Talk:Krista Branch/Archive 1

Archive 1

"Insurgent"

Why is it so important to use this word? --John (talk) 22:07, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I think it is an engaging word, plain and simple. It is not really contentious as political campaigns are regularly described as being "insurgent" campaigns.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

It seems unnecessarily emotional. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Tom. This is an encyclopedia we are writing. --John (talk) 22:22, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The word is put in quotation marks. "Outsider" is overly sanitized and doesn't communicate it properly.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:30, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Left the child briefly

We might want to keep that "briefly", or else say about 4 minutes like the source, just to avoid any blp concerns. Tom Harrison ^Talk 22:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

That was my issue with removing that word. I wanted to make sure it gets handled in a way that doesn't imply that she was somehow neglectful, but reflect it as a perfectly human accident.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I've qualified it to satisfy WP:BLP.[1] Tom Harrison ^Talk 00:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Doesn't that then contradict the figure that the child was without oxygen for eight-ten minutes? --John (talk) 05:23, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

We can't go beyond what the single source says, but it doesn't seem contradictory. The interval between finding the child not breathing and starting cpr and/or calling for and waiting for the ambulance could account for the difference between the time the child was alone and the time she was without oxygen. But that involves inference. It would be good if there were more than just that one source. If we can't summarize it and satisfy blp, that section should be removed. Tom Harrison ^Talk 12:04, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The word "briefly" manages it just fine honestly.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 14:43, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree. There is too much dissonance for our readers in stating two separate time periods for this story. If more sources are available which give a more comprehensive account of what happened, we should use them to write an encyclopedic sentence or two about it. If there are not, we should probably not cover it at all. --John (talk) 18:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The source does provide a rather comprehensive account of what happened.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 18:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It does, but on the other hand this doesn't seem like a particularly good source for a BLP. Are there any others? --John (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

How is a story from the 700 Club where they interviewed the couple about the event not a good source?--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 20:08, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, WP:RS will give you chapter and verse of what is a nuanced but central topic to our work here. For a claim like this, I would like to see coverage on one of the main news sites, though a book source would be even better. A claim regarding a religious experience made by an organ of the Christian Broadcasting Network doesn't seem well-sourced to me, especially on an article about a living person. --John (talk) 20:35, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

What are you saying makes it an unreliable source exactly? I am not citing it to claim it was a miracle, that's outside my pay grade. I am only citing it to note that the event occurred and exactly what happened here in the physical realm.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 21:38, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a dodgy source for a claim like this because as a Christian organization they would have an interest in promoting the "miraculous" nature of what is claimed to have happened. --John (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The claim is that the kid did not have oxygen for eight to ten minutes, the paramedics expected there to be brain damage as a result, the kid turned out to be perfectly fine, and her parents said it was because they prayed. None of that is particularly unusual. People survive after longer times without oxygen and people often attribute such stories to some sort of divine intervention.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 22:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

That's right, and if the only source for the claim is this religious website I don't think we can publish it. Others may have their own views of course. --John (talk) 22:18, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, they interviewed Michael and Krista Branch about it, so that means a little more than it just being on CBN.--The Devil's Advocate (talk) 23:13, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I started a discussion at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard to see if we can attract a wider range of opinions on this. --John (talk) 09:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The shorter version here says everything we need to say about it, unless it starts to appear in other sources. Tom Harrison ^Talk 14:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

DOB?

Does anyone have a date of birth to put in the lead? --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:14, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

• I found 1981. Still looking for day and month. --ColonelHenry (talk) 23:44, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Revision of Lede 19JUL2012

I started revising the article to practice what I preached on the GA. Removed content from the lede that is repeated almost verbatim in the bio-body in the core of the article. By doing so, I made the lede concise and clear (and not redundant) in accordance with the WP:MOS. Feel free to disagree with my work, but the format of the article before was not GA worthy, IMHO.--ColonelHenry (talk) 23:47, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

@TheDevil'sAdvocate: You reverted my revisions to a previous version claiming that the lede didn't cover material in body. However, it did--and did so more than adequately. I revised the previous version to a lede of one paragraph in length covering the important broad points of the article and the subject's notability. The previous version used three paragraphs that rambled and repeated material in the article's body at length verbatim. The goal is summary style per the MOS. A lede isn't space for bulk repetition. You want this article to be a GA and have nominated it. It is not GA-calibre. I reviewed it stating it is not GA-calibre. It is not well written and does not conform to MOS guidelines. However, you disagree defensively (as is your right, as long as your disagreement isn't from emotional attachment and ownership). When I try to clean it up, you have proceeded to revert. It would be advisable for you to improve the article instead of insisting on obstructivism. Continuing to revert good faith editing (that does not harm the article) on specious grounds will compel me to refer this matter to an administrator for WP:OWN behavior--and I will gladly do so without compunction. --ColonelHenry (talk) 03:31, 20 July 2012 (UTC)