Jump to content

Talk:Michelle Wu/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Michelle Wu. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

  • 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) 12:13, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Removed material

Hello! I've just removed a considerable amount of material that was largely lifted from Wu's mayoral campaign and political office. Since it's only covered in primary sources, inclusion of this material is tough to do while avoiding promotionalism. Material should be covered in secondary sources to indicate significance. I've also done the same thing on Annissa Essaibi George's page. Ganesha811 (talk) 04:55, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Platform section

@Ganesha811: A politicians own declared stances can be cited using their own written literature outlining those stances, so long as the wording is careful to clarify that these are their stances, and their claimed impact is simply stated goals of the platform, and not fact. What I'd encourage you to do is to add more second-party sourcing where you feel it is needed in there, make it more concise where it needs to be (without sacrificing quality and clarity). This sort of a section somewhat parallels the "positions" sections many politicians have, and platform sections many campaign articles have. SecretName101 (talk) 05:50, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

SecretName101, while I understand your argument, I disagree. WP:PRIMARY states that primary sources should be used carefully, and specifically notes that we should "be cautious about basing large passages on them." Wikipedia is not a campaign website. I'm not opposed to using primary sources to supplement secondary ones that describe a candidate's policies, but I believe that if a secondary source has not covered a candidate's stance on an issue, then it is not significant enough to be on Wikipedia. Basing huge passages exclusively on primary source material from a campaign or political website is a very slippery slope to promotionalism. Ganesha811 (talk) 06:18, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
"Be cautious" means practice caution, not to never create carefully-framed/worded sections that utilize primary sources. SecretName101 (talk) 06:25, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
My view is that it is not only important to explain what a politician has done on issues, but that it is also important to describe what their stated and their written stances on key matters and positions are, or what sort of policy they centered their candidacies around. Their own written policy are totally relevant to that, and key sources. So long as they are presented in an appropriately phrased manner. 09:15, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
I strongly disagree. One of the core principles of Wikipedia is that this is a tertiary source which relies mostly on secondary sources. We need to take the WP:10YEARTEST into account. Is this information really relevant to a reader 10 years from now? No. I understand the idea that it would be useful for voters who might be looking at their pages in the next couple months, but again, this is not a campaign website. The mass of these additions severely unbalance the page. By presenting largely what the candidate says about themself and their stances, we push the article away from NPOV, and towards their own POV on themselves and the issues. Ganesha811 (talk) 13:05, 15 September 2021 (UTC)
@SecretName101:, what do you think? Are we likely to come to consensus, or should we seek out other opinions? Ganesha811 (talk) 22:06, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

I think in ten years it is of even more importance we summarize some of her stances from now on here. In ten years her campaign website will either be long abandoned, entirely rewritten, or redirect to another website. Other than those who understand how to navigate the internet archive machine, we’d be doing a disservice by failing to paint any picture for readers in 2031 of what policies Wu, Essaibi George, and their counterparts won or lost election on in 2021. SecretName101 (talk) 07:29, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

SecretName101, ok. I disagree and would still like to see most of the material removed. This page has ballooned from 26,000 bytes at the start of the year to 159,000 bytes now, largely because of your 400+ edits. I get that you've put in a lot of work on this page, but while some of that expansion is good material, I think much of it can be removed.
So I'll ping some other folks who have edited this page or talk page before and see if they can help us reach consensus. @Missvain: @Arjayay: @Therequiembellishere: @Dmoore5556: @MaynardClark: @Whoisjohngalt: @Drmies: what do you think? Ganesha811 (talk) 13:25, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
It's easy: if we follow SecretName101's line of thinking then every single position ever held by anyone with a Wikipedia article can be included citing only a primary source. In other words, something becomes worth including because somebody said it. That is not a good thing. Drmies (talk) 13:59, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
SecretName101, we have an article here on a city council member that's 159k big. You have contributed 87.6% of this content, in 413 edits. I think it's time you make clear what your COI is here. Drmies (talk) 14:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
In the past, local media would have covered much of the material in Wu's proposal(s), but this is no longer the case. This material is valuable to the article and should be clearly be marked as being her material and a primary source. If another source could be found it would be preferable, but on a quick search, I found this not be to possible. Ten years from now I would like to be able to see this information in one place. I tend to be an inclusionist and feel we have a big shelf.Whoisjohngalt (talk) 14:04, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
no fewer than 27 of the "references" are to michelleforboston.com. That's really outrageous. "Valuable to the article"? How? Drmies (talk) 14:08, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
I do NOT believe that the PRIMARY reference to a position should be from the campaign literature, BUT isn't that the MOST reliable SOURCE for understanding the (stated) position of each candidate? I think that this discussion needs more diligence, depth, and discipline in delving into what are these politicians saying: e.g. Annissa Essaibi George calls herself 'a realist' about housing and rent control - both have positions on housing; how nuanced are their positions? Radio and TV interviewers have sorted out these topics in trying to inform their own broadcast audiences. No one wants to 'sacrifice integrity' for some other value (even a laudable value, such as thoroughness). Is the Wikipedia article 'coverage' honest and transparent? I think that, if the ONLY or BEST source for the information is campaign literature for EACH, (a) campaign literature IS the BEST source for the information AND (b) both candidates can be treated equally (but how would that affect the articles from the previous and now-failed mayoral candidates)?? 16:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)


