms is everywhere, I think the article belongs here. Qalandariyya (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Because in the photos she looked dark like Filipinas and not like Chinese or East Asian celebraties- the same difference between true north European ethnicity and Jewish ethnicity. 2A00:23C4:CC:FC00:84FA:1345:44CE:AC70 (talk) 08:13, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

That above sentence posted on September 12, 2016 is the most racist thing I have ever heard. There are dark Chinese people and dark East Asian celebrities such as Lee Hyori. Hungryhippo112 (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Unsourced editorializing

There have been repeated attempts to insert unsourced editorializing into this entry, claiming that her book is "controversial". As I was drawn to this entry after reading her WSJ article, I don't disagree with that assessment, to say the least. Her words seem designed to be controversial. I am not taking a position that we should not cover whatever controversy really exists.

But we are not an original news reporting organization, nor a forum for editorial commentary. If there is a controversy, then surely it will be reported on in due course in published reliable sources.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm having a hard time seeing these edits as editorializing. It seems like a disservice to readers not to mention the reaction that Chua's pre-publication essay provoked. Few books make the rounds of the mainstream blogosphere like this, and people should know that it happened. If you disagree with the way it was worded before, allow me to suggest something along the lines of this: "The WSJ article described excerpted several anecdotes from the book illustrating what by Chua's own account were her provocative methods. citation of WSJ article (read article for her characterization). The article went on to excite considerable discussion of Chua's work in the blogosphere. citation of high traffic blogs 1-10." A quick Google news scan indicates blog reactions to the WSJ article from the Atlantic to the Huffington Post to CBS.

I'd be happy to undertake the edit and put together the references myself, although my personal schedule would probably cause me to await a maturing of the journalistic response anyway. In the mean time, I'd just like to reiterate my opinion that there's likely to be a lot of traffic to this page arising from the article/book, and to omit the fact that there's been a high volume of critical discourse is practically misleading.Carl Wivagg (talk) 05:26, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you. We just need to cite to reliable sources rather than take it upon ourselves to criticize her work. I don't think, by the way, that comments on her article in the Wall Street Journal are useful - but notice by the Atlantic and CBS and HuffPo are likely very useful.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 10:19, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

i have fleshed things out to start off. MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 18:44, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, MrsSunDoesntShine! I'm happy to work on the edit too, and will go about tightening the language once protection is lifted. There's a huge diversity of content that might well be useful here -- coverage of her book talks, commentary from legal professors, opinions from the Asian-American community, and so on. I'll work on getting that in here and organizing. Qalandariyya (talk) 00:09, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

Possible typos

It says that her first book, on hyperpowers, was published in 2007, while her second book, World on Fire, was published in 2003. Maybe the first is a republication date, but otherwise it would seem World on Fire is actually her first.

For what it's worth, I also think she's notable enough to have a page. TGGP (talk) 05:57, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Maybe an entry under "Chinazis" would suffice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.15.153.75 (talk) 08:06, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

i fixed the order of the books MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 20:54, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

why i removed the sentence regarding the defn of "chinese mother" in tiger essay

I deleted the sentence "She claims this is not limited to Chinese mothers (she does not explain what she means by this phrase, as she is only ethnically Chinese; her family emigrated from the Philippines), but also applies to "Korean, Indian, Jamaican, Irish and Ghanaian parents".". I think this sentence is more confusing than helpful, implying that e.g. Irish parents are more likely than not to have this parenting style. The essay itself makes it clear that these are just anecdotal examples of the ethnicities of other people whom the author knows who happen to have this parenting style, in support of the assertion that she is talking about a generic parenting style rather than one confined to one ethnicity.

A quote from the essay:

"I'm using the term "Chinese mother" loosely. I know some Korean, Indian, Jamaican, Irish and Ghanaian parents who qualify too. Conversely, I know some mothers of Chinese heritage, almost always born in the West, who are not Chinese mothers, by choice or otherwise." -- Bayle Shanks (talk) 22:50, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• i think its important to define what she means though. maybe we should rephrase it. MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

how about something like: "The phrase 'Chinese mother' seems intended to refer to a style of parenting which can (and sometimes is) used by people of any ethnicity." Bayle Shanks (talk) 22:56, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

isn't that original research? we should quote her if we can, just finding the right small quote. i think it's meaningful that she doesn't say "Ghanaian parents who qualify too, and I'm sure there are others". MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 23:00, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Next Media Animation section: remove?

