Talk:Ann Powers

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Books[edit]

Weird Like Us: My Bohemian America doesn't even get a mention in the Books section. I don't want to crap up it up with a stub that makes no sense, but it makes for a strange gap in the timeline. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.91.164.7 (talk) 01:36, 24 November 2015 (UTC)

Education[edit]

Any idea where Powers went to university? She was in a Ph.d program at UC Berkeley, I know, dropping it to go to work for the New York Times, but what about her undergraduate work? --Calton | Talk 16:55, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Lineage[edit]

I am pretty sure the following part of the entry is false as the wikipedia entry on her "grandmother" doesn't add up: Powers is the granddaughter of American actress Stephanie Powers, and appeared with her grandmother in an uncredited cameo in an episode of the ABC drama series Hart to Hart. (Getting Aweigh With Murder, Season 2, Episode 15, original air date 4/14/1981) Pklala (talk) 22:06, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikilinks[edit]

Hey BrillLyle, I can see the argument for IARing this, but since her husband's already blue-linked earlier in the body of the entry as well as (thank you) in the infobox, does he need to be a third time in the personal life section? Oh; perhaps it argues for consolidating the Early and Personal life sections (especially since latter is quite short anyhow). Then when mentioned under Career he could simply be referred to by his last name. Just a thought. I'm not fussed about it. Thanks for all your work on the entry. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

@Innisfree987: -- Apologies, I am not sure what IARing means. Please let me know. I guess maybe the WikiLink in the career section should go, though their work at EMP is pretty important? It seemed super odd not to have a WikiLink there in the personal life section, where I think most people would logically look and/or see it. IMO, I think Early life and education should stay how it is and not have personal life info added to it. I also do think the Personal life section can stay short and sweet, no need for consolidation really.... I was going to add more to the page maybe. Appreciate your c/e eye on this. Thanks for the thanks!!! It's much appreciated. A friend on Facebook tagged me to help Ann as she was super unhappy with the state of her entry, so she gave me a list of inaccuracies (there were a lot). Best, - Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 01:31, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@BrillLyle: Oh ha, ironically that's my mistake not to put a blue link on WP:IAR--"ignore all the rules"--in this case regarding the WP Manual of Style guidance that terms should typically be linked only at its first occurrence in an entry. But I agree it'd be weird not to have a link in the personal life section as well, if they remain separate! The logic for limiting links (that it distracts the reader) isn't too pressing here, I don't think. In any case, no big deal. Innisfree987 (talk) 01:47, 2 January 2018 (UTC)
@Innisfree987: Ah, dumb me. Thanks for explaining. I have been editing for a while but I didn't know that WIKI:Rulez abbreviation for Ignore All Rules. I took out the WikiLink in the Career section so it's now just in the infobox and personal life section. Thanks again!!! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 02:22, 2 January 2018 (UTC)

The Dreaming[edit]

Apologies, but after seeing verification issues in another article I spot-checked your recent articles, BrillLyle, just in case there was a similar mistake elsewhere. This article says, In 2007, Ann Powers wrote a proposal for a book on Kate Bush’s album The Dreaming that was intended to be part of the 33 1/3 series; however, the project was abandoned when Powers started her work at the Los Angeles Times and the book was never written. Neither of the sources given at the end directly support that the book wasn't written. Also, Kate Bush's The Dreaming 33 1/3 does exist so I'm not sure why the text says it was never written? Ca2james (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2018 (UTC)

