Talk:Sasha Anawalt

On Jan. 5, I made several edits to the Wikipedia page for Sasha Anawalt. The page itself was vandalized by other users and my edits were later removed. These were the messages that I received in response to my edits:

The edits you did to the Sasha Anawalt article today are inappropriate. It is customary for biographies to include verifiable details about an individual's life. You have no grounds to remove information on the subject's education, career, and family. Do not remove details of criticism of her work. Not every sentence in an article has to demonstrate notability. It only needs to be verifiable. Do not make significant changes such as this one without getting WP:ONUS on the article's talk page. --DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:06, 6 January 2021 (UTC)See this, specifically where it talks about the guidelines as follows: "They do not limit the content of an article or list" and the section WP:NNC. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:18, 6 January 2021 (UTC)Also: Don't remove citations to sources that are not hyperlinked directly. For example, you removed the New York Times citation to her marriage. The citation gave the date, page, and section title of that information. It isn't hyperlinked because it wasn't accessed that way. It doesn't have to be hyperlinked to be included in an article. Please read the essay WP:CIR, especially points 2 and 3; these apply to many of your edits today. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC).

While the information itself is verifiable, and there was a discussion in which it was determined Anawalt had notability due to the Joffrey book, it is still important to consider that Anawalt -- as well as her peers at USC -- personally, professionally, and financially benefit from her perceived notability, as well as that of her academic program. An author like Gillian Flynn who also has her own Wikipedia page likely benefits from visitors who look at her page and then purchase one of her acclaimed books. However, the cost of Anawalt's MA degree at USC is much higher than a $15 paperback of "Gone Girl," and the existence of Anawalt's Wikipedia page and any information included within it could compel prospective students to pay money to enroll and participate in her program. The page itself serves as both a biography and a marketing tool (it was created by WANAWALT, who may be Anawalt's husband). Not only does the information on the page need to be verifiable, but extra scrutiny needs to be applied to what information should be included on the page, as well as how it is presented.

Here is additional argument for the edits I proposed earlier:

1. The existence of any information on this page suggests that it is notable, and is something that Anawalt could benefit from. If this page stated that Ms. Anawalt's favorite color is blue or that she took a trip to Ireland last year, visitors to the page would be under the assumption that those items were somehow notable, or that blue or Ireland were somehow now more notable, simply because Anawalt liked both of those. And the longer the page is, the more that Ms. Anawalt and her peers have the ability to benefit. You would apply the same level of scrutiny to any person, company, or organization that financially benefits from their Wikipedia page and perceived public image.

As such, it is important to remove and clarify any information that is not immediately related to Anawalt's actual notability, which appears to be her writing the Joffrey book. It is not necessary to know that she wrote for her college newspaper, that she married William Anawalt, that she served on the Pulitzer jury committee (winning a Pulitzer is notable but serving on the jury is not, unless something particularly notable happened those ears), that she quit her job on a council (especially since no previous information is provided regarding her time on that council is notable) and that she won said awards. Much of this lacks citation, and although it is true and could be verified, the fact that it is included at all makes this information appear more notable and important than it actually is, and is something that could be used to benefit Anawalt and her peers. If Anawalt was a retired professor, her program was no longer in existence, and she no longer benefited financially from said program, there would be nothing wrong with including this information. But since she still directly benefits from money paid by others motivated in part by her perceived public image, it should be removed. There is nothing stopping Anawalt from starting her own website and including this additional information, but Wikipedia is not the place for that.

2. Similarly, as Anawalt's program is still in existence and may appeal to prospective students and hopeful journalists who are carefully considering whether to spend thousands of dollars on an MA degree, and how her page itself can be used for marketing purposes, careful scrutiny needs to be applied to any information on the page regarding Anawalt's actual journalistic accomplishments. This can be a tricky field to navigate as journalists and media professionals may highlight an accomplishment one way ("John Doe, as featured in Rolling Stone"), which can create an implication to whoever is reading that accomplishment ("John Doe apparently was a full-time writer for Rolling Stone"), although, in actuality, the accomplishment may mean something else entirely ("John Doe only had one article published in Rolling Stone"/"John Doe was briefly quoted in a Rolling Stone article back in 1997"). For students considering paying money to enroll in a class taught by John Doe, it is important that they know the full extent of his work, especially if he has his own Wikipedia page.