I suggest that we remove the following paragraph:

Taiwanese political CGI animators Next Media Animation[13] responded with a CGI animation entitled "Western mom Vs. Chinese mom: Who is better?"[14][15] The animation sums up some of the content of the article as well as the controversy, and ends with an assertion that Chua does not care if her children grow up damaged, as long as it boosts sales of her book.

I haven't watched the CGI, but I presume it is a satirical cartoon making fun of Mrs. Chua. Does that really deserve to be covered in this encyclopedia? We already have Encyclopedia Dramatica for that sort of thing. Bayle Shanks (talk) 22:53, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

• i think we should keep it because it is a reaction to the article. that's the section it's in. MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 22:58, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I have watched it, and think it is very funny. It is the sort of thing I would tweet or post to facebook, but I do not believe that it is appropriate for mention in an encyclopedic article. It is essentially no different from commentary on the Amy Chua affair by any random blogger or internet commentator, and I think we need to ensure that unnotable internet sources such as these are avoided. I'll hold off deleting it for now in the hope that more editors will give their opinion on whether to keep it or not. BabelStone (talk) 13:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

i guess. i think next media animation is a pretty famous political commentator and i've seen them mentioned on tv, and in that ny times article. currently they are the only reaction from asia that we have too, so i think its important for that reasion. MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 16:06, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've seen them referenced mostly because of the Chua meme. I also don't think it's appropriate for mention in an encyclopedic article. I vote for deletion. At the very least, it shouldn't be given as much space as it has now -- it's just not that important, IMHO. Qalandariyya (talk) 00:11, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

was this change vandalism?

it removed some negative material and added some positive material. i think the positive material is worth keeping but also think the negative should be put back in. [1] MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 03:02, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think so. To me it seemed to be a much needed attempt to bring some balance and neutrality to the article. Jimbo has rightly removed some of what you added back, but the other stuff you added back is also very dubious. The claim that "the article also compared her to Mommie Dearest" is false, as the article merely noted that some unnamed "blog suggested a 'Mommie Dearest' element to her tale", and random blogs are not reliable sources, so this should be removed. The "Western mom Vs. Chinese mom: Who is better?" animation is very funny, and I enjoyed watching it, but I really do not think that it is notable enough to be included in an encyclopedic article. BabelStone (talk) 13:22, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

maybe but when jimbo removes something he always leaves a good reason. i think that IP has been making more changes again and they are pretty confusing why they were done. they removed that nytimes article you just mentioned, which also mentioned the taiwanese animation for instance. MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 15:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

like these:

[2]

[3]

this seems to be trying to stress the positive response. maybe we should make sections? MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

however this looks like a fine change:

[8]

but theres not really any explanation for any of these changes, and i don't agree with a lot of them. also this isn't only stuff i added that was removed. MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 16:05, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I agree that the changes by 66.57.20.148 seem to have been intended to whitewash the affair and show Amy Chua in an unduly positive light. I have therefore reverted some, but not all, of their changes. BabelStone (talk) 19:37, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

[9] shows what I have done to revert the changes by 66.57.20.148. I have not reinstated the mention of the Yale Daily News as it says nothing; or the mention of the Asian girl who committed suicide as it does not seem directly relevant. BabelStone (talk) 19:51, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I've got no interest in edit-warring, but it seems to me that the recent editing by 66.57.20.148 and 152.3.106.154 (both North Carolina IPs and probably the same person) is very disruptive as they are repeatedly removing sourced material and reverting without discussion in what seems like an attempt to impose a sanitized and non-neutral version of the Amy Chua affair. I am certainly not trying to "trash" Amy Chua as the IP claims, as I have removed a number of unsourced and contentious negative reactions, and added positive reaction such as that by Sophia Chua-Rubenfeld, but the WSJ article did generate a great deal of controversy and overwhelmingly negative comment, which should not be ignored. I have been trying to keep a difficult article as neutral as possible, and the IP's recent editing has not helped. It may therefore be worthwhile asking for semi-protection for this article. BabelStone (talk) 00:15, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

i agree you're doing a good job here. MrsSunDoesntShine (talk) 00:32, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Grammatical correction request

{{editprotected}} Since the article cannot be edited now, I thought that I should suggest the removal of the comma in "particular, ethnic" in the description of what may be viewed as Chua's "controversial" advocacy of the superiority of one ethnic group over another. It seems that the comma indicates that the controversy has been caused by the fact that the suggestion of superiority is of a "particular" and of an "ethnic" group; meanwhile I believe that Chua's suggestion that a specific ethnic group is superior is what might be at the heart of any controversy and that the superiority suggested should be described as "particular ethnic," without the comma.

