User talk:Anastrophe

Posts here will be archived after I read them.

Kentucky Derby

Thank you for continued efforts to bring better clarity to the subject article, something I always welcome. I think, though, we're dealing with an editor doing tendentious editing because, as it seems to be increasingly clear, they are not accepting of the sourced facts or have some kind of animus toward the subject. I have invited them (I'm not assuming their gender) to bring other reliable sources but they have so far refused, instead just seeming to grab at straws, saying the equivalent of "what about this?" even though their hypothesis turns up dry every time. I just thought it would be useful to try to explain the situation. Cheers! Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:03, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate the background - and you're welcome re my efforts. I'm largely concerned with clarity of construction; the only 'expertise' I have is what I've learned from my wife, a lifelong horsewoman (I grew up in suburbia!). I can understand the other editor's confusion on this matter though - the sentences appear to have been originally constructed in an attempt to create the most brevity (desireable in the lede), but it winds up cramming too much info under one 'banner'. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 18:24, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Oh, I agree that sometimes when reflecting a source, the source may be clear enough for its audience but not quite for ours. I am actually delighted when we can explain a subject better than a source, which I believe in this case had to keep it brief due to limited print space competing with coverage of other Louisville-related subjects. As for the other editor, I very much want to assume good faith, but I'm having to go by their pattern of editing, which is them continuing to remove sourced material without having brought a countervailing source to back up a hypothesis they hold. One such hypothesis was a claim that the Kentucky Derby can't say it has been held every single year since its inception, because other races in the Triple Crown or the Travers Stakes did, but even in their articles, they show they missed years. Thanks again. Stefen Tower_{s among the rest!} ^{Gab • Gruntwerk} 18:39, 29 May 2024 (UTC)

Section

my apologies , i just used little grammar good and add source on O. J. Simpson's alleged abused his first wife and i add another source from new York times old achieves on 1995 trial by --Sunuraju (talk) 02:28, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

Your Mace article cleanup

I really appreciated your cleanup of the article, save for one thing: The Mace quote is absurd on its face and thoroughly self-serving.

Therefore, I think it best -- and in keeping with the Wikipedia ethic to write from a neutral point of view citing credible sources -- to omit her comment.

Here's the NYT take on the extraction of 30,000 Black voters from what had been her swing district that she'd won by a single point, the ACLU's then-successful suit against the gerrymander with NAACP plaintiffs, that led the unanimous three-judge District Court to throw it out. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/11/us/politics/nancy-mace-gerrymandering.html Activist (talk) 07:04, 3 June 2024 (UTC)

The problem with this is multi-pronged:

• Mace's comment was conversational; obviously not everybody knows that it wasn't drawn on racial lines, and nobody would take it at face value;
• Any 'rebuttal' response would have to be equally vapid to be NPOV - someone else saying "well, everybody in SC knows that it was racial gerrymandering"; that wouldn't be an improvement;
• The court's opinions and decisions make up the bulk of the section; Mace's one-liner response is NPOV relative to that;
• The article is the BLP of Nancy Mace; in-depth discussion of the matter is relevant to the article on South Carolina's 1st district/the gerrymandering article, and likely other places, but not so much here, because again - Mace didn't redraw the district herself, and the article is a BLP.

cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 15:31, 3 June 2024 (UTC)