The edit history and above discussion has the explanation. I realize typically our stance is WP:VNT but in this case I think WP:IAR applies: we can't in good faith publish something false because sources, in error, appear to verify it. And I think we can reasonably trust the assertion that it wasn't published: if the book existed, it would be extremely strange that there are no reviews of it; all the coverage talks about the anticipation of the book, none about its reception; it cannot be purchased anywhere even second-hand; not held in a single library; not listed on 33 1/3's own catalog; etc. etc. I def see why the passage in the entry leads to this confusion though; if you've got a suggestion for how to clarify it better, that'd be most welcome! Innisfree987 (talk) 21:13, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, Innisfree987. I assume one of the edits you're referring to is this one, where Powers herself apparently asked that the extra information be provided. Personal requests like that are not reliable sources and, in the absence of a reliable source actually stating that the book wasn't written, adding the information that no book exists is WP:OR. I don't see how this is an IAR situation at all. Wikipedia publishes things that might be wrong if that's what the sources say, even if we think we know better and can prove our point as you do above (which is pretty much textbook WP:SYNTH). I think I've seen the example that if this were the middle ages, Wikipedia would have an article about the earth revolving around the sun. The clearest, least confusing thing to do in this case is to omit the text about this book until reliable sources show up talking about what happened to it. Ca2james (talk) 22:01, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
I initially also felt uncomfortable with the idea of a personal request, but the fact is we entertain them all the time--in fact we specifically ask that subjects of BLPs put in their requests to let other WP editors address, rather than make changes themselves. As for reliability, I don't know what could be more reliable than an author saying she did not write a book. Do you want verification from the publisher? Force Powers to send OTRS documentation--hopefully she saved emails calling off the project? I mean, at a certain point this just defies common sense, which is why I invoke IAR. The subject says she didn't write the book; if you look at the other available sources, none confirms the book exists, including in the link you provided (none of which is SYNTH but simply a statement of what is in the extant material); and as for OR, it's a longstanding practice that primary sources--necessarily original research--are fine as long as the entire article isn't based on them. I think it's sensible to leave this material in.
To the broader point, if you know of places where Wikipedia is including info that's demonstrably wrong, out of commitment to an underlying erroneous source, please do point it out; that should be addressed. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:54, 4 January 2018 (UTC)
Please review WP:RS - sources must be published. Powers telling BrillLyle about this book is most definitely not a reliable source because it's not published. What you're asking for is to include WP:OR in this article through the use of unpublished sources and WP:SYNTH and that's not ok. Ignoring our reliable source guidelines does not improve Wikipedia but undermines it - which is directly the opposite of what IAR is all about. Wikipedia is not the place for Powers to make it known that she didn't write the book; Wikipedia is here to summarize what others say about Powers and the book. If there are no reliable sources discussing its existence then it's WP:UNDUE to include it in the article. Ca2james (talk) 00:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ca2james: While I appreciate that your intention is obviously intended to be constructive, I would ask that you don't spot-check my edits. It is not welcome and is really not okay. "Similar mistakes"?!?!? Really? I find that really uncool to say. I have almost 60,000 edits on the projects and I specialize in citations, and cleaning up articles and actually adding content -- versus picking at issues that are either resolved (like here) or already have an explanation (like on the other article). I know you probably see this as being helpful but I am feeling a bit stalked and harassed. I am not talking about having ownership over pages or my edits but I fail to see how your work here -- especially with the throwing around of WIKI:Rulez -- is productive in any way.
And last I heard, when someone reaches out to an editor for assistance with a big problem on their page, either via OTRS or via other channels, that wish, per BLP, should be honored on some level. It is actually 100% absurd to require some sort of verifiable confirmation of conversations between editors and the subject of an article when I have fully cited the information that is out there on this issue, to the best of my ability. Beside the fact that there was discussion and resolution of this issue, so it's like you are just picking at a scab here. I would ask you to kindly (a) NOT follow my edits, as it is intrusive and unwelcome (and what gives you the right to do this to another editor, as it can be seen as bullying on some level) and (b) re-evaluate and listen to both your actions and the feedback given here. I am trying to see the positive in the comments you have posted here but really it's difficult to not take them in an unpleasant light. I am an experienced editor who routinely cleans up articles and adds content that is fully supported by citations. I know what I'm doing here and don't need you with less than 3,000 edits, vetting my free digital labor contributions. It's not okay. Please don't follow me. And please go make constructive edits -- like actual contributions to a page -- versus nit picking on something that is in pretty good shape. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 04:35, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
BrillLyle, an experienced editor like yourself should know that it isn't ok to put citations in if they don't actually support text, which appears to be what happened in the other article and here. And if an experienced editor does make mistakes like that they should expect that their contributions will be checked.
The text I refer to in this article is unsupported by reliable sources, and saying so isn't nitpicking. I realize that you two have decided that the text is ok but your position is not supported by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Whether you think Wikipedia rules are absurd or not, we have to abide by them. Subjects of BLPs can have some say in what their articles say but we must not add things to our articles without being able to verify those things with reliable sources.
Perhaps it's time to take the question of whether or not the text follows policies and guidelines to WP:NORN for additional input from uninvolved editors. What do you think? Ca2james (talk) 05:22, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ca2james: Actually you are wrong on all counts. The citations are to an incorrect and incomplete WorldCat citation and the stated proposed book on 33 1/3's website. Because you don't understand the meaning of these citations doesn't mean they are wrong. Do some due diligence.
It is also clear you don't understand BLP, and the right the subjects of BLP articles have. She asked to fix this, it was fixed as per instructions, and the case was closed. Or should we have incorrect information up there, with the BLP subject objecting, and no one fixing the incorrect error. You are just wrong about this.
