Talk:A.J. Delgado

Edits

In December 2016, I tried to fix this article which had some demonstrably false statements in it. I worked at the surface discrepancies and planned to get into specifics later on. Did I go too far in the other direction? If I had, I had hoped that once I read the actual quotes, they would steer me into a final appropriate balance.

But on December 24, 2016, the primary source for most of the information was deleted from the internet. Rather than remove the material which the quotes referenced by the previous writer stood upon (that is, nearly all of it), I hoped my grounds for and subsequent tone of scepticism applied on top of the earlier version of the article would suffice to balance any lack of factual support from the missing statements made about them.

Now that the sources have reappeared, I am concerned about completing this article, because regardless of the person who is the subject of the article, I should point out that since categories assigned by the earlier writer used are really sweeping in their range of denunciation, implying the subject is an anti-conservative activist in areas the subject of which she may only have mentioned or worse, may not have even held, I think they deserve a confirmation or rejection one way or another. Depending on the order in which potentially discountive facts like this are found, it might even hasten the determination of the original writer as a credible source or not and thus also hasten the removal from the article of what would be over-scrutinization of a discounted source and with it, the article's final resolution.

On the other hand maybe this is just academic enthusiasm, and I am, on the contrary, not going about this the right way.

So if anyone thinks they can do a better job at this than in the way I have described, have a go at it!

VargasMilan (talk) 19:57, 23 July 2017 (EDT)