Talk:Monica Witt

verbosity

Several times now, Snake0124 (talk · contribs) has changed the lead, first to twice change its implication ( & [https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Monica_Witt&diff=996402487&oldid=996325784 now to simply try and say the same thing but with more words. Now, I'm going to change back this contributor's misrepresentation of Nader Talebzadeh IAW the source, but can anybody else reason why a wordier and less-clear lead is preferable before I revert it as well? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:12, 26 December 2020 (UTC)

(Personal attack removed) 184.147.148.9 (talk) 22:45, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

"Personal attack" aside, you should have left the other editor's edits alone; they were fine. Mine, too. Are you done stunting now? 184.147.148.9 (talk) 01:29, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

you should have left the other editor's edits alone; they were fine. I shouldn't've; they weren't. With this and this edit, they were saying that Witt is still an active enlisted airman; she wasn't and isn't.

Mine, too. With this edit, you referred to "Goldman" without actually telling the reader who and what you're talking about at all. The in-text attribution to Goldman doesn't seem necessary per our content guidelines at Wikipedia:Citing sources, and especially considering the impeachability of the author and consequentialness of the material. Additionally, my subsequent rephrasing hews closer to the specificity of the source, including non-absolutism that the original prose suggested. Lastly, with this edit's summary, you appear to be referring to the neutral-point-of-view policy, but none of the circumstances at #Explanation would seem to apply to the prose at hand. While entirely unnecessary, if explicit attribution is your bright line to eschew further incivil retaliation, a non-obfuscatory version of the prose, which I don't mind implementing for you, would be to say, "The New York Times' Adam Goldman reported that, 'Inside the government, some officials called her "Wayward Storm."'"

Are you done stunting now? I'm disinclined to look up that disparagement. I will instead ask whether you're interested in [Participating in a respectful and considerate way, not ignoring the positions and conclusions of your fellow editors, and refraining from making personal attacks]. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:32, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

I'm taking the anonymous contributor's silence as satisfaction with my suggestion, and I've implemented such here. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:12, 7 January 2024 (UTC)

"Born in Texas" but german parents?

Monica Elfriede Witt ...sounds german. Is one of the, or both, parents germans? 81.20.127.155 (talk) 09:15, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

None of the reliable sources cited in the article, nor any I've seen, discuss Witt's ancestry. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 20:31, 19 January 2025 (UTC)

Air medals are not given by the president

Air medals are not given by the president … the state she was awarded a Air Medal from President Bush is incorrect ~2026-29308-11 (talk) 14:09, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Rank?

The Wiki article says TSgt, but pictures in news articles clearly show her with the commissioned officer's "US" insignia. As well, she has a Master's degree. She was at least a Major.~2026-25023-00 (talk) 21:16, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Agreed. She's wearing commissioned officers' collar brass in that photo. NeilMarsh (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2026 (UTC)

Attributuon Problems

This article states a lot of things as facts without citing a source. Jtb323 (talk) 10:16, 16 May 2026 (UTC)