Shadowing someone's edits is not okay. Please stop. Figure this out because it is not an acceptable thing to do. It is very hostile behavior, especially given your edit count.
It would be great if you could learn and adjust your editing behavior. And again -- consider actually improving the pages and adding significant amounts of content, which I do on the regular, versus micro-focusing on other editors' editing. It's not a great way to go about assuming good faith or supporting other editors' contributions. It's really messed up, actually. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 05:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I had already stopped looking at your edits. I looked at exactly one article - this one - after I ran across the other one and found the glfailed verification problems. I was trying to be transparent about what I had done so as not to alarm you by showing up in a second place and finding issues with your edits. Please take a step back.
This isn't a BLP issue; it's an OR issue. Maybe you're right about the citations currently in the text, and maybe I'm right. I think the best way to settle this is to seek out the opinions of uninvolved editors at NORN. Ca2james (talk) 05:49, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ca2james: What part of this being already resolved and addressed adequately do you not understand. Please give this up. Please. BrillLyle (talk) 05:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ca2james: If you want to learn how to edit, or need help figuring how to add content and citations to Wikipedia pages, or need help cleaning up a Wikipedia page, I could help you. But this kind of back and forth is an abject waste of everyone's time. I've offered here. Take me up on it. But please give up this scab picking experience and move on. Gads. -- BrillLyle (talk) 05:58, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
I've posted my question at WP:NORN#Ann_Powers and pinged both of you there. If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong, but it doesn't hurt to get more input. Ca2james (talk) 06:07, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ca2james: This is also not an issue about original research. You are willfully wasting EVERYONE'S time here. Please stop. This is a resolved issue. BrillLyle (talk) 13:48, 5 January 2018 (UTC)
Innisfree987: I also can't find any evidence that the book has been published. (Curiously, Google Books has a page count for it.) But the two citations given in the prose don't line up with what is claimed: neither of them says anything about Ms. Powers writing a proposal in 2007 or abandoning it when she started working at the Los Angeles Times, and the blog post that has a list of 33⅓ titles, not listing this one, is dated before Ms. Powers is supposed to have drafted the book. Since there appear to be no reliable sources that we can use to say anything about the The Dreaming project, we should say nothing. There's nothing false about that. Rebbing 22:21, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
@Rebbing: So is this tweet enough proof? https://twitter.com/annkpowers/status/949779643116244993 Gadzooks this has been a real drag. I'm trying to help the subject of this BLP correct and clarify this point. You all have made it impossible. This has been a shameful ridiculous experience. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk)
I think the tweet probably satisfies the WP:ABOUTSELF criteria. Rebbing 23:55, 6 January 2018 (UTC)
Please stop deleting a citation and year for this book. They support the information and should not be deleted. I want to go on record to say that this BLP entry has been an absolute NIGHTMARE due to obstructive Wikipedia editors. I wish you would all stop doing this. It makes editing and improving Wikipedia an absolutely unpleasant experience. And except for Innisfree987, none of you have contributed anything but raking the entry over the coals. If I was a newer and less experienced editor I would have left the community and stopped editing. Do any of you think about this when you act in this way? I know that it is clear that Ca2james can't seem to understand the impact of their actions, but Rebbing please don't encourage and support this type of hostile editing. I'm exhausted from this, and I am only trying to help the subject of a BLP. I am really unhappy. This experience has been textbook problematic En Wiki editing. Please re-evaluate your actions here. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 00:30, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
You had a tweet that supports the text? Why didn't you say so in the first place? We could have avoided all that discussion and I wouldn't have posted at NORN if known there was this other option. Ca2james (talk) 00:41, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ca2james: Oh. My. God. Are you freaking kidding me?!? I repeatedly told you I was working with the subject of the entry and that she asked me to correct mistakes on her page. Not everyone is going to be able to Tweet something like this. You are requiring a level of confirmation for BLP entries that is 1000% unreasonable. If she had gone through OTRS this would have taken months. A friend tagged me on social media and I attempted to address issues with her page and add content that would represent her career. If you don't understand this being acceptable, which you OBVIOUSLY don't, I am at a loss. I kept telling you this. You have been nothing but obstructive and dense. You have harassed me to the point of madness. You don't know what you are doing here and you don't understand BLPs and I don't know what more I can say to you beyond what I've already said. You need help. You're not improving anything here -- and you're making editing so flipping unpleasant. Please. Figure this stuff out. I have no patience left for you. If you see me editing a page, please just don't "help." -- BrillLyle (talk) 00:53, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
It's not acceptable here, and, unreasonable or not, verifiability is the standard we have for all articles, not just BLPs. See WP:VERIFY, which is a policy and could not be more explicit about this. If you have a problem with verifiaiblity, you have a problem with Wikipedia. Rebbing 01:04, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
No, she didn't have a source until today. Looking at the parent tweet ("apparently your word on this doesn't count to other Wikipedia editors") makes me think that BrillLyle doesn't appreciate the difference between a public tweet by the subject (cf. WP:TWITTER) and a Wikipedia editor's retelling of a private conversation. Rebbing 00:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Rebbing I saw that the tweet was recent after I posted my comment above. If I'd known a tweet would/could be made available this might have been a different conversation. A personal communication (her word as told to an editor) is acceptable as a source in academia but not here on Wikipedia; maybe BrillLyle is unfamiliar with the difference. Ca2james (talk) 01:39, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
BrillLyle: Annnd that's my bad; I think I confused it with this? Either way, I apologize to you; the citation is obviously relevant.
However, it still doesn't show that Ms. Powers wrote the proposal in 2007: it lists the book as being slated for publication in 2007, which is not the same thing. Moreover, the blog post is dated March 2006, and it stands to reason that her proposal would have been accepted before the 33⅓ announced it as an upcoming publication, and Ms. Powers would have had to have written the proposal before it could be accepted. Therefore, Ms. Powers would have written the proposal in 2006 or earlier. The wording ought to be changed to match the sources. How about this:

Powers wrote a proposal for a book on Kate Bush’s album The Dreaming that was slated to be published in 2007 as part of the the 33⅓ series; however, the project was abandoned when Powers started her job at the Los Angeles Times, and the book was never written.

As for the rest, I could not disagree more strongly. The fact that you're unhappy doesn't prove that you've been mistreated. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original information: "all material must be attributable to reliable, published sources. . . . Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." Corresponding with subjects as you do and adding what they say privately is not appropriate, and there is nothing hostile or problematic about requiring you to do your homework. Wikipedia is not the place for freelance journalism, however well-intended, and, if you're feeling frustrated about that, maybe you should consider a different writing outlet. Rebbing 00:54, 7 January 2018 (UTC)
Well I haven't enjoyed editing with you either, Rebbing, as I think you are doing a similar type of editing (i.e., deleting versus adding content). But this is not about just edits to this page. Ca2james has been working his less than 3,000 edits "magic" on another page I was editing. There's more to this than just this page. -- BrillLyle (talk) 00:58, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── You most definitely did not say you were working with the subject, let alone repeatedly say you were doing so. You said above you'd talked to the subject before and done what she wanted (which, AFAIK, is not how things are supposed to work - BLP subjects aren't supposed to be able to dictate what's in their articles, and they're supposed to go through OTRS even if it takes months), but not that you were continuing to talk to her about this issue. Had you actually said that you were actively working with her, I'd have dropped the issue because there'd have been no need to continue.

