Talk:Crystal McKellar

Venture capitalist

@Hipal: I don't understand how a description of what she invests in should be "undue" and everything (in such a short biography) should be "briefest". Her declaration in that letter shows her politics and investment philosophy - should be showed. Nothing undue about it. 19:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC) Deamonpen (talk) 19:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Currently, it's verified by press releases and the like. NOT requires independent sources. BLP requires better sources. --Hipal (talk) 20:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Her comments on the defense industry's direction should not require sources other than her own published words. It is not a subtle fact about her life that requires invesitgation from a third party or something. Deamonpen (talk) 20:49, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Not according to the policies indicated. --Hipal (talk) 20:52, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I don't see that Wikipedia has a policy that ban self-published sources when it comes to self-description (in this case, this is her investment philosophy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves

Deamonpen (talk) 21:17, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

ABOUTSELF #1,2,5. --Hipal (talk) 22:29, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Your editing behaviors are highly disruptive. I don't see a description of their investments, backed by other sources, as WP:PROMO. In this case a lot of other businesspeople/companies pages will be PROMO too. Here we don't use McKellar's description to prove that she is a grear investor or something. Deamonpen (talk) 22:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:FOC. If you're not going to address the policies directly, I don't see how we can find the required consensus for inclusion as required. --Hipal (talk) 22:38, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Hello,

I just edited the information so as to exclude any self-citation, and added details in my comments as to how this could be improved, if need be.

Deleting a citation from the Wall Street Journal as breaking WP:PROMO does not seem warranted. If promotional material is the problem, that's what needs to be rejected, not the whole edit. Please see WP:PRESERVE for more. Selbsportrait (talk) 00:03, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

"If you're not going to address the policies directly, I don't see how we can find the required consensus for inclusion as required." If you'd like to go over the references one by one, or any one of them, that might help us address the policy problems. --Hipal (talk) 00:55, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Please help me identify the bit you find problematic:

1. Is the material unduly self-serving or exceptional?
2. Does it involve claims about third parties?
3. Does it involve claims about events not directly related to the source?
4. Is there any reasonable doubt as to its authenticity?
5. Is the article based primarily on such sources?

As far as I can see, you're stonewalling instead of trying to resolve the issue. Selbsportrait (talk) 01:00, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I identified ABOUTSELF 1,2,5. It is self serving. It involves claims about third parties. The entire section is based upon similarly poor sources. BLP and NOT require better. Shall we look at a reference, maybe all of them? --Hipal (talk) 01:20, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

"It is self serving."

What is that *it*?

Please start with the Wall Street Journal one. Selbsportrait (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

To help us out in case the page changes, here is the *it* that we got for now:

"Its portfolio included Angle Health, Brave Health, Cooler Heads, Mach Industries, Obviant, and Vannevar Labs."

Here are the citations:

• "Health insurance startup Angle Health scores $58M". www.mobihealthnews.com. 30 January 2023.
• D2P2 (2 May 2023). "Cooler Heads Sees Amma Sales Heat Up". San Diego Business Journal.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
• O'Brien, Erin (25 June 2025). "Obviant Raises $7.1M for DoD Data Intelligence". Tectonic Defense. Retrieved 7 August 2025.
• Vartabedian, Marc (18 January 2023). "With Interest in Defense Tech Growing, National Security Startup Nets $75 Million". Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 7 August 2025.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: deprecated archival service (link)

Selbsportrait (talk) 01:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

The material is self-serving...

WSJ ref: It does not mention McKellar at all. It mentions Aloft VC as participating investor. That's it.

The entire context is, "Felicis Ventures led the Series B funding round. Participating investors included DFJ Growth, Aloft VC, General Catalyst, Point72 Ventures, Costanoa Ventures and Shield Capital."

If I recall when I skimmed the refs, they are all like this, containing nothing relevant other than the name of Aloft VC in a list. Do you agree? --Hipal (talk) 17:58, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

No, I don't. All I see are reliable sources that are not written by McKellar or her company. They help support the claim being made, a claim that would not be self-serving even if it was supported by self-citation. So even in what you invoke applied, your contestation would be moot.

Do you have any evidence that McKellar owns the Wall Street Journal or the San Diego Business Journal? Selbsportrait (talk) 20:04, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

ABOUTSELF doesn't apply to these sources, correct? --Hipal (talk) 20:56, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Not as far as I can tell.

