Talk:Emily Calandrelli

Not a notable person. Delete?

This is not a notable person. Should the article be deleted? Skcin7 (talk) 20:24, 16 June 2024 (UTC)

She's a widely recognized and award winning television host and science educator. Very notable. - Fuzheado | Talk 15:46, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

10th woman to fly on a suborbital spaceflight

I count 11. How do you arrive to 10th ? Hektor (talk) 16:59, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

• Wally Funk
• Audrey Powers
• Laura Shepard Churchley
• Sharon Hagle
• Katya Echazarreta
• Sara Sabry
• Vanessa O'Brien
• Carol Schaller
• Nicolina Elrick
• Karsen Kitchen
• Emily Calandrelli

"First Woman from West Virginia in space"

On the current page listed for Emily Calandrelli under Career in the last paragraph, last sentence, there is a piece of information that is incorrect currently stating: "She became the 100th woman in space, the first woman from West Virginia in space, and the 10th woman to fly on a suborbital spaceflight above the Kármán line." Emily was, in fact, not the first woman from West Virgia to go to space, Sharon Hagle was. Sharon was part of Blue Origin's NS-20 flight that went up on March 31st, 2022 (https://www.blueorigin.com/new-shepard/astronauts) making her the first woman from West Virginia to go to space.

Could we make this edit? WitzB (talk) 19:01, 16 April 2026 (UTC)

Hello, @WitzB.

I see that you went ahead and made this edit eighteen minutes after posting this; but I have reverted it on several grounds.

• The most important is that, since you have since declared that you are paid to edit on behalf of Sharon Hagle, you should not be directly editing any article on her behalf, but should instead make an edit request. (I appreciate that you made this declaration a month after the edit, and may not have been aware of the restriction at that time. My action is not punitive, but undoing something which should not have been done in that way.)
• Secondly, and nearly as important, you replaced content in an article which was cited to a source (in fact, more than one source) by information which was directly contradicted by those sources, without replacing the sources. This strikes at one of the most fundamental principles of Wikipedia - verifiability. A reader looking at that article, and wondering why she should be described as the second WV woman in space would go to one of the cited sources and see that on the contrary it says she was the first!
• Oddly, you did cite a source in the edit summary, but you did not put it into the article. But there is a further problem with your edit, that the source https://www.blueorigin.com/new-shepard/astronauts does not say that Hagle was the first, second or any other female astronaut from WV: it simply says that she was on mission NS-20. The conclusion that she was the first such is synthesis, and is not permitted in a Wikipedia article. (Even if we liberally allow that that source indicates that Hagle preceded Calandrelli, it does not say that either of them was the first, or the second, or any other number.)

I'm not saying that your claim is wrong, or that the claim in the article (and the WV News and WTRF articles) is right. It looks to me as both those papers got it wrong. But Wikipedia works on verifiability, not truth; and if sources disagree, Wikipedia should present both and allow the reader to make their own decision. (I suspect that the best solution here is to remove the claim entirely, whether first or second: is it really encyclopaedic in the first place?)

I've gone into this at some length, and explained the issues that, as a paid editor with little Wikipedia experience, you need to understand in order to do your job. ColinFine (talk) 13:55, 20 October 2026 (UTC)

In fact, I've gone ahead and removed the claim entirely. ColinFine (talk) 14:00, 20 October 2026 (UTC)