Coming from BLP/N - WP:BLPSELFPUB covers the site in question and the key line from our policy here is "it is not unduly self-serving". Spelling out at that much depth about Wu's platform is clearly "unduly self-serving". Her platform and positions as covered by third party sources are fine, and careful, intermittent use of her website to flesh out a couple additional details is acceptable, but not what I saw before the massive trim on Sept 15 in the page history. So the concerns raised by Drmies and Ganesha81 are absolutely correct. --Masem (t) 20:20, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
Ganesha811 asked "what do you think?" — I feel the "Platform and campaign positions" section should be much more succinct, and based on sourcing other than the candidate's own website. Dmoore5556 (talk) 01:38, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

maintenance tag about apparent close connection

"A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject." I'd like to see this one removed. I suppose this means me, as I am the greatest contributor. I understand it uses the word "appears", but I can assure you that I have no connection to Michelle Wu, let alone a close one. I only have read about her and formed my own opinions on her. I have never interacted with her, nor any of her staff. I have only even been to Boston four or so times in my life, and I think all of those were even before her tenure on the City Council began. I do not have any more actual connection to Wu than any normal editor would. SecretName101 (talk) 18:24, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

And as a top Wikipedia editor, who has disclosed the only paid-editing I've ever done, per operating procedures, I'd appreciate if my word was trusted on this. SecretName101 (talk) 18:28, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Ha, top Wikipedia editor, you are being completely ridiculous. Drmies (talk) 19:54, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    • @Drmies: What's that supposed to mean? I'm in the top 1,200 of editors on this project, and among the most prolific-ever contributors to Commons? I find it rude that you are implying that I am not a significant contributor to this project. SecretName101 (talk) 20:19, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
      • It's the set of edits that I linked that are ridiculous. We're all top editors here. Drmies (talk) 20:35, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
        • @Drmies: Copyediting is not a ridiculous thing to do. Revising wording to improve it is not a value-less task. You are out-of-keeping with Wikipedia's values when you deride the value of other editor's edits like this. In all honesty, I am feel bullied an belittled here, and feel like you are being a hostile aggressor towards me. SecretName101 (talk) 23:03, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • " we have an article here on a city council member that's 159k big. You have contributed 87.6% of this content, in 413 edits. I think it's time you make clear what your COI is here"
    I apologize, but is there a rule I missed that there is a length-limit on people who hold only city council offices? I must have missed that. And I do not have a conflict of interest with Wu. Please point out to me content I added that was outright false, or efforts I have made to whitewash her page? SecretName101 (talk) 20:23, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: so far you have been rude, condescending, assumed bad faith, judged others for editing articles of their interest (as niche as you might find them). All of this seems to go against convention for how Wikimedians are supposed to conduct themselves. You are making me feel extremely unwelcome on a project I have dedicated countless hours to improving. SecretName101 (talk) 20:43, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  • Oh, I've been rude? You have a COI, you've bloated this article beyond reason, you edit warred, you violated BLP guidelines, you're leaning on some status as "top editor" in order to enforce your will--and after a bunch of passive aggressive comments you're now claiming to be a victim. You're not the only one who has spent "countless hours" here, so that kind of appeal is just not going to gain you any traction. Note that your case is not gaining any traction on the BLP noticeboard either. I am going to put a DS alert for BLPs on your page; in case you continue your non-neutral edits on this article, it may be that sanctions may have to be applied. Drmies (talk) 00:50, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
@Drmies: How am I trying to "enforcing my will" in any inappropriate way? I will admit to having argued the case for what I believe, as any editor has the right to do in a discussion page. I have told you that I have no conflict of interest, and am really upset that you continue to insist I do, and assume bad faith without solid reason. And you all keep assuming there is a length limit on her article because she is a city councilor, and comparing it to articles of more "important figures". That is not how Wikipedia works. If it was, then my Mayoralty of Pete Buttigieg article would have needed to be substantially shorter than the Mayoralty of Boris Johnson article, because Johnson is a more major figure and ran a much larger city. But, again, Wikipedia does not work that way.
And again, as I have expressed to you, you are making me feel extremely unwelcome in a place I have come to feel at home. Plenty of Wikipedians feel ostracized to varying extents outside Wikipedia. That is part of why we seek to be as welcoming to others here on Wikipedia as is possible SecretName101 (talk) 01:20, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