Review of the outlets mentioned on Anawalt's page indicates that she was not a full-time writer for any of the publications mentioned, and may have never been on the staff for a media organization or a full-time journalist at all. For KCRW, available archives indicate she published a handful of articles every few months from 2001 to 2002, and also had a brief resurgence in 2013. For L.A. Weekly, available archives indicate she had nine articles published in 1999 and eight in 1998. The New York Times' archive also reveals few results with her byline. 

It is true that Anawalt wrote for said outlets and did it somewhat consistently during specific periods of time, although in small numbers. Saying that Ms. Anawalt was "featured" in said publications is too vague and could imply she produced less work than she actually did. And while her journalistic contributions alone would not serve as enough merit for notability for Anawalt to have her own Wikipedia page (there are several more accomplished current and former full-time journalists and writers without their own Wikipedia pages), the fact that she wrote the Joffrey book does bear merit for some mention of her previous work, as long as it is described accurately (again, the page could be used as a marketing tool for prospective students). The most effective way to state this would be "She served as an occasional, part-time contributor on dance, theatre, and television to KCRW from 2001 to 2002, to L.A. Weekly from 1998 to 1999, and also to The New York Times." Anything too vague could embellish or undermine the actual work she did, and create a misperception that she is more or less of an accomplished former journalist than she actually is.

3. It is also important to apply the same level of scrutiny to information regarding Anawalt's former and current academic programs at USC, as the mere mention of them make them appear to be more notable than they actually are. Something is not notable simply because it exists. If a mathematician who wrote an acclaimed book about parabolas several decades ago became a professor and started a new academic program at NYU, the program itself is not notable simply because it exists, because it is associated with NYU, or because its founding professor wrote an acclaimed parabola book. The program itself has to have done something notable in some way.

There is no information provided that Anawalt's current or past programs are particularly notable, distinguished, accomplished, esteemed, acclaimed, praised, or so on in any way. If there was a group of notable alumni who directly attributed their success in life to what they gleaned in the program, that would be notable information to include. If Ms. Anawalt developed and mastered a unique teaching method or journalistic practice that was praised by her peers, praise itself that could be verified, that would be notable information to include. If there was a particularly high employment or success rate of her program, one that was uniquely above those of other schools, and one that could be verified with additional information not provided by Anawalt or USC itself, that would be notable information to include. But at the end of the day, it appears that none of that information presently exists.

Still, the mere mention of her academic programs at all on a Wikipedia page indicates that they are more notable or distinguished than they actually are. You'll notice that for Syracuse University's Arts Journalism and Communication program, one that is similar to Anawalt's, it's founder is Johanna Keller and its current director is Eric Grode. Neither of them have their own Wikipedia pages (let alone ones that were potentially created by their spouses), although they do have a substantial amount of journalistic work that can be verified by a brief Google search. It again bears the question as to why the inclusion of Anawalt's program is notable, let alone her page. 

But since the discussion over whether Anawalt's page should be deleted has already taken place, this should really just read as "Anawalt is currently a professor at USC" or "Anawalt is the Director of the Specialized Journalism: The Arts program at USC." Those statements are true and easily verifiable, they do not embellish or diminish Anawalt's program, and they do not further serve any marketing purposes that her page may provide.

In sum, the page itself can easily be a marketing tool for Anawalt and for USC. It can be used as something to motivate prospective students to pay thousands of dollars to enroll. This page is literally the second item visitors see when they perform a Google search for Sasha Anawalt. The existence of the page alone may make Anawalt appear more notable than she actually is, and any additional word or sentence that is unnecessary can contribute to those marketing aims. The longer the page is, the more notable she seems, and the more that the page can succeed in its potential marketing aims.

As such, the page should be edited to simply mention the items that are truly notable and do not further said marketing aims. She did write a book that was well-received. The book served as the inspiration for a movie. Either before or after she wrote the book, she occasionally wrote articles on a part-time basis for publications several decades ago. She is now a professor at USC. All additional info should be published and included somewhere else.

O811RT1 (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

O811RT1, did you read any of the links I provided on your talk page?

You start with: "I made several edits." Let's be real. You made some 16 edits, shredding the article of half its content and by one half of its citations. This is destructive, not constructive.