To say that McKellar owns a company that picked such and such ventures is not overly meliorative, about a third party or dubious. Self-citations are not the basis for the page's notability either.

(The last clause looks like the OR argument applied to the living.)

The only self-citation was already on the page when I arrived. We could remove the claim about contrarian investing if you please, but in the investment world it's an accepted term. It describes a philosophy more than a gimmick that promises an outlandish edge.

A more reasonable thing we could do is stylistic: keep the citations list to three, and adjust the number of companies mentioned accordingly.

What do you think? Selbsportrait (talk) 21:27, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

See below. --Hipal (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Finding another way to remove citations that are not self-citations isn't the best way to concede that the citations you thought were self-citations were not self-citations. Selbsportrait (talk) 16:04, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

I've removed the section, as the press release is not something we can use to write a section around. Basic information may be ok: the name of the organization, founding date, and a general description. That's not what we had and we're wasting time trying to justify a "client list" based upon the absolute weakest of mentions of the company. Let's justify a section first, then see if we can agree on details. --Hipal (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)--Hipal (talk) 21:06, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

That's 3RR, good sir.

So I suggest you revise your decision. Selbsportrait (talk) 21:28, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

Alternatively, you could also find the time to justify the section yourself, and not burden others with the task of satisfying your shifting demands. It's really not hard to find solid evidence that McKellar is indeed a VC. Selbsportrait (talk) 23:02, 8 August 2025 (UTC)

I removed it because I could not find any potential references that we could use to justify it, just press releases and the like, nothing better than what we already have.

At this point, I feel that relevant policies are being ignored and my assessment of the WSJ ref is being ignored as well. The onus is on those seeking inclusion, and I don't see how consensus will ever support inclusion without better sources being found. --Hipal (talk) 15:42, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

You could not find any potential references because you have not read the page.

What you feel is irrelevant. Selbsportrait (talk) 15:53, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Besides:

https://letmegooglethat.com/?q=mckellar+venture+capitalist

I won't play go fetch just because you decided that stonewalling was a way to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. Selbsportrait (talk) 15:59, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

There are things called disagreement and selection of appropriate details, and then there is denial (but for what purpose?) from User:Hipal.

I can even say serious publications that focus on politics or business now barely remember her as a child actress:

[https://archive.is/20241223054959/https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-15/why-jd-vance-as-trump-s-vp-pick-has-silicon-valley-celebrating#selection-2595.0-2595.143 Bloomberg identifies as founder of Aloft VC, not as child actress and lawyer:

Crystal McKellar, founder and managing partner of Aloft VC, worked with Vance at Mithril Capital in 2012 and greeted the news enthusiastically.

When Newsweek publishes her article, she is introduced as]:

Crystal McKellar is the Founder and Managing Partner of Aloft VC where she invests in companies applying the best of Silicon Valley to our Nation's Health and Defense.

Axios:

It's also a twist on a recent VC legal drama between Anathem founder Crystal McKellar and her former firm, Mithril Capital.

Some other sources that mention her as VC:

Femtech Insider

Seattle Times

Handelsblatt Deamonpen (talk) 02:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the potential references. Let's look them over:

Bloomberg mentions her in passing. It's better than what we're using, but doesn't give anything but relevant background for use of her as someone to quote in the article.

Axios, Mithril sued McKellar, whom some of you might remember as "Becky Slater" from The Wonder Years. She countersued. More detail and mention of her acting.

FemTech Insider: Questionable source. Even if it is determined to be reliable it's like Bloomberg, providing just a brief mention of her to set up a quote.

Seattle Times: Similar to Bloomberg and FemTech Insider. Notes that she worked with Vance.

Handelsblatt: I can't access the full article. From what I see, it's slightly less that Bloomberg, Femtech Insider, and Seattle Times. If there's more, please quote.

Unless Handelsblatt turns out to have more depth, Axios has the most information and demonstrates her notability as an actress.

Seems there may be more mention of here as a vc than a lawyer... --Hipal (talk) 19:20, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Quite the opposite . What they know about her these days is the connection with Thiel and Vance, and as a venture capitalist. The Bloomberg part is totally quotable: she is a venture capitalist who supports Vance.

