Talk:Marianne Ihlen

Calling Paloalto65 and 50.151.4.121

Paloalto65 and 50.151.4.121 made essentially the same edit: [1] [2]. I explained on User talk:Paloalto65 why I disagreed with this excision. Paloalto65 turned out to be a contributor with just a single edit, who didn't reply to my comment. Since Paloalto65 and 50.151.4.121 seem to be brand new contributors, they may not realize that editing using multiple wiki-ids can trigger concern someone has used multiple IDs to appear multiple people agree with a view that only a single person holds.

Paloalto65 and 50.151.4.121, if you are two IDs, used by a single individual, please pick one, and stick to it.

As I noted in my edit summary, here, as a courtesy, it is a very good idea to not rely solely on an edit summary to explain your reasoning for a complicated or controversial edit. Sorry, but this is one of the most common triggers for edit wars. It may be the most common trigger for edit wars. There is a strong temptation for those who disagree with the edit to reply with an edit summary of their own, when they revert the edit.

Decoding discussions that take place solely in edit summaries can be extremely painful, or even impossible. Typically, they require stepping through each change, one at a time. And it is a huge disservice to third parties, who should feel entitled to be able to read a coherent explanation for big changes, on the article's talk page.

The edit both Paloalto65 and 50.151.4.121 made was to remove a paragraph where an RS had compared Marianne Ihlen with Lana Del Rey. As I explained on User talk:Paloalto65:

You excised the paragraph asserting you suspected someone was lapsing from our standards and conventions barring self-promotion. I drafted that paragraph. I have absolutely zero association with Cohen, Ihlen, Del Rey, Ihlen's Norwegian biographer, or the reviewer who wrote about the association that struck her about Del Rey and Ihlen. Please be a lot more careful in leveling accusations! Our articles are supposed to be based on Verifyable sources, authoritative WP:reliable sources, writing about our topics. When an RS writes about how one topic we cover is related to another topic we cover, that is precisely the kind of thing we should include in our articles. So, could you please familiarize yourself more fully with our core policies before you make bold edits? Thanks! Geo Swan (talk) 21:17, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Paloalto65 and 50.151.4.121, the first excision accused me of a conflict of interest. 50.151.4.121, your explanation asserted the paragraph contained, "conjecture". It contained an opinion. Opinions, of reliable sources, when properly attributed, do belong in articles. Geo Swan (talk) 22:08, 9 April 2017 (UTC)

No, not every opinion somebody has uttered somewhere belongs in an article. It must be a relevant opinion, either because it has found public resonance or because it was published by a recognised expert in the field or because it contains obviously important new insights into the topic in question. But why is it relevant for Marianne Ihlen, when some Lana Del Rey reviewer has recently read Hesthamars biography and feels there are certain similarities between Marianne Ihlen and Lana Del Rey? This is a purely subjective statement, there are no indications whatsoever that anybody except Alexandra Molotkow has had this impression, so why should it be relevant enough for Wikipedia? --Jossi (talk) 10:53, 9 June 2020 (UTC)