You don't mention here that in your numerous edits today, you removed half of the citations and related content, including, but not limited to:

• critical reviews of her book from secondary sources
• career details from secondary sources
• biographical information from secondary sources

because you say these details are not notable (that's not a thing; I had linked you to WP:NNC), because they were not recent (also not a thing; see WP:RECENT), or because they were not hyperlinked (they don't have to be; see WP:OFFLINE).

To address your points above :

1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Articles are to say things that are true. We aren't going to remove the things you perceive as positive because someone else may perceive it as positive. To suggest that we vandalize this article in such a way is absurd and demonstrates that you don't know what Wikipedia is about.

2. You failed to add particulars of how much she wrote for which publications with sourcing. You provided some links to searches for her name in publications, but not her as an author. That doesn't work as research; that low quality of editing makes the article worse.

3. This does not signify. She's a notable person. The article can talk as briefly as it does about an article she has. If the other parties you have mentioned have written critically acclaimed books that have been adapted to documentaries, or are otherwise notable, perhaps they ought to have Wikipedia articles.

To reiterate: You don't get to decide that verifiable details about her life that are cited in secondary sources do not matter. If they appear in reliable secondary sources, they are verifiable by our standards. These details of her career and personal life are not trivial; they are not given undue weight.

"The statement: "It can be used as something to motivate prospective students to pay thousands of dollars to enroll. This page is literally the second item visitors see when they perform a Google search for Sasha Anawalt." Is it literally the second thing? Are you all the Googlers out there are reading search results from top to bottom? That's not what speed-readers would do. Of course you mean that it's the second result in your Google search. Are you saying that people make decisions based on information they consume? Yes, I suppose that they do, even in 2021. I don't know that anyone would make a decision to enroll in this program solely based on this Wikipedia article's contents, but if they do, I will sleep soundly with the knowledge that I researched the subject via every avenue I had and told the truth about her. If you can find reliable, verifiable secondary sourced criticism of her program, maybe that should be added. If you can't, well, we can't help you.

Regarding your "Anawalt is currently a professor at USC"--no, Wikipedia articles are not to read like that... they aren't to say "current". That would make this look like a resume. See MOS:CURRENT

If you want to add a "citation needed" claim to something that doesn't have an in-text citation immediately following, have right at it (and you can bet I'll find a citation for it or rewrite it so that an existing citation is sufficient).

I don't know what your beef is with the Anawalt-Cunningham bunch, but consider that the more you nitpick at the article and at the Francis Cunningham article, the more people who have taken an interest in the articles will edit, hone, and make it the very things it seems you do not want: articles that reflect the career of accomplished subjects.

Once again, Sasha Anawalt does not have a Wikipedia page. You have a Wikipedia (talk) page. There is a biographical article about her because she is a notable person who has accomplished things in her career.

Sorry, but on these points, you can't win, Vader. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Some of the user's edit summaries from today-- with my notes:

"Adjusted book mention to remove portion regarding how long it took to write the book. Unless the book itself is particularly notable (it received praise from critics and inspired the PBS documentary but has not been discussed much in the years since), the mention about the amount of time it took to write said book is superfluous." No. Details of a book's development are OK to include. And there were 16 years between the book and the film, so it would appear that it has been of interest in the intervening years, wouldn't it?

"Removed information about schools as it is unnecessary to know where she went to high school and college, unless there was anything particularly notable regarding her time at said schools." Wrong. It is good to know where an academic and a writer went to college.

"Removed citation for Anawalt's resignation from the Arts and Culture Commission in Pasadena. Even though publications wrote about the resignation, more info needs to be provided regarding her time on the council and if it was notable, or if the resignation itself had a long-lasting impact. There are no previous mentions of it on her page and it appears to be superfluous". This doesn't matter; publications wrote about the resignation, so it is verifiable and it can be included.

"Adjusted again to remove citation for New York Times mention as code was broken, it can be added again if necessary although a brief Google search does verify the book received a positive review from the NYT. New York Times has a paywall." You can't remove a citation or content because something is behind a paywall. Break out a library card and access it with the information provided with a citation. Or just have faith.

"The inclusion of multiple quotes from reviews of the Joffrey book may be making it more notable and acclaimed than it actually is, there has not been much discussion about said book in the years since its release. Adjusted text and citations" No.