And you are totally ignoring Newsweek.

The whole main story in Axios is McKellar investing in Siren.

The Bloomberg article is other people's story, and when she appears, it is as a VC capitalist.

In the Axios article, when it is her story, it is the investment story first, the lawyer story second, and the actress part only has that one sentence you quoted. Deamonpen (talk) 20:48, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Do not try the whole stonewalling thing.

Also, the Bloomberg piece is important because she appears as one of the representatives/evidences that large parts of the Silicon Valley supports Vance (they would not mention a third rate venture capitalist, wouldn't they). Deamonpen (talk) 21:06, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Sorry for not mentioning Newsweek. WP:NEWSWEEK, an opinion piece, written by her. It shouldn't be considered at all unless a far better source demonstrates so. --Hipal (talk) 21:10, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

It is still a yellow source. And we don't use her opinion here. We use the credits, that show she is a venture capitalist. Newsweek treats her as a venture capitalist. Deamonpen (talk) 21:15, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Is there anything about her work as a lawyer previous to her lawsuit against Mithril that's not about the lawsuit?

As I've indicated, minimum information about her founding Anathem Ventures, now Aloft VC should be included, with the Axios ref. Please do not include any reference that isn't as good or better without clear consensus.

As far as being the founder, the best ref we have is Bloomberg maybe. It should be fine for that bit of information. --Hipal (talk) 22:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, the story of Axios (the "twist" mentioned in the title of the article) is that she sued Peter Thiel's Mithril, claimed that he also had doubt about that firm, and he did not comment on that matter, but now he chose to invest in a company that she/her fund Anathem invested in (and led the investment round). It is not a "formmer child actress now has money and invests in things" story. Deamonpen (talk) 01:33, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

I'm not sure what to make of Venture Capital Journal and the ref. I don't have access. There are no noticeboard discussions about it, and the three AfDs where it has been brought up all resulted in deletion. My impression from what I can find about it is that it publishes a wide variety of articles, from warmed-over press releases to in-depth analysis. The title of the one we currently use (three times via two references that should be just a single reference) seems more like the former. However, the author is highly experienced. Could someone quote the sections relevant to McKellar, and provide context about the overall article? --Hipal (talk) 00:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

AfD has nothing to do with one of the sources they use.

This is the section:

Venture Capital Journal

Crystal McKellar (managing director and general counsel, June 2012 -February 2019.) McKellar is a managing partner at Anathem Ventures, an early-stage firm she founded in July. McKellar filed papers with the SEC on behalf of Anathem Beta on Oct. 24 stating her intention to raise $25 million. The fund had not raised any capital at that time. "I can't give much context around my investors or fundraise (because it is ongoing), but I can confirm that I held a first close in October," McKellar said in an email.

She said she has already invested in her first company and is joining the board of the company, which she declined to name. Anathem is a single-GP fund, but McKellar is supported by "three venture partners whose backgrounds span robotics, computer science, enterprise software, viral consumer marketing, defense industry, and seed and venture investing who are helping to source and diligence deals," she said.

Anathem, which takes its name from a Neal Stephenson novel, will focus on "investing at the Series A and B in companies that have developed breakthrough tech with strong IP protection that they are pragmatically leveraging to win and own well-defined, high-margin markets," McKellar said. "New and valuable tech is a prerequisite for consideration for my fund." Deamonpen (talk) 00:36, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

AfDs are a helpful indicator of the value of sources given that editors are specifically looking for notability.

Thank you for the quote. Can I assume the article consists of a number of such profiles of at least a few of the seven who had left at the time, including a brief introduction and perhaps some conclusions as to why they left? --Hipal (talk) 01:17, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

"AfDs are a helpful indicator of the value of sources given that editors are specifically looking for notability." - Only if they use it as the main source, and reasons like that are included.

The Venture Capital Journal gives 6 paragraphs on what was happening at Mithril at the time, and then yes gives a description of the activities of the seven notable former employees of the firm - definitely much more detailed than that one sentence describing her as a former actress in the Axios article, which you consider enough to prove her notability as an actress. Deamonpen (talk) 01:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Also, Venture Capital Journal is a source widely used in VC-related articles. A quick search should let you know this.

Removals of some articles related to this exoteric topic should not be considered to have some particular bearing here.