I literally made the first thing said about her tenure on the city council the one thing that seems to cause her intended base (progressives) wane in their faith in her. And I added that info, which was missing. If I was seeking to whitewash this article, why would I do that? SecretName101 (talk) 20:45, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

  • 159K bytes? This article is longer than Amy Klobuchar and Ben Sasse combined. The over-reliance on the subject's own website, along with refs to numerous other non-independent sources and advocacy groups (e.g, [1], [2], [3], [4], [5]), makes it quite clear that this article is a promotional puff piece. The "champion" language needs to go and the endorsement section probably needs to be trimmed too. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:02, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
"Champion" legit just means to "support the cause of; defend.". That's not biased language. SecretName101 (talk) 21:36, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
  • And you are against using [6] this source to support the claim "The Center for Good Food Purchasing described that ordinance as a "landmark food justice policy" and "precedent-setting", why exactly? That's a valid source to support that. SecretName101 (talk) 21:38, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
    The Center for Good Food Purchasing described that ordinance as a "landmark food justice policy" and "precedent-setting" Oh my. I'm willing to assume good faith and believe you have no COI with the subject, but please read up on WP:PROMO and WP:PUFF. We don't include the opinions of random advocacy groups--especially when the source is the advocacy group's own website. Dr. Swag Lord (talk) 21:57, 16 September 2021 (UTC)
And Amy Klobuchar is spun-off into sub-articles such as Political positions of Amy Klobuchar (itself 119,699 bytes) and Amy Klobuchar 2020 presidential campaign (iself 53,271 bytes), so an imprecise comparison. And I'd argue that Klobuchar's article is WAY under-detailed, particularly on her tenure in the Senate. SecretName101 (talk) 21:41, 16 September 2021 (UTC)

I have an interest, but not a conflict.

She might seem like a humble city councilor today, but I think it is important we well-document her before details on her early career become harder and harder to research (due to deterioration of old web sources, and the remaining ones getting buried by new ones). For instance, it is now incredibly hard for me to find sources on the city council career of Ayanna Pressley, only three years after she left the city council.

I have a suspicion that Wu and Ayanna Pressley are (or will) be primed by Massachusetts progressives to take Markey and Warren’s senate seats in future decades, once those two retire from government.

I also suspect that one of the two will be primed to run for POTUS. They might be seen as fulfilling the dream some had of a Warren-style president. And both are Warren acolytes (Wu, undoubtedly so, and Pressley co-chaired Warren’s campaign for president). That is a large part of where my (seemily bizarre) interest in a city councilor comes from. If she rises beyond it, I do not want her city council career to fall victim to severe under-coverage the way Pressley’s has SecretName101 (talk) 11:55, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

