# Talk:Molly White (writer)

I found out about Ms. White on November 8, 2023, by reading her piece in the NYT. Curious, I went to Wiki. I write here because I found the last sentence of the article to be vague to the point of being unworthy of an article in an encyclopedia. Worse, the citation is behind a paywall. I am not a regular or a particularly skilled editor, but I do want to suggest to those who are regular editors (and Wallace Stevens fans!) to consider deleting that sentence, or at the very least attributing to a person those judgments about White's politics. AcheronLupus (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

I dunno, seems pretty clear to me? She has left-wing political views, overlapping with or inclusive of socialism? A fairly bog standard statement found on many articles. And there's no issue with using a source behind a paywall (see WP:PAYWALL). What's the issue? Alyo (chat·edits) 20:53, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Not to mention it's archived without a paywall. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:07, 8 November 2023 (UTC) Wrong link. I'm tired. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:12, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't have an opinion either way—and I can't get to the article myself to see what's being referenced (not a problem as per Wikipedia:PAYWALL)—but I'm curious: this sort of categorization feels like a kind of original research/synthesis—is it not?
I would also judge the subjects views to be basically left-ish socialist-ish, but I don't know that I would add the sentence in question unless I came across a reliable secondary source that described them that way, or could cite a primary source of the subject describing their politics as that. Isn't this the kind of analysis that's usually frowned upon? I also broadly agree with the topic creator that this sentence doesn't tell me much. There are so many views that go into leftism and socialism, and descriptors of the specific ones being summarized would be useful. Thanks! Handpigdad (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Having now read the article being cited, it's not an appropriate source for the sentence its attached to. Her political views are barely discussed, mostly obliquely in terms of her editing of subjects "she absolutely doesn't like" (as per a wiki editor quoted in the article), which are listed in the article as "controversial viewpoints and male-dominated spaces, including right-wing extremism and 'involuntary celibates,' or incels." There's also a description of an open letter she signed on concerns about the blockchain's suitability as a "potential source of public benefit", which is more or less a universalist concern, but I don't think either of these examples from the article are enough to count as a positive descriptor of her political views, so much a negative description of those the subject finds objectionable. Ok sooooo I read the complete wrong article, thanks to Moboshgu's honest mistake. That's at least two tired editors on this page.
This isn't a sky is blue kind of claim, and I think it needs actual sourcing, and I don't think it's essential at the end of the article which consists mostly of description of her work and claims. I'm in favour of just deleting the sentence. Handpigdad (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
@Czar I believe you added the relevant text here -- would you mind just pasting the relevant portion from the article since this has come up a couple times? Alyo (chat·edits) 21:57, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
 Done special:diff/1184216932 czar 01:38, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Would changing the sentence from "She holds left-wing views that skew towards socialism" to "She holds left-wing views she describes as skewing towards socialism" be acceptable? That makes the self-labeling clearer, which both adds meaning to the sentence, and makes clear this isn't OR. I think that would address the complaints of the topic creator, and improve the article. Handpigdad (talk) 03:34, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
I don't see why the claim would need to be further qualified. It's already not OR and quite straightforward. czar 13:15, 9 November 2023 (UTC)
Yeah I also don't see a need for this to be qualified further. How exactly is this OR? Alyo (chat·edits) 23:04, 9 November 2023 (UTC)

Should we add White's Wikipedia username (GorillaWarfare) to the first sentence? 1isall (talk/contribs) 14:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

I would support that. Maybe "White additionally volunteers as Wikipedia editor "GorillaWarfare" and is among the site's most active women." -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 15:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Here's how I would write it:
also known by her Wikipedia username GorillaWarfare
1isall (talk/contribs) 15:07, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Just added it. 1isall (talk/contribs) 15:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
That works fine. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 18:12, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
This goes against MOS:BIOALTNAME. It's not a name used prominently by sources in reference to the subject. It's closer to trivia. I'd argue that it shouldn't be in the lede at all, nevertheless in the first sentence. czar 18:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Okay, bold revert discuss time! Let's compare to articles about other living people with usernames. For one, David Baszucki goes by builderman, is it because some sources refer to him by that? 1isall (talk/contribs) 18:58, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm acting as if this contentious topic rule were in effect (which it's not):
You must follow the bold-revert-discuss cycle if your change is reverted. You may not reinstate your edit until you post a talk page message discussing your edit and have waited 24 hours from the time of this talk page message
1isall (talk/contribs) 19:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
(edit conflict) Agreed with Czar, especially since it's already present in the "Wikipedia editing" setting. If Molly were notable only for Wikipedia editing, then your comparison to builderman's roblox handle would be apt (since he's notable only for roblox). But that's not the case here; Molly is known for two different things, and the bolded term is only relevant to one of them, so it should stay in the section where it's relevant. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:04, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
I still think the Wikipedia username should be in the lead somewhere, if it's not going to be in the first sentence. Us Wikipedians know her by that here. White may not be notable solely for WP editing, but it is still a major part of the many things she did. (Don't refer to her by her given name!) 1isall (talk/contribs) 19:08, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Since I still want the username to be in the lead, I propose that it be put in this sentence:
White additionally volunteers as a Wikipedia editor under the username "GorillaWarfare" and is among the site's most active women.
What's in bold is how I think it should be added. 1isall (talk/contribs) 19:12, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
@Czar @Pppery 1isall (talk/contribs) 19:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
I don't see the value in doing that. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:27, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Do any of you want to take this to means of dispute resolution? 1isall (talk/contribs) 19:34, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
I'm thinking of starting an RFC. 1isall (talk/contribs) 19:36, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Before that, let me ask: why do you not see any "value" in this edit? 1isall (talk/contribs) 19:45, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
This thread was started about five hours ago and you are threatening DRN and RfC already. Please remain calm and allow the discussion to run. There is WP:NODEADLINE, especially since this isn't something major like a WP:BLPPRIVACY violation. Most users who watch this page likely haven't even logged in yet today. --CNMall41 (talk) 19:52, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Simply, I don't see what it accomplishes, and why the mention in the body doesn't suffice. And you're WP:BLUDGEONing the process, having made more comments in the discussion than all other participants combined, most of which are entirely non-substantive bickering that takes us no closer to an agreement. I'm done here, and won't be responding any further, but my opposition stands. * Pppery * it has begun... 19:54, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
@1isall: What sources are you seeing that list both their real and usernames? If you can show that the username meets the criteria laid out at MOS:BIOALTNAME, it'll get included. Ed [talk] [OMT] 19:57, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Can they be passing mentions? 1isall (talk/contribs) 20:09, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Some of the sources from the article that say "GorillaWarfare" include: [1] [2] [3] 1isall (talk/contribs) 20:20, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
@The ed17 1isall (talk/contribs) 20:21, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
Per MOS:BIOALTNAME, we would need evidence that the name is "frequently used" in available sources about the person. You've linked a few pieces that use the username, but I'm seeing that this feature profile piece, another feature profile, this in-depth interview, this, this, and this all don't. So I'm not so sure the username meets the BIOALTNAME criterion. Ed [talk] [OMT] 21:01, 3 July 2025 (UTC)
I guess it's not merited. I'll just have to admit that I was wrong, and send apologies to everyone involved. 1isall (talk/contribs) 21:05, 3 July 2025 (UTC)

Molly White has been briefly mentioned in external media by political analyst and historian Heather Cox Richardson at the end of her most recent publication, which can be viewed here. For whatever that's worth. 71.181.71.207 (talk) 12:17, 25 July 2025 (UTC)