It is also one of the sources recommended by the Harvard Library:

https://guides.library.harvard.edu/law/private_equity Deamonpen (talk) 01:50, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks for the context.

Re refs in Afds vs usage in articles: WP:OSE. After searching all it's usage, and it's not a lot, those were the most helpful mentions I could find. That all said, I think it's fine to use for basic information about McKellar within the VC community. It's a glossy trade magazine.

which you consider... Please don't misrepresent others or past discussions. Her notability as an actress was never in question as far as I can tell. --Hipal (talk) 02:04, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I am not the one who try to delete her whole acting section. You were the one who picked one sentence and decided that the whole Axios article was about demonstrating her notability as an actress.

>>Axios, Mithril sued McKellar, whom some of you might remember as "Becky Slater" from The Wonder Years. She countersued. More detail and mention of her acting.

>>Unless Handelsblatt turns out to have more depth, Axios has the most information and demonstrates her notability as an actress.

Link to the relevant Axios article: https://www.axios.com/2020/05/29/smart-socks-siren-diabetes-funding

As for the other thing, from WP:OSE:

>>The nature of Wikipedia means that you cannot make a convincing argument based solely on whether other articles do or do not exist.

It applies to your argument too then.

Also, try using Google, using the formula:

"Venture capital journal" site:wikipedia.org Deamonpen (talk) 02:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm not clear what your point is, but you still appear to be misrepresenting the discussions on this talk page. Best ask questions for clarification. Again, her notability doesn't appear in question. --Hipal (talk) 22:24, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

The point is that you're the one using an argument of the form "other source exists".

You're trying to undermine a source by handwaving to AfDs.

The time you spent searching through archives indicates you had time to fix things yourself. Selbsportrait (talk) 00:18, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, I am not saying that she was not an actress. I am saying that the materials you often dismiss as mentioning her (as VC) in passing etc often have much more details than that one sentence (in an Axios article which makes clear it focuses on a "twist" in a VC drama) that you decides to demonstrate her notability as an actress.

My other point is that I am trying to help you with simple searching methods, because whatever method you have used, it does not seem so effective if it leads to few "Venture capital journal" results.

Deamonpen (talk) 01:31, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Citations

@Hipal: What part of the article lacks a citation, according to you? Deamonpen (talk) 20:51, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Each citation generally should include the author, title, publisher, and publication date. See Citation and WP:CITE. --Hipal (talk) 21:03, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

In that case it is not a lack of citations. It is a lack of certain parameters. You are welcomed to add those parameters. By the way when it comes to journalism, the source is usually associated with the publication itself and Wikipedia classifies these sources on the basis of this. Many website sources have no specific author or publication date. And the guideline just recommends certain parameters by saying that they are typically included. They don't say that citations that don't have certain parameters are invalid. By this reasoning many long articles on Wikipedia need to have that "lack of citations" tag, including Good Articles. See WP:CITE itself:

Journal articles

See also the template {{cite journal}}.

Citations for journal articles typically include:

name of the author(s)

year and sometimes month of publication

title of the article

name of the journal

volume number, issue number, and page numbers (article numbers in some electronic journals)

DOI and/or other identifiers are optional and can often be used in place of a less stable URL (although URLs may also be listed in a journal citation)

Newspaper articles

See also the template {{cite news}}.

Citations for newspaper articles typically include:

byline (author's name), if any

title of the article

name of the newspaper in italics

city of publication (if not included in name of newspaper)

date of publication

page number(s) are optional and may be substituted with negative number(s) on microfilm reels.

How many Wiki editors actually include "city of publication (if not included in name of newspaper)" in their citations?