I was prepared to make the changes myself, but then I noticed the padlock at the top. Sofa jazz man (talk) 01:20, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

I believe I also found some irregularities in quotation mark usage in the article:

In the sentence (with my guillemets for clarity),

<<A week later, David Brooks of the New York Times, in an op-ed piece entitled 'Amy Chua is a "Wimp"', stated that he "believe[s] she's coddling her children. She's protecting them from the most intellectually demanding activities because she doesn't understand what's cognitively difficult and what isn't.... Practicing a piece of music for four hours requires focused attention, but it is nowhere near as cognitively demanding as a sleepover with 14-year-old girls. Managing status rivalries, negotiating group dynamics, understanding social norms, navigating the distinction between self and group — these and other social tests impose cognitive demands that blow away any intense tutoring session or a class at Yale.".>>

the period at the end after the quotes seems superfluous.

Also, in these examples, <<"Chinese Mother".>> and <<"raised Jewish".>> and <<"evil mother".>>, the periods that appear outside of the quotation marks contrast with the punctuation in the rest of the article. Even if the British style was first used, the American style seems to predominate in this article and seems appropriate for a topic primarily of American interest.

Sofa jazz man (talk) 01:37, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Grammatical correction request

{{editprotected}} In this section, someone please change "January 8, 2011 contained excerpts" (first sentence) to "January 8, 2011, contained excerpts". Mind the second comma. Thanks. Guoguo12--Talk--  03:52, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, "Chua's Defense" (sub-section title) needs to be "Chua's defense" (lowercase). Thanks. Guoguo12--Talk--  03:56, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

 Done and  Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 04:42, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Adding Subtitle of Book

{{editprotected}} Given the controversy over whether the WSJ article actually accurately reflects the book, it would be useful to add the subtitle of Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother as it appears on the US cover of the book: "This was supposed to be a story of how Chinese parents are better at raising kids than Western ones. But instead, it's about a bitter clash of cultures, a fleeting taste of glory, and how I was humbled by a thirteen-year-old." from http://www.amazon.com/Battle-Hymn-Tiger-Mother-Chua/dp/1594202842 Thanks! 163.1.167.214 (talk) 19:37, 23 January 2011 (UTC)

Bare URLs in references

{{Ambox}}

Here are some formatted cite tags:
<ref name=""> {{cite web
| url=  
| title=  
| last=  
| first=  
| publisher=  
| date=  
| accessdate =
}} </ref>

<ref name=""> {{cite news  
| last=  
| first=  
| url=  
| title=  
| publisher=  
| date=  
| accessdate= }} </ref> Heroeswithmetaphors (talk) 18:49, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Amy Chua as a high school student

Just saw this: http://elcerrito.patch.com/articles/another-younger-side-of-tiger-mother-amy-chua An interesting read for anyone curious what she was like while still under the sway of her parents. Ncip (talk) 16:49, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Amy

Amy Chua's books tell us we mustn't be prejudiced against minorities, like Amy Chua. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.202.208 (talk) 13:23, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Amy Chua. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071211222031/http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/chuacurriculumvitae.htm to http://www.law.yale.edu/faculty/chuacurriculumvitae.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110117072019/http://chrisabraham.com/2007/07/29/i-am-amazed-by-amy-chua/ to http://chrisabraham.com/2007/07/29/i-am-amazed-by-amy-chua/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:44, 4 July 2017 (UTC)

Poorly Sourced, Potentially Slanderous Paragraph Removed

Removed paragraph because of violation of Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons which states that: “Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” The paragraph in question used as its' only Reliable Source the Yale Daily News. The sole use of a student newspaper is the definition of poorly sourced.

In addition, Wikipedia's Biographies of living persons states that "The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." Karagory (talk) 00:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Remove the sentence: "Yale Law School barred Chua from teaching required courses, in addition to imposing a financial penalty" that was not mentioned in the Reliable Source. Furthermore, the Reliable source referenced states the opposite: "Yale Law School does not comment on, or even acknowledge the existence of, faculty disciplinary cases, and it strictly maintains the confidentiality of faculty employment files." Karagory (talk) 21:45, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Response to the claim that I've used "contentious material": The sources I've cited include but are not limited to Yale Daily News and Above the Law (website). In response to the claim that a student newspaper is not a legitimate form of reporting, I'm not sure this makes any logical sense. The controversy surrounding Chua's violation of a 2019 agreement with [[Yale Law school] took place during her tenure at Yale, and even if the report of this issue came from a Yale student journal, this journal could still have legitimate sources. To argue against this would be to commit the genetic fallacy--which is a fallacious argument discrediting an opinion or report simply due to its origin and not to its argumentative merit. Note: I've also cited an open letter published by Amy Chua herself which you can find by clicking here. In this way, I've included differing opinions of the controversy. However, I'm open to discussing these sources should there be any misunderstanding.