As to your false charges: I am not harassing you. I ended up at Shore Fire Media through an internet rabbit hole, looked at citations (as I do), and saw that there were verifiability problems. I looked at the history, saw you'd added some of the issues, and looked at this article, where I found more verifiability issues. I didn't and haven't gone further into your contribution history, but I do have concerns about your editing if you're adding citations that don't support the text. Having your text challenged and possibly removed is part of editing on Wikipedia. Your response to that - to be aggressive and condescending and, yes, gaslighting - is impeding the editing process and has to stop. Ca2james (talk) 01:13, 7 January 2018 (UTC)


Innisfree987—regarding your summary here: I believe the source supporting '07 as the intended date of publication is this:

333sound (March 11, 2006). "33 x 33 1/3". 33⅓. Archived from the original on January 8, 2018. Retrieved January 7, 2018. 

The Dreaming by Ann Powers is listed under books due to be published in summer, autumn, or winter 2007. (I misread this source too.)

I'm still (weakly) in favor of cutting the paragraph. The book proposal has no coverage in secondary sources; we've stitched together a list entry on the publisher's blog, a publication data page, and a purpose-written Tweet to support this, which is the sort of thing WP:PROPORTION admonishes us not to do. Of course, it's also perfectly harmless: including it doesn't distract from the rest of the article, and it doesn't reflect poorly on anyone. Rebbing 22:44, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

I'm also in favour of cutting the paragraph. If there were secondary sources talking about this book I could see it being included because then we'd know how much weight to give it. I'm not sure why it was included in the first place. And while it doesn't reflect poorly on any person, we have policies and guidelines for a reason and this text goes against those (in this case NPOV, specifically PROPORTION). Ca2james (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
(arriving here from Floquenbeam's talk page) link I disagree- we are here to serve our readers and a quick Google search reveals that there is some curiosity online as to what happened to this book. I also don't see how PROPORTION comes into play here given that this is one sentence of a much longer section- sure, if there was a whole paragraph extolling the virtues of the manuscript, lamenting the travesty of it never being published, yes, UNDUE might come into play- but one sentence explaining the draft was never published is in my eyes harmless. jcc (tea and biscuits) 17:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Thanks for weighing in Jcc. While I'm in favour of cutting the paragraph I do see that it serves readers and won't object if consensus is against me and it stays in. Ca2james (talk) 18:36, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Cosigning jcc's comment. Innisfree987 (talk) 18:44, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Works and Publications[edit]

Speaking of Powers' writing, the list of her works and publications needs some trimming. The books are included in two places: the Books subsection and Works and Publications and there's no need to have duplicate content like that. I'm partial to having only the list in Works in Publications because the text in the Books subsection adds no real content. What are other's thoughts?

Regarding the articles Powers wrote that are included in the text, it's unclear what makes the articles she wrote worth including. Can we come up with a criteria for inclusion for them? For example, have any of them been cited by secondary sources as influential or having lasting impact? Or were they part of a larger conversation? Which ones are best known? Or, another approach could be to link to her articles on each site in the text above. Thoughts? Ca2james (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