Deamonpen (talk) 21:31, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

I'm unclear what your point is. Current citations are incomplete, lacking basic information. --Hipal (talk) 22:27, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

What I am saying is that you did not even represent the guidelines pages you quote correctly, but in an arbitrary way. 22:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC) Deamonpen (talk) 22:43, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

Do you disagree that the current citations are incomplete, missing basic information? --Hipal (talk) 22:46, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

If this issue is with {{Ref expand}}, then the only potential issue I can see is that it was placed at the top of the article. If the issue is with something else, it isn't clear from this discussion what is the issue being discussed here. --Super Goku V (talk) 23:36, 7 August 2025 (UTC)

User:Super Goku V, It is not clear because User:Hipal tries all ways to reject the sources they do not like and keep changing priorities, no matter how we try to accommodate their requests. Deamonpen (talk) 02:21, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Deamonpen, you started this section. I wasn't sure fully what you were referring to by What part of the article lacks a citation, according to you? If it is about the template, I move it. If it isn't, then I don't know know what edits of Hipal's this is about. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:40, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes, it was about the template. The thing is, back then User:Hipal wanted to add the template because they decided that there were no adequate references for the Career as a venture capitalist sector (which I had added). Now that the template has been removed (if I understand you right, when you removed the template you thought that the citations were not a huge problem), Hipal changes his tactics and tries to remove the whole section and adds other unwarranted (in my opinion, and it seems it is also the case with Selbsportrait) templates. Deamonpen (talk) 02:59, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I just moved the Ref expanded template. So far, I have not removed a template from the article. I just thought that the template was misplaced based on the documentation. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Ok, I did not notice. Because it was not moved into the specific Venture capital section Hipal criticized. Deamonpen (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Full name, birth name

There's been a side discussion on this topic here.

For birth name, we need a reliable source that specifically verifies it.

WP:THEWRAP might not be a good source for her full name.

The article previously listed her name as "Crystal Dawn Scripps McKellar". It might be worthwhile to dig through the article history and otherwise look for verification of that as well.

Since legal documents give "Crystal Dawn Scripps McKellar", I don't think we should use TheWrap for something else. --Hipal (talk) 16:03, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

"It might be worthwhile to dig through the article history and otherwise look for verification of that as well."

Good idea. Please report when you're done.

Oh, and that's your second 3RR in two days. Selbsportrait (talk) 16:11, 9 August 2025 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Template madness

Tagging pages for problems can be helpful, as long as it is done in moderation. Selbsportrait (talk) 01:34, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I agree. And User:Hipal does not show how any problem exists at all. Deamonpen (talk) 01:51, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Besides in the discussions above? --Hipal (talk) 01:56, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I think you read a discussion different from what I have read. Deamonpen (talk) 02:01, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

It was not like I and User:Selbsportrait were totally rigid and did not want to accommodate you. So we added new sources and changed the details, although I think one or two sentences from her, that said she received help from her former mentor Thiel or invested in defense, have nothing to do with promo. Now all sources come from normal journalistic resources. But you keep on deleting info based on your arbitrary wishes, so it is very hard to have a normal conversation. Deamonpen (talk) 02:06, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Currently, it's verified by press releases and the like. NOT requires independent sources. BLP requires better sources. PROMO.

While we've improved the referencing, we've not resolved all the problems, eg the WSJ ref. --Hipal (talk) 02:12, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Which part comes from press releases?

What are "the likes"? Deamonpen (talk) 02:19, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

I've identified the WSJ ref as an example. See the earlier discussion. It, and similar refs, do not belong in this article for the reasons given. If you want to look at other references individually, we can do so, as I did with the Venture Capital Journal ref. --Hipal (talk) 16:45, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

You moved the goalposts since that discussion. Earlier you suggested that WSJ did not support the claim that McKellar was VC. The point of that citation was rather to show that her company indeed invested in Vannevar Labs.

You also claimed there was self-citation, a false claim you still have not retracted.

Your actual contention is different, and carries a different burden.

The nuclear option you have chosen is usually for defamatory material, and for remarkable claims. The claims you object to are that McKellar is a VC, and that her company invested in the listed companies. They are not contentious in any ordinary sense of the word. You objecting to them does not make them so.

By the same token, that you disagree doesn't imply that there's no consensus. It just means that instead of edit warring, you should open a ticket on the issue. Something that is recommended in the WP: principle you cited a few times already. Selbsportrait (talk) 21:25, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

Policies indicate otherwise. --Hipal (talk) 22:18, 12 August 2025 (UTC)

They don't.