I am also open to providing other sources such as one by the New York Post and The Daily Mail which you can find by clicking here and here. Please note that these are third-party sources, and also confirm the seriousness of the sexual assault allegations raised against the Chua-Rubenfeld family. I understand that these are serious and controversial matters, but as editors, we cannot be biased and fail to include a description of all sides of the controversy. I will again recite my original edit here to show that I've included different opinions from verbatim quotes of the parties involved in the controversy.

Original edit: On April 7, 2021, Yale Daily News writer Julia Brown reported that Chua would no longer be leading a small private group class at Yale Law School. In 2019, after allegations that Chua's husband, Rubenfeld, sexually assaulted students at certain dinner parties held at their private residence, Brown reported that Chua agreed "to stop drinking and socializing with students outside of class and office hours." On March 26, students met with the law school's administrative faculty to discuss documented communication between some students and Chua concerning the ongoing dinner parties and social interaction outside of class.

On April 8, 2021, Chua penned a letter to the law school denying any violation of the 2019 agreement. She stated, "I do not believe that I have violated anything in my agreement with [Gerken] (which was confidential and mischaracterized by the Yale Daily News)." In the public letter, Chua wrote that in order to support certain distressed students, she chose to meet with them at her private residence "[b]ecause [Chua and the student(s)] could not meet in the law school building." She added that her husband was not present during these interactions at her private residence.

I hope we can discuss this further to reach a consensus. Thank you. Hungryhippo112 (talk) 07:52, 16 April 2021 (UTC)Hungryhippo112

The use of a Student Newspaper is a “poor source” for the following reasons: 1 – Student newspapers are not Reliable Sources. 2 – The editors/reporters change from year to year; thus, how can they be termed “reliable?” 3 – In addition, the student newspaper cited (Yale) is part of the story, thus not neutral. 4 – If you open up Reliable Sources to Student Newspapers, then ANY student newspaper can be considered a Reliable Source.

As to the editor’s claim of potential “genetic fallacy” I disagree. Sources must be “reliable” by Wikipedia’s definition. For instance, Albert Einstein would be unable to write first-hand knowledge of the General Theory of Relativity even though he came up with the theory due to Wikipedia’s Reliable sources policy. I am only trying to make sure that the policy is uniformly applied.

The editor’s proposed changes are considered "contentious material." The term is not being used as a pejorative. The changes are contentious as observed in this talk page.

I would not object to the use of Reliable Sources other than student newspapers. The editor states that other Reliable Sources exists. Simply use those other sources.

I would remind the editor that according to Wikipedia’s Biographies of living persons: “Wikipedia's sourcing policy, Verifiability, says that all quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation;…” Karagory (talk) 01:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not sure why the material about these allegations is being removed. There are copious reliable sources which corroborate the fact that these allegations were made, looked into by Yale, and that a disciplinary issue arose (without drawing a conclusion as to whether the allegations are true or not). The claims are made clearly and well sourced on Jed Rubenfeld's page. There are 4 long pars about similar, but less serious and no better documented, nor proven, allegations regarding Brett Kavanaugh. The suggestion that the Yale Daily News is not a reliable source here is meretricious. It is disappointing to leave the page in a state which must lead visitors to the conclusion that an important part of the story is being deliberately and repeatedly expunged by Wikipedia editors. 2A02:C7F:F28A:1400:1E4F:BD1:A127:7AC3 (talk) 23:26, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

References

Poorly Sourced, Potentially Slanderous Paragraph Removed - Part 2

Paragraph removed because New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting. Karagory (talk) 21:59, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Editor not showing balance as BLP requires; editor not discussing on this page. Karagory (talk) 00:52, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

This editor believes that information about the lead's husband should be located in the "Personal life" section. Karagory (talk) 19:35, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Editor not discussing changes on talk page; editor refusing to discuss. Karagory (talk) 03:00, 30 March 2022 (UTC)