"Edited intro, the page clearly indicates that Anawalt is notable for her writing of the Joffrey book, although it makes the assumption that the academic programs she created are therefore notable." You may make that jump, but others would not. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 04:02, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

"You start with: "I made several edits." Let's be real. You made some 16 edits, shredding the article of half its content and by one half of its citations. This is destructive, not constructive."

I provided sound reasoning for all of the edits, you appear to be more upset over the quantity and the quality. I will admit that the amount of edits seem a bit much, but I'd be more than happy to have a discussion on each of the related edits and their merit if you'd be willing. Attacking or addressing the quantity of edits alone, however, does not mean they were without merit.

--You don't mention here that in your numerous edits today, you removed half of the citations and related content, including, but not limited to:

critical reviews of her book from secondary sources

career details from secondary sources

biographical information from secondary sources

because you say these details are not notable (that's not a thing; I had linked you to WP:NNC), because they were not recent (also not a thing; see WP:RECENT), or because they were not hyperlinked (they don't have to be; see WP:OFFLINE).

The citations were removed as the information being cited as also removed, I don't understand why you would keep citations to information that isn't presented on a page. Again, you appear to be suggesting that because I removed a large amount of citations in a relatively short time frame, that the act of removing them was unjust. As for the more specific comments:

Critical reviews of her book from secondary sources: It is not necessary to include quotes from multiple reviews for a book published several decades ago that does not appear to discussed regularly today. If the book itself were more notable, sure. But for this book, it is more than enough to say that it received positive reviews, and perhaps include one quote, while keeping the previous citations.

Career details: Again, the citations themselves that were removed loosely gleaned over the career details. What I provided in their place was information from publications listed that verified that Ms. Anawalt's contributions to these publications were relatively minor and happened several decades ago. How they were presented, however, suggests they were greater than they actually were. I even included new citations in their place. There is nothing wrong with the removal of less-accurate citations in favor of more descriptive, informed ones. This is my primary concern: the information on the page vaguely suggests that Ms. Anawalt worked for said publications in a greater capacity than she actually did. My updated information and citations better reflect her actual contributions.

Biographical information: Again, due to the initial concern I provided in my original proposal for deletion, my multiple edits on the page, and addressed just now, the information is superfluous. I understand why you can see otherwise, so if you feel necessary to include the biographical info again, please do.

--1. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Articles are to say things that are true. We aren't going to remove the things you perceive as positive because someone else may perceive it as positive. To suggest that we vandalize this article in such a way is absurd and demonstrates that you don't know what Wikipedia is about.

I was referring to the fact that the article had been vandalized by a user named PeaceFul Exist shortly after my initial edits. If you look back at those versions, you'll see that this user added a lewd term after Anawalt's name above her photo. I was not suggesting you or other editors vandalized the page, and I even took it upon myself to remove and correct instances of vandalization I noticed by Peaceful Exist. Please visit the history of the page before making a baseless assumption about me.

--2. You failed to add particulars of how much she wrote for which publications with sourcing. You provided some links to searches for her name in publications, but not her as an author. That doesn't work as research; that low quality of editing makes the article worse.

This is a particularly difficult topic point at it is hard to argue or definitively state what Anawalt's role was or what her contributions were to these publications since they happened so long ago and we don't have clarification, certification, verification, etc. from the publications themselves saying, "Anawalt did this, she worked full-time from A to B, and she wrote X pieces in total" For example, there is not a former staff page for KCRW that says she was a full-time dance critic, or one for L.A. Weekly that clarifies she was a freelance dance writer.

We do know for certain that Anawalt has bylines attributed to her in KCRW, L.A. Weekly, and The New York Times. We can also make an assumption that none of her previous work is missing from what is available online from these websites. We can also make an assumption that because of the number and frequency of her published work, she did this on a part-time or contributing basis, as her contributions only took place every few months. But it could still be true that she was a full-time dance critic for KCRW and only wrote a small number of articles, or that there are hundreds more articles for L.A. Weekly that aren't available online for whatever reason. But we don't know for sure. All we know is that there are a handful of articles with her byline on them on the current websites for KCRW, L.A. Weekly, and The New York Times.