When will you revert WP:WSJ? Selbsportrait (talk) 00:09, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

This section appears to be intended to harass. I will no longer respond to anything in it. --Hipal (talk) 02:14, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

I regret if anyone's feelings are hurt here, but I think that a session that focuses on the content of the article like this has nothing to do with accusations of harassment. This is undue. Deamonpen (talk) 02:54, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Hipal, I hope you pay attention to this, because it would be madness if I add another section with the same recommendation. Please stop inventing new baseless tag every five days or so. If you can not present your reasoning (ie.specific problems with specific sources), please drop the accusation (that sources are press release, advertising, not independent). I am not a radar or a seer. I cannot "detect" press release. My reasoning is that the sources are typical for that kind of reporting (on VC investments). Succinct, not excessive, with a bit more details if McKellar is the lead investor. You cannot accuse them of being an advertising campaign/"not independent" and then at the same time saying that they barely mention McKellar and her companies. Who does that kind of advertising? --Deamonpen (talk) 16:47, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Can we find more edits that are not disputed?

I think it will help if we look for edits that are not disputed, as the three of us have recently done. I'm planning on addressing what I hope are minor POV problems. We certainly can use better references, and cleanup is needed with the existing refs. --Hipal (talk) 02:22, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

It is hard to find anything that is not disputed in Wikipedia except for completely obscure topics that nobody cares about. But if you can find new info and refs with adequate reputation and quality, feel free to do so. I am just agaist WP:VANDAL. Don't think that it is against you personally. Selbsportrait and I don't agree on everything either. Deamonpen (talk) 02:46, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

At some point, we'll need to discuss content policy (and the related editing policies) in detail, as there are clearly differences of opinion on how they are interpreted and applied. For now, I just would like to make as much progress as we can before we revisit the disputes that started all the discussion on this page. --Hipal (talk) 15:49, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

We can safely assume that the only disputed material is the one you disputed.

We certainly can always expect better, including better expectations.

Hopes, like feelings, are not content. Focus on content. Selbsportrait (talk) 16:41, 13 August 2025 (UTC)

Portfolio list disputed

Here's one that's still disputed . --Hipal (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

By you. If "disputed by one person" means something needs to be removed, then the whole Wikipedia can be removed. And when the other argued, you said that people tried to harass you, even though you were the one who come to my page with unreasonable demands first. Deamonpen (talk) 16:37, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Focusing on content: So you removed the tag because you don't believe there's problem? --Hipal (talk) 17:27, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Yes. It is only about confirmation for the fact an investment was made in a company. It is a simple listing of facts. There is no PROMO content in the first place. Deamonpen (talk) 18:00, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. And you believe the best way to address such a situation is to remove relevant tags? --Hipal (talk) 18:11, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I believe unnecessary tags directing people to focus on non-existant problems do not help the article to grow. Deamonpen (talk) 18:23, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

And when there's a dispute, your beliefs overrule anyone else's? --Hipal (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Hipal, I think you might want to strike this question and take this discussion in a slightly different direction. --Super Goku V (talk) 18:55, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Suggestions and rationale would be helpful. --Hipal (talk) 19:02, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

Minority does not get to decide the consensus. I believe that is Wikipedia's policy. Not mine. No one removes your right to dispute. Changing the article abruptly is not a good way forward though. Deamonpen (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

WP:CON states, Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. See also WP:VOTE. --Hipal (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2025 (UTC)

But you will need a consensus to remove the content that is already there, and in this case you don't have consensus on your side. Or prove the content was added in bad faith (as you tried to do to me on my Talk page, by unreasonably accusing me of displaying some signs of having benefits/connections to this page). The onus is on you to prove that you have the consensus, and that there are better arguments than "this is disputed content (disputed by Hipal) so we need something better." Deamonpen (talk) 12:24, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Again, focusing on content: That's that very opposite of our policies as far as content is concerned. Consensus is needed for inclusion in general, imperative in a BLP. --Hipal (talk) 16:36, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Responsibility to provide inline citations is mine, but when you delete the content already rebuilt with significant changes with another editor's help, the responsibility to prove that one has consensus is yours. "I dispute against it so this is disputed materials" is not an argument, nor consensus building. With it I can delete any materials about BLP in Wikipedia. Deamonpen (talk) 22:48, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

You know that challenging has its rule too, but because you cannot prove that the source itself is unreliable, so you keep harping on the content being PROMO without ever pointing out that which part in this article ever sounds like advertising, in comparison with hundreds of biographies of VC peoples or articles about venture capital funds. A very short listing of her investments is advertisement in what way? Deamonpen (talk) 23:03, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

If you say that the portfolio list is disputed, please provide an example of at least one investment that actually does not exist. You have never done this. You just tried to insert all kinds of tags to wait for your chance to delete the whole VC part every five days or so. How is this consensus building or good faith removal of materials to begin with? Deamonpen (talk) 23:09, 23 August 2025 (UTC)

Still focusing on content: Policy says the onus on those seeking inclusion. Do we need to dig into this to end this part of the dispute? --Hipal (talk) 15:03, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Policy on challenging focuses on the verifiability of the source. Saying that "this is PROMO" without the slightest effort to prove how this is PROMO, is far from consensus building.

