Talk:Wednesday Martin

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi again! Since the release of Untrue there have been several reviews published by various publications, and I'd like to suggest an update to add a brief mention of the most high-profile reviews. As I've mentioned previously, I have a financial conflict of interest, since I'm making this request on behalf of Wednesday Martin as part of my work at Beutler Ink. Due to that, I won't make any direct edits to the article and I'm hoping an editor can review the following suggested addition for the Reception section and make this change if it looks good.

My suggested addition is as follows:

Martin's third book, Untrue, received reviews from multiple publications including The Guardian,^[1] the London Evening Standard,^[2] The Atlantic,^[3] and The New York Times.^[4]

Can someone take a look and make this addition if it seems appropriate? Let me know if you have any questions or feedback. Thanks in advance. 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 21:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Fair enough. Although the review in The Guardian wasn't exactly glowing, if I recall correctly... JezGrove (talk) 21:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, JezGrove, thanks for taking a look at this! Would you be willing to make the addition, if it seems reasonable? 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:40, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, 16912 Rhiannon. No problem, I'll do it tomorrow unless someone beats me to it. JezGrove (talk) 18:54, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hi, JezGrove, just a gentle nudge to see if you are still willing to make the edit or if you had any questions? Thanks!16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 20:19, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, some unexpected work came in and took over my life. All done now, and I promise I'll make the edits tomorrow morning (Thursday). JezGrove (talk) 21:55, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much, JezGrove, really appreciate the review and the assistance making this edit! 16912 Rhiannon (Talk · COI) 17:41, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

Hi, editors! WurmWoode's recent edit says Wednesday Martin was born in 1966. She was actually born in 1965. Because the source does not specify the year, I would suggest we tweak the text to say she was born in "1965 or 1966", per The New York Times. Other options are to simply remove "in 1966" altogether, or use Template:Birth based on age as of date since the source only states her age at the time of publication. Thank you for reviewing this request and updating the article on my behalf. Inkian Jason (talk) 17:01, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done HouseBlaster^talk 18:51, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Inkian Jason (talk) 15:05, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, again! I'd like to propose removing the following content:

• On June 7, 2015, the New York Post published its investigative article "Upper East Side housewife’s tell-all book is full of lies", in which they pointed out multiple factual discrepancies with Martin's memoirs as published in Primates of Park Avenue.^[1] Responding the next day, Simon & Schuster promised to add a disclaimer to the book, warning that the narrative in the book might not be completely factual.^[2]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources says, "There is consensus that the New York Post is generally unreliable for factual reporting especially with regard to politics, particularly New York City politics. A tabloid newspaper, editors criticise its lack of concern for fact-checking or corrections, including a number of examples of outright fabrication. Editors consider the New York Post more reliable in the period before it changed ownership in 1976..."

User:David Gerard, I am putting this request on your radar since you removed similar content for a similar reason back in May. Thanks for your consideration,

Inkian Jason (talk) 18:29, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm no fan of the Post, but these sentences could easily be referenced to more reputable secondary sources instead, e.g. New York magazine, the Associated Press, or CNN. pburka (talk) 18:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

yeah, if there are RSes then use those and flush the Post - David Gerard (talk) 19:11, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

@David Gerard @Pburka Thank you for replacing the bad sources with one that's appropriate for Wikipedia. However, the current text is not entirely accurate based on reporting by The New York Times (the current inline citation). The source says: "On Sunday, after a report that there were factual errors in the book, the publisher, Simon & Schuster, said it would append a note to future editions of the book, written by the social researcher Wednesday Martin, clarifying that some of the memoir's details and chronologies were changed."

Currently, the Wikipedia entry suggests that the New York Post accurately identified factual discrepancies in multiple memoirs written by Martin, which is not true. I propose replacing with the following text, which also clarifies the purpose of the note and its author (Martin):

• In 2015, the New York Post claimed to have found multiple factual discrepancies with Martin's memoir Primates of Park Avenue. In response, Simon & Schuster promised to add a note by Martin to subsequent editions of the book, clarifying that some chronologies and details were changed.

Would you please consider updating the article's text to reflect what the source says?

Thanks! Inkian Jason (talk) 20:27, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

@David Gerard and Pburka: Are either of you willing to revisit this request? Inkian Jason (talk) 14:00, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

I am out from under the house move (as you can tell by my flurry of edits) and will indeed, my apologies for delay! - David Gerard (talk) 14:03, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

@David Gerard Thanks for reviewing when you have a moment. Inkian Jason (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

yes i put that in place! - David Gerard (talk) 18:53, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing and updating! Inkian Jason (talk) 15:44, 7 November 2023 (UTC)