It would be inaccurate to write something like "Anawalt wrote/Anawalt has 13 articles attributed to her in KCRW" as there may be more beyond that. And you're right, it would also be inaccurate to say something like "Anawalt was a full-time, part-time, freelance, etc. writer for The New York Times from X to Y" without certification from those outlets themselves. However, while the way that the information is presently presented is still technically true, it still could easily imply something untrue and that the contributions themselves were greater or less than they actually were, simply due to the way it is phrased. A visitor to this page could read that and be under the impression that she wrote full-time, which does not appear to be true. A different visitor could come to this page and believe she only wrote one or two items, which also does not appear to be true.

For example, the present information states now that Anawalt worked as a dance critic for KCRW for a dozen years starting in 1984. A search of her name on KCRW presents a decent amount of work for 2001 and 2002, as well as one piece published in 2013 and one in 2015, but nothing from 1984 to 1996, apparently when she worked at KCRW. We can say that Anawalt has had work published in 2001, 2002, 2013, and 2015 for KCRW, but we can't definitively state that she worked as a dance critic for KCRW for a dozen years starting in 1984. KCRW would need to confirm that and if she worked on a full-time basis or was more of an occasional contributor. But we can not definitively state that she worked as a dance critic for KCRW starting from 1984 to 1996, as that claim is unverified and there is information that appears or could contradict it.

I would argue that the best way to phrase/edit the paragraph regarding her journalistic work would be by saying something like "Anawalt's work has appeared in outlets including KCRW, L.A. Weekly, and The New York Times" while including citations to those particular outlets, so anyone visiting has the ability to verify her available work accomplishments for themselves. And if there is verification from KCRW or a trusted source regarding the claim she worked as a dance critic for KCRW from 1984 to 1986 in a full-time capacity, they are more than free to add that and adjust the text later on.

--3. This does not signify. She's a notable person. The article can talk as briefly as it does about an article she has. If the other parties you have mentioned have written critically acclaimed books that have been adapted to documentaries, or are otherwise notable, perhaps they ought to have Wikipedia articles.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say here, but regarding the other parties, you're right, maybe they ought to have Wikipedia pages. Again, the page and info was created by a user named WANAWALT, who may be her husband William Anawalt, and that this is a clear conflict of interest and raises serious objectivity concerns, hence my edits.

--To reiterate: You don't get to decide that verifiable details about her life that are cited in secondary sources do not matter. If they appear in reliable secondary sources, they are verifiable by our standards. These details of her career and personal life are not trivial; they are not given undue weight.

Please refer to my previous argument regarding the page being used as a marketing tool for the program. But again if you can provide verification for these details, please do:

-By 1976, Anawalt was writing about dance for the SoHo Weekly News and Montreal Gazette, and had created The Weekly, an arts supplement for her college newspaper at McGill University in Montreal. She moved to Southern California in 1982.

-She attended Brearley School and graduated from St. Paul's School in Concord, New Hampshire and Barnard College.

-In 2001, Anawalt joined USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism to build the USC Annenberg/Getty Arts Journalism Program. An arts journalism fellowship program that immersed international journalists in the Los Angeles arts scene and lasted until November 2013

--"The statement: "It can be used as something to motivate prospective students to pay thousands of dollars to enroll. This page is literally the second item visitors see when they perform a Google search for Sasha Anawalt." Is it literally the second thing? Are you all the Googlers out there are reading search results from top to bottom? That's not what speed-readers would do.

Yes, I just performed a Google search for Sasha Anawalt. For the results I received, this page was the second hit. Everything else on the first page was biographical info from USC or links to reviews or social media pages, nothing regarding her Joffrey book, which is the supposed case for notability here. I'm not really sure what you're trying to argue here, but it sounds silly.

--Of course you mean that it's the second result in your Google search. Are you saying that people make decisions based on information they consume? Yes, I suppose that they do, even in 2021. I don't know that anyone would make a decision to enroll in this program solely based on this Wikipedia article's contents, but if they do, I will sleep soundly with the knowledge that I researched the subject via every avenue I had and told the truth about her. If you can find reliable, verifiable secondary sourced criticism of her program, maybe that should be added. If you can't, well, we can't help you.

Oh yes, result, that's what I mean, but you again appear to be making a silly argument that my argument is not valid since I referred to a result as an "item."