Also, when mentioning consensus, the policy also puts emphasis on the "without significant change" part:

>>If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first.

This is not something I built on my own anymore. The section has been rebuilt with significant efforts from Selbsportrait and yourself.

>>Anyway nobody can accede to your ever changing requirements and frequently added unreasonable tags. Deamonpen (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2025 (UTC)

Focusing on content: The changes, significant and otherwise, are disputed because the problems have not been resolved.

My first comment to this page is, Currently, it's verified by press releases and the like. NOT requires independent sources. BLP requires better sources. That still sums up the situation. I've provided details since. We've made progress in rejecting some of the poor sources, but not all by any means. Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion. POV and NOT are the policies used to determine what verified content is included and to what degree. --Hipal (talk) 15:16, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Repeating false arguments that those sources are press releases and the "likes" does not make the discussion better. There is nothing to "resolve". Those are normal journalistic sources. Wikipedia does not even ban press releases, nor self discriptions coming from the subject. Cautions are only made when a section or article is built mainly from that kind of source. Or when positive self-evaluation is taken as fact, in this case you can say that is PROMO. Nothing PROMO about a short listing of companies without even detailed explanations of those investments. Deamonpen (talk) 22:08, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

I repeat, be specific with your accusations. What source is press release? What sentence is PROMO? What does the "likes" mean? Does it mean when Hipal does not like it and cannot find a word to describe that, they equate it to press releases and call it the "likes"? Deamonpen (talk) 22:21, 26 August 2025 (UTC)

Policies and guidelines say otherwise when it comes to such sources. The onus is on those seeking inclusion. Please respect and follow VNOT, POV, NOT.

Some of the content and problematic sources are here. --Hipal (talk) 16:23, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

What source has what problems? Be specific. Please follow Wiki policies and guidelines. Deamonpen (talk) 16:31, 28 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe my edit summaries and comments on this page are clear. What needs further elaboration? --Hipal (talk) 16:23, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

I believe the opposite. Which publications here have a reputation for lack of fact checking? Also if you have specific complaints, maybe you should start a RfC on the Reliable sources noticeboard. I repeat that this is only about a simple list of her investments, nothing more. Deamonpen (talk) 16:44, 30 August 2025 (UTC)

Reliability isn't a concern. --Hipal (talk) 16:32, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

Then I don't see the problem. No matter what you try to present here, it is easy to see that even if sometimes the press mentions her previous careers as actress and lawyer, the reasons she appears on these publications these days at the first place are that she invests in something or she represents a strand of opinions in the Silicon Valley and in a small number of cases, as the sister of her sister. Then I don't understand why even a short list of her investments based on publications without reliability concern is undue or PROMO or whatever term you give it.-Deamonpen (talk) 20:40, 1 September 2025 (UTC)

If sources are found that include weight beyond the briefest possible mention, we might want to revisit this. --Hipal (talk) 16:19, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

These are mainly sources that talk only about these investment. The content is McKellar's VC investing in the specific company. --I don't know how you come to the conclusion that it does not guarantee notability. --Deamonpen (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

What does you expect when it comes to articles announcing funding of a startup anyway? Most of them are "company A receives funding from VCs including B, C and D." This is exactly like that. Do you want these business articles to give a lengthy account of the negotiation process between McKellar and the specific companies before her investment or something? The fact is that McKellar's investment activities are widely reported by diverse sources. It should be noted that Aloft VC/Anathem has one partner (and also the lone founder), who is McKellar. Its activities is her activities. --Deamonpen (talk) 22:12, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

You're describing NOTNEWS situations. --Hipal (talk) 23:25, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to disagree. Please do not continue to misrepresent the policies. The first sentence of the notability guideline is:

Within Wikipedia, notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a topic warrants its own article.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(events)

The matter here is not whether McKellar is notable to warrantee an article, or her career as investor is notable. It is about including a brief list of her investments, which is confirmed by multiple sources - in readable prose this is a sentence of 16 words in total:

Its portfolio includes Angle Health, Brave Health, Cooler Heads, Mach Industries, Obviant, Siren and Vannevar Labs.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22].