@Ca2james: Oh yes, please continue your path of destroying information on Wikipedia. You are a menace and should be stopped. I took the time to make this entry relatively representative of the subject. But by all means, delete her works. Take the facts off the page in your petty incompetent attempt at "protecting" ?!? Wikipedia content. You are an example of why people DON'T edit Wikipedia. Why should they contribute if you will swoop in and delete content? -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 17:46, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I haven't touched these sections of the article, let alone deleted this content; I thought it better to discuss this first. What criteria did you use to determine which article writings were relatively representative of the subject? Also, do you have a preference between keeping either the Books section or the books in the Works and publications as a way of removing duplication? Ca2james (talk) 17:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ca2james: Aren't you so reasonable. I think you should delete it all. Indeed, throw Wikipedia into a fiery pit and lob the whole thing there. You are deleting content. You are bullying me and threatening me with ANI on my Talk page. With not even 3,000 edits you have managed to embody the WORST of En Wikipedia editing. So well done. I am powerless in the face of your oh so seemingly reasonable attack on content here and on the other page you've "edited." It's not ethical. It's not okay. But you will win here. Delete it ALL! Congrats! -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 18:08, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
I'm trying to work with you, and yes I'm trying to stay reasonable. So going back to content... What were the criteria you used to generate the list of Powers' articles? I'm sure your criteria were perfectly reasonable but the list is long and it's unclear to me that each article is needed in the list. (Maybe the list is actually too short, I don't know). Please can we work together here? Ca2james (talk) 18:53, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
@Ca2james: It's pretty clear you are a sockpuppet. Your edit history and heavy usage and familiarity with WIKI:Rulez and ANI is evidence of this. No one sprouts as a new editor with your skillset.
I don't see you working "together" with anyone. I just see you pushing a deletionist approach to perfectly okay content.
Ann Powers has had a very long and storied career. She should have her publications on here. And selected articles -- especially award winning ones -- should be allowed to be up here. She's prolific. This is a very small representation of her work.
But you don't trust anything I have done here. You have disregarded the fact that I have had offline discussions with the subject of this article about mistakes and/or problems with her page. You are now trying to delete more content.
Quite frankly YOU are the one not working together here. Your editing here is not welcome. You are harassing me on my Talk page, boomeranging your bad behavior back onto me. You're trolling me. I hope it makes you happy. That's clearly what is happening here. It sucks. -- Erika aka BrillLyle (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
Sockpuppet? What the???? That would be hilarious if it weren't so deeply offensive. If you think I'm a sockpuppet of someone, please do file an SPI. If you're just throwing out attacks in the hopes that one will strike home, please stop. I'm not trying to troll you; I really am trying to improve this article.
I think I must not have been clear about what I'm saying with respect to Powers' works and publications. I'm definitely NOT saying that none of her works should be listed. I'm asking for the criteria used to generate the list - if there is no criteria (like, say, you only picked a random subset of her works), that's fine, but then I'm just saying we should work together to develop some criteria to make sure that the list best represents her work. This shouldn't be a big deal at all and I don't understand why you're focusing on me rather than the content.
As for your statement that [I] have disregarded the fact that [you] have had offline discussions with the subject of this article about mistakes and/or problems with her page. That is perfectly true, because BLP subjects do not have control over the articles about them and if they want changes to be made, they need to contact OTRS. I also have no way of knowing which content you added or changed at the subject's request because it's not documented. Have you edited on behalf of the article subject? Ca2james (talk) 21:14, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

MoPOP questions[edit]

First, the sentence She has done this with her husband, music critic Eric Weisbard ("this" refers to the previous sentence, which says been on the program committee and has often curated the keynote sessions of the Pop Conference music conference held annually at MoPOP). The two references there don't support the text. I can find sources that say Eric Weisbard has participated on the program committee for 2015 onwards, but I can't find any sources that say that he helped Powers do her job on the program committee and/or that he helped her curate the keynote sessions. Are there sources out there that support this or another statement about Powers and her Weisbard on the committee?

Second, about the sentence In 2015, Powers gave a keynote presentation called "Can Pop Really Be Transgressive? Poptimism and Its Discontents" and curated an exhibit on "Britney Spears as Cyborg." Is there a reason why this 2015 presentation was chosen for the article? She's given lots and lots of talks here and there, even at this conference in other years. It seems UNDUE to include just this one talk unless there's a good reason to do so, and without one, it should be removed. As an aside, oneof the two references for this sentence doesn't support it fully, either. The second source for this sentence is a youtube link to the 2016 keynote panel, which obviously doesn't support this sentence. Ca2james (talk) 01:42, 11 January 2018 (UTC)