But the crux of my argument is that when people research the program, they are going to learn about Anawalt, and then will research her Wikipedia page. As such, all of the information on the Wikipedia page needs to be verifiable, described accurately, and not be superfluous. Again, since so little has been written about her recently, and this is the second result people see, and this page is where they learn about these supposed accomplishments or her notability, it needs to be accurate. And since WANAWALT first created the page, there are serious concerns over that.

As for verifiable secondary sourced criticism of her program, what would constitute this? Are you looking for a takedown from the L.A. Times about the quality of her program, or will a mean tweet from a student suffice? Conversely, I think you will have trouble finding verifiable, secondary sourced positive notations about her program as well. Little has been written about her program itself, good and bad.

Again, my argument is that the mere mention of the programs, as well as their elaborate descriptions, make them appear to be more notable or acclaimed than they actually are. Can you tell me where you were able to verify this information - In 2001, Anawalt joined USC Annenberg School for Communication and Journalism to build the USC Annenberg/Getty Arts Journalism Program. An arts journalism fellowship program that immersed international journalists in the Los Angeles arts scene and lasted until November 2013

--Regarding your "Anawalt is currently a professor at USC"--no, Wikipedia articles are not to read like that... they aren't to say "current". That would make this look like a resume. See MOS:CURRENT

I think you're being overly pedantic, Anawalt is a professor at USC or something similar would suffice.

--If you want to add a "citation needed" claim to something that doesn't have an in-text citation immediately following, have right at it (and you can bet I'll find a citation for it or rewrite it so that an existing citation is sufficient).

Sounds good, I will do that shortly.

--I don't know what your beef is with the Anawalt-Cunningham bunch, but consider that the more you nitpick at the article and at the Francis Cunningham article, the more people who have taken an interest in the articles will edit, hone, and make it the very things it seems you do not want: articles that reflect the career of accomplished subjects.

I don't have a beef with them so much as people who attempt to make friends, relatives, or loved ones appear more notable than they actually are simply by creating a Wikipedia page for them, especially when said individuals can benefit personally, financially, and professionally from the existence of said paige. In our current internet landscape, a person is generally considered notable, for better and for worse, if they have a Wikipedia page. However, this has to happen organically. It looks like it did for Gillian Flynn, as I can make a safe assumption her husband Brett Nolan didn't create her page. And it looks like it hasn't yet for the other individuals described, which may be because they are not actually notable, or, at least according to what you alluded to earlier, maybe because they don't have as loving spouses.

People are more than free to nitpick and adjust and edit, I am more than open to that and welcome it. However, the information needs to be verifiable and not superfluous. The fact that the article was created by WANAWALT (who also created the Cunningham profile) and the fact that there are so few initial search results for her and her Joffrey book, despite her supposed notability for said book, indicates that the article itself was created artificially and not out of good faith. This is not me being overly pedantic or taking out a grudge on the Anawalt-Cunningham bunch, it is a serious concern of objectivity that needs to be taken into account regarding all of the information presented.

--Once again, Sasha Anawalt does not have a Wikipedia page. You have a Wikipedia (talk) page. There is a biographical article about her because she is a notable person who has accomplished things in her career.

Sorry, but on these points, you can't win, Vader. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 03:44, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Yeah you know what I mean when I say page/article/etc. It's interesting, when I first argued for the page/article to be deleted, someone made a similar note, that this isn't an "article" but a "page." But you appear to be nitpicking at very minor things here, and while you do make some good points, the random nitpicks doesn't help your credibility much. My goal is to be as objective with this article/page as possible. Minor attacks against my efforts to do that will hamper those overall efforts, with the Wikipedia readers being the ones to suffer.

O811RT1 (talk) 05:07, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Wow, ok. Long response and then you went back and changed the article anyway. Ok. So much for obtaining consensus to change.

A. Regarding the vandalism comment: I know that two other usernames made lewd comments about the subject during and immediately after your edits. I also know that an IP user whom some of us suspected to be you commented in the Sasha Anawalt AfD; you (or that user) have not answered questions about this in intervening days. That's all I will say at this time.

B. Re: the vandalism comment 2: Removing biographical and career info and citations from an article you have now had three campaigns to diminish (with a prod, with an AfD, and with what is turning into edit warring) is effectively vandalism. You don't know how to properly edit, but you know that, so that's what it is. Don't say you just did it because you removed the information when you say in some of the edit summaries that you did it because sources were paywalled, etc.