So instead, you have given us severe over-coverage, but you forgot her shoe size. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 11:59, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
I may have gone the opposite direction of under-coverage, but that was more my style of often over-doing things. SecretName101 (talk) 12:02, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
SecretName101, this is simply a terrible argument. We are not a crystal ball and we don't get to pick favorites who are exempt from our policies on NPOV and primary sources. If I think that some Medford City Councilor will be President in 2032, that doesn't mean I get to ignore our standards on their article.
We are more than capable of providing comprehensive, high-quality description of Wu's city council career from secondary sources, without turning this page into an extension of her campaign website. Given that other editors clearly agree, I'm willing to give you a little more time to find and add secondary sources. But after that I will be going through this page again and removing promotional and poorly sourced material. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:07, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Way to distort what I said. I was refuting their argument the fact I would have written at-length about a mere city council candidate was suspicious and automatically indicative of a COI. SecretName101 (talk) 15:37, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

SecretName101, I accept that you don't have a direct conflict of interest, but your edits to this article have consistently pushed it away from a NPOV. You are under no obligation to take my advice, but I would suggest you step back for a while. Just WP:DISENGAGE and let other editors clean up the article. I sincerely believe that you are editing in good faith, but the fact is that it appears your views are in the minority here and consensus suggests the article needs considerable work to bring it back into line with our policies. Ganesha811 (talk) 15:44, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: I have been undertaking edits in line with your suggestions for how to improve the article. A number of such improvements.. SecretName101 (talk) 16:04, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: What are your views on the progress of the article revamp? SecretName101 (talk) 00:52, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
SecretName101, while there have been some definite improvements, the article as a whole is still pushed away from NPOV by the mass of material like: "Wu's platform includes a public safety plan and a police reform plan.[243][244]", a sentence which is equally accurate and uninformative. But the problem with this article was never one sentence or more in particular - it was that the sheer bulk of poorly sourced material severely unbalanced the article, pushing it towards being mostly from Wu's political perspective. The City Council stuff is now better sourced, on the whole, but could still use trimming and collation. Most of the rest is not. I've never thought this article was "too long", but it was and remains thoroughly off-kilter. I'm going to go through now and do what I can to clean up more, and I hope you will accept that this needs to be done. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: I'm not sure when or if the tag alleging COI can be removed. But, from where I stand, not to play the victim card, but it feels somewhat like I am being publicly shamed for something that just is sincerely not true. I also worry that people who are not all-to Wikipedia literate will wrongly think that Wu or someone near her has been violating Wikipedia's standards, and that my editing will therefore have hurt someone. When is it that a COI tag can be removed? And would you mind reconsidering your disbelief of me. I'm just an autistic young adult who got carried away in how interested he was in a certain politician's article (some of us with Autism get carried away when something grabs our interest). Not someone who was paid, recruited, or even urged by anyone else to edit this article. Everything I did was independent of anyone else. SecretName101 (talk) 01:07, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

  • SecretName101, this is not a badge of shame. You are not being shamed--maybe the article is, but that's another matter. The way to get the tag gone, well there's a couple. You can publicly declare, but you are going to have to get away from the idea that "COI" means "getting paid". Of course you could stop editing the article altogether, and at some point, when it is brought in line with our standards (because you are going to have to recognize that editors on this very talk page don't think that it is an acceptable article), then the tag can go. Either way, it should stay until editors agree that it is reasonable, one way or another, and that no non-neutral editor is having an undue influence on it. But you're at 496 edits now, and the article is still huge, and all the references to her website are still there, so I don't see that anything has changed for the better. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Drmies: But on what grounds am I a "non-neutral editor"? I am no more connected to the subject of this article than anything else I have edited in my spare time. For god sakes, I am as connected to Wu and her associates as I am to Thomas Barbour Bryan, and he's been dead for 115 years. SecretName101 (talk) 01:29, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
And again, I disagree with your notion that local-level political figures cannot have sizeable articles. There are people throughout history who have served nowhere above city council, yet had more influence than people in higher offices than them. Look no further than some of Chicago's famous historic (and some contemporary) aldermen for proof of that. Should a city council member who has done a lot in their years in office, by virtue of being a local politician, be limited to have a shorter article than a congressman who has done nothing while in office? SecretName101 (talk) 01:32, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
Someone compared this to Klobuchar's article's length (despite the fact Klobuchar's article has been split into sub-articles, rendering that a poor comparison). If we are to go down that rabbit hole, then we should also be chopping most of the good article Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez. By that logic, there is no reason for a lowly second-term congresswoman to have an article longer than the main article of a third-term senator who has run for president, right? Hell, Ocasio-Cortez's article is much longer than that of president John Adams' main article. Guess y'all must have a major problem with her article's length now, right? SecretName101 (talk) 01:43, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
OK, this is getting a bit tiresome. No one says "oh they can't have this or that length", but basically everybody here agrees that this article is too long. You need to start accepting what others say, and you really need stop with this passive aggressive stuff ("guess y'all must have a major problem"), which might well end up getting you blocked from editing this article. And one what grounds are you a non-neutral editor? Sorry, but isn't that obvious? On the ground of your non-neutral edits. And finally, this isn't about whether you are friends with Wu or not: it is about your particular interest, your dedication, proven by your over-the-top edits. Now there is a choice here: you either accept what all these editors here are telling you, or you persist in denial. The first way is much more productive. Drmies (talk) 02:14, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
@Drmies: What is tiresome is that I have begged and begged you to please point out an instance of whitewashing or falsehoods in my edits, so that I can understand, and you have not provided me with a single one. SecretName101 (talk) 04:13, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
The question is moot because I never said you were guilty of whitewashing or inserting falsehoods. Drmies (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Improvements made - not done yet

