Talk:Sister Roma

message: I don't see why this page should be deleted... I think Roma is a very worthy and appropriate article to be included here. M.brandonclark 18:18, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like the article is fine for now, if you can add anything please do so. Benjiboi 05:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Article has recently come under attack and been rewritten. There is a phrase on wikipedia, what is verifiable not just true. In essence we need to prove anything that is written about Roma so the article will slowly piece together unlike many other articles that are simply written and anything that has to be sourced then reffed. Benjiboi 23:50, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  don't delete 

message: Mentions Roma only so doubt it's worth including. Benjiboi 20:24, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New York Times article 

message: Okay, this is better.   However, the language I was referring to earlier is still there.   The problem with language like this is that it isn't factual, and is very arbitrary.   It's also passive voice—we don't know who considers Sister Roma to be "one of the most..."   And compared to whom?   It's better to just leave this out—I don't think it adds to the story.   If you want to get the point across, it would be better to express it directly instead of comparatively—she joined, and then became very outspoken, giving examples.   Like that.   When you use comparative terms, it invites the question, compared to whom?
The other thing is that the lead-in to that paragraph is weak—you don't know what you're getting in to.   It's a good story, but it might be nice if the first sentence set the context, rather than immediately launching into the story.   Something along the lines of "Sister Roma first came into contact with the SPI when ..."   I don't want to put words in your mouth, so I won't rewrite it, but I think something along those lines would improve it. Abhayakara (talk) 14:24, 22 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Editorial suggestions

message: I'd originally changed "Grand Marshall" of the parade in the lede, to "one of thirteen Grand Marshalls" of the parade - there is quite a difference - the first is grossly misleading.  Upon consideration, however, the second is "damning with faint praise."  If that accomplishment is important enough in this person's life to be placed in the lede (or even in the last paragraph), then there is a problem.
:Says you.   Sounds like WP:OR to me.   Someone added the Grand Marshal reference, and a cite for it, and the cite is good.   If you don't think this is a big enough accolade to cite here, that's a perfectly legitimate opinion, with which I might even agree, but it's not a reason to remove the text from the article, since there's a cite for it. Abhayakara (talk) 18:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If you really want to add "one of thirteen Grand Marshalls", please go ahead.  There's nothing OR about the number 13, just check the reference.  On the other hand, when the number is added, which makes the sentence accord with the meaning of the ref, it just looks like a put down to me.  Including something simply because there is a reference for it, is not part of Wikipedia rules.  If enough people want to include an accurate sentence with the ref - it is just fine with me, but I can't understand why anybody would want this put in.  Smallbones (talk) 22:08, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Grand marshal