C. You wrote in one of your edit summaries a few hours ago: "Made a few adjustments to areas where citations are needed requesting links to full body of work, as well as added a citation after text that states she wrote about dance for numerous publications." You don't get to demand what kind of information suffices in an article. Asking for someone to add a full list of her works for such a publication is not only unnecessary -- we only need a source to say she has written for these publications, not to know her full relationship with them -- it may be impossible, depending on the publication. If you were vetting whether you were hiring her for a job, by all means, make sure she's no George O'Leary. If you want to do that work, then fine. But removing relevant information and citations because you don't have a hyperlinked website to visit is problematic.

D. Why are you stuck on Gillian Flynn? I can roll with it if you insist--I don't read popular fiction and so I haven't been to her article, and I won't look now because it is beside the point here. The point is that we don't know that its creator or its chief contributors are not a household member, or her agent, or her publisher, or a party hired by those people to create and/or maintain it. We can be fairly confident that anyone who is a long-term editor and admin isn't representing her in an official capacity, but none of us can look into the hearts or bank accounts of any other user and say such things for sure.

E. I'm being overly pedantic in quoting you and pointing out how the word you'd have is on a list of words to avoid on Wikipedia?

F. If you were so concerned about other BLP conflict of interest, you'd be investigating one of the many hundreds or thousands on those in addition to this one. You might have started with one of them even. But you're stuck on the Anawalts. I and likely others will be curious to see which articles you edit next, if any.

G. If you continue this, you're going to get a warning and possibly a block about edit warning. As my words are falling on ears that are not fully hearing, I'm going to ask another editor to get involved to explain the gravity of some of these things to you if you make extreme changes to the article again. Take a step back and get some experience editing other articles.

H. At this point, when the article has had what I'm going to estimate as a 90% makeover and has passed AfD, it doesn't matter so much who created it as what it says.

I. Yeah, I'm the one who said it was an article and not a page. It's an important distinction--fittingly one that a journalist such as Anawalt would grasp, no doubt.

J. Credibility? For what do I need credibility? I'm citing every Wikipedia policy I can think of to help you out.

K. If you want citations for the few statements without them, those can be sought and added or the information can be modified or deleted if and when that information isn't found. Please know that it is considered WP:CITEKILL to have a citation after every sentence when just one citation would be used at the end of a phrase. Some of your citation needed tags have been addressed accordingly.

L. Also regarding citation needed tags: Don't add them as citations. Just add the tag.

M. No outrageous claims about the program are made. The article doesn't say it's the best program of its kind, of the worst, or anything in between. I still don't see why you're so concerned about USC marketing here.

N. Please indent your statements on talk pages per WP:INDENT by adding a colons : the next person who replies to comments should have :::: in a row. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

For the record, I'm not going to descend into edit warring over semantics. I'll wait to tomorrow to make changes and request an admin or someone else at the Help Desk talk to you about your problematic edits. I've spent some 3.5 hours improving this article to your specifications. The least you could do is actually click the links that you requested and see that Anawalt is either a writer or a speaker in 13 of the 15 results. And she is a dance critic, like it or not. You may end up blocked from editing if you continue this behavior. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:21, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Pinging Netherzone and Possibly, as they may be interested in this discussion. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:00, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

I've asked for intercession at the Help Desk. Stepping back for a day--won't have O811RT1 bring me into an edit war. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

• Stating that you want to confirm things with the outlets themselves is asking for original research, which is not allowed.
• Regarding removing a "blurry" newspaper article from newspapers.com, you don't need to do that. You know you can click on it and then zoom in and it won't be blurry, right? You can also work on your writing skills by writing "Anawalt said the book took her six years to write". Or you can try to get away with removing a citation in the hopes that you'll later get to remove content. But do you think that's going to happen?

Writing about Derek Jeter in the citation needed tags is absurd to the point of being humorous and it was just the laugh I needed. Thank you. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:54, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

@O811RT1: please tell us what your connection is to Sasha Anawalt. That information will help us to guide you and this discussion about her article. Thank you. Netherzone (talk) 15:09, 6 January 2021 (UTC)