I've gone through and made a series of trims and removals, which I think have had a positive impact on the NPOV issues and overall balance of the page. I don't think the page is perfect, but it is improved to the point that I felt justified in removing the COI template. SecretName101 also did a good bit of work in finding and adding secondary sources for some of the material, especially regarding her time on the City Council. @Drmies: @SecretName101: @Masem: @Dmoore5556: @Dr.Swag Lord, Ph.d: @MaynardClark: @Whoisjohngalt: & others, take a look, see if you can make any further changes to improve the article, and see if you think the other cleanup templates can be removed or modified. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:44, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: one step towards making it more concise that I think was damaging was removing from the food justice section of her city council career mention of the food justice ordinance she passed. That was separate from (and preceeded) her “food justice agenda”, and seems to have been considered by food justice experts a notable legislative work of her’s. I’d urge re-adding that. SecretName101 (talk) 21:20, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

Here is an article from Salon you could cite if you want. SecretName101 (talk) 21:35, 18 September 2021 (UTC)
SecretName101, I think this is reasonable and I've added some content back and rephrased it a bit in the Food Justice bit. Ganesha811 (talk) 12:26, 19 September 2021 (UTC)
Daily Free Press (student paper of BU), Civil Eats article SecretName101 (talk) 21:41, 18 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ganesha811: Would this be notable enough to add? It could go in the "personal life" section, maybe. "In late 2019, Wu joined the Senior Advisory Committee to the Harvard Institute of Politics.[1]" SecretName101 (talk) 18:01, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I wonder whether or not we can NOTE 'Harvardification' or 'Re-Harvardification' of Boston City Government (Michelle Wu AND Kenzie Bok are Harvard degree recipients who remain at least nominally attached to Harvard urban research centers. MaynardClark (talk) 21:34, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
I'm not sure - Senior Advisory Committee doesn't really sound like a very important post, and the press release does nothing to change that impression. If there's independent, significant coverage about her work on this committee, then sure. But just the press release doesn't seem like enough. Ganesha811 (talk) 11:49, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

Birthdate?

Do we really not know the birthdate, or even the birth year, of the mayor-elect of one of the United State's most recognizable cities? I can try to find her birthdate/year info online with a reliable cite, but wanted to check in first to see if I was missing something about why this isn't in here already. Moncrief (talk) 20:35, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 November 2021

{{subst:trim|1=

to parents who had immigrated to the United States from Taiwan, China.[5] need to be changed to to parents who had immigrated to the United States from Taiwan.[5]


 Already done here. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:33, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

Taiwan

I know this topic is controversial in the PRC, and I don't pretend to understand the nuances, but this article is not the place to make edits that go against the guidelines that have been hashed out for years in the article on Taiwan itself. See Talk:Taiwan/Archive_30#RfC:_Taiwan,_"country"_or_"state" or the archives at Talk:Taiwan more generally for discussions, of which you can be a part if you so choose, there. Changing the descriptors of Taiwan here is akin to bringing up a case in a local court when that case is already being discussed by, and adjuticated on, by a Supreme Court (in this case, the Taiwan article itself). Such changes will be reverted. I'd like to unprotect this article, but will not do so if we keep having edit wars on this.

Perhaps as importantly, we use reliable sources in Wikipedia. Such sources describe Wu's parents as Taiwanese immigrants. Moncrief (talk) 17:43, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

"woman of color"

I understand where the term comes from, in fact W has a separate entry on it. However, I think it would be proper to change that to "woman of Chinese heritage". I am a European Caucasian, and my skin is darker than hers, as are my kids' skin. It sound misleading, confusing, in fact quite ridiculous. Please correct it. ls — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lesseplaki (talk • contribs) 00:15, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

There's nothing to correct. Wikipedia relies on reliable sources, and that term is how reliable sources, at least in her home country the USA, refer to Wu and the milestone of her mayoral victory. I do think the term should be wiki-linked in the intro, as not everyone in the world understands what the term means. I'll do that now. EDIT: I see now that "of color" is linked at its first mention already. Moncrief (talk)
Indeed, “person of color” is misleading, especially when applied to people unambiguously white passing, but there really is no way better to describe East Asians, who do experience racism. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:C62:DF54:8334:1E52 (talk) 00:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "Institute of Politics Announces New Members of Senior Advisory Committee". The Institute of Politics at Harvard University. November 7, 2019. Retrieved 20 September 2021.

Birth date

Editors are persistently adding a birth date without good sourcing. I have once again removed it. Policies including WP:SYNTH, WP:DOB, and WP:BLP mean we cannot add personal information without reliable sources or by cobbling together sources. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:17, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

The issue seems to be that they aren't citing any sources at all. I'd be curious to know where the 1/14/85 date comes from, but no one who adds that date ever cites it. Moncrief (talk) 18:21, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
A previous revision inferred it from a statement of her age in a news article and a tweet (not by her). AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 18:29, 4 November 2021 (UTC)
The birthdate is back, still with the Twitter reference. Moncrief (talk) 05:06, 17 November 2021 (UTC)
Given that Wu's verified Twitter account replied to the tweet, without in any way contradicting the birthday date, I think it would be reasonable to regard this as an unusual form of WP:BLPSELFPUB and accept the date. Not a big deal, though. Ganesha811 (talk) 22:09, 18 November 2021 (UTC)
You'll notice that I didn't revert it. Moncrief (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2021 (UTC)
I know, just adding my 2 cents and linking a useful policy for anyone who may be reading the section in the future. Ganesha811 (talk) 18:56, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

Numbering

There is an ongoing issue with the numbering of the mayor. This page currently labels Wu as the 55th mayor, but the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mayor_of_Boston labels her as 54th. I think Wikipedia should be consistent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.87.237.200 (talk) 13:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Controversy over her husband.

Should there be a mention of how controversial her marriage to a white man is in the Asian American community? A lot of people view it as her wanting to be white adjacent and without a white husband she would not have been elected mayor in a predominantly white and heavily gentrified city. It is also believed her choice of partner means she has sacrificed her culture for privileges. 2A00:23C4:3E08:4000:6888:A7D7:E38B:BCC (talk) 13:44, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hit List

Why don't you mention the hit list ? Using fascist democrat tactics to take down all that oppose the dictatorship. 2601:19D:303:91F0:8503:C5F6:C06:127F (talk) 18:43, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2023

"Wu argued in a in a January 31, 2019 op-ed" 81.102.123.104 (talk) 12:48, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done Cannolis (talk) 13:19, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 December 2023

In 2010, Wu participated in the prestigious Rappaport Fellowship program. Shorrigan021 (talk) 19:07, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Shadow311 (talk) 19:44, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

verbose/promotional

There's a lot of redundant wording, like "the person elected to serve as the mayor" => "mayor". Cutting it out.

The tone is promotional, "...including a stint as the president..." DenverCoder19 (talk) 19:31, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes. This article is also just pushing its size in general. Someone could probably cut out half of it, and it would still read fine. Maxx-♥ talk and coffee ☕ 13:43, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Michelle_Wu/Archive_1&oldid=1214194607"