We are not building a whole article out of her investment in Vannervar Labs. No guideline requires lengthy articles that detail the whole process. If this Crystal McKellar was a 10,000 words + article with other investments much more highlighted by media, I would say that we should give those investments preference, but it is not.--Deamonpen (talk) 00:04, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

The way you define NOTNEWS, UNDUE etc., most Wikipedia biography articles should not list the birth date or birth place of the subject either. Because few people are notable to the point authors dedicate whole articles to explain their birth situation in detail (what kinds of details do you want? scholarly essays discussing their horoscopes or their mother's story about the pregnancy?) --Deamonpen (talk) 00:26, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

This isn't about notability. WP:N states, The notability guideline does not determine the content of articles, but only whether the topic may have its own article. --Hipal (talk) 00:49, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Haven't you been saying that the investments are NOTNEWS because there are not full length articles that cover every single detail about the processes around these investments? Do I misunderstand you or something? I don't see what other cases you can make for it to be NOTNEWS either. Original reporting - certainly not. Routine coverage (of expected, scheduled events that happen daily) - certainly not. Who's who - Don't see it. SCelebrity gossip and diaries - Not either. --Deamonpen (talk) 01:21, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Haven't you been saying No. --Hipal (talk) 16:41, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

So what problems do you have with this section, from the start? Weeks ago you doubted her notability as a VC investor, then you brought out "Verifiability does not guarantee inclusion" saying that the parts mentioning her investments in the cited sources are too short (??), and then you reached the NOTNEWS part. --Deamonpen (talk) 21:15, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Sorry to repeat myself for a second time, Currently, it's verified by press releases and the like. NOT requires independent sources. BLP requires better sources. --Hipal (talk) 00:37, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Again, baseless claim of sources being press release and "the likes", and contradicting yourself who recognize that sources having no verifiability or reliability problems. These articles are brief and to the point so the content in this page also reflects that. Requesting lengthy essays for the fact that she invests in X and Z companies, is unreasonable. Deamonpen (talk) 01:02, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

If you are incapable of identifying press releases and similar publicity campaign materials, then we're wasting our time. --Hipal (talk) 16:26, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

You are capable of that, then? Sorry but I haven't seen you display such capability. --Deamonpen (talk) 16:30, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Advisor disputed

If anyone thinks any of the refs are anything other than RECENTISM and NOTNEWS, please demonstrate why. I can't access the full bizjournals piece, but the date and the introduction indicates it's a brief from the press releases used in the others. --Hipal (talk) 16:31, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

You attacj strange labels to things. Advisor is a job, not a thing she does in a single day. Is Donald Trump being the current president recentism for you then? -Deamonpen (talk) 21:48, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Who says that the advisor position is a job? It's usually a position that allows access for the investor to keep tabs on what is going on in the corporation and to provide advice in some capacity. --Hipal (talk) 23:29, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Who says that advisor is not a job? The level of work an advisor does in reality varies and there is no way to know what McKellar does for companies that have her as advisor. But the detail is notable enough to be covered by multiple sources reporting on this specific investment.

https://pulse2.com/siren-11-8-million-funding/

https://www.massdevice.com/siren-raises-11-8m-series-b/

https://nordic9.com/news/siren-raised-11-8-million-in-funding-led-by-anathem-ventures-with-participation-from-existing-invest-news1137324082/

Anyway, you seem to be under the impression that Wikipedia needs full length articles for every single detail included, but reading the current guidelines, this is not the case. And also seen in multiple articles about much more famous people (who has extensive coverage for everything they do), who do a side job for a company or a university.--Deamonpen (talk) 00:20, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

there is no way to know what McKellar does Correct. --Hipal (talk) 00:52, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Which is why I don't write a whole section named "Advisor for portfolio companies". We don't know whether various officials do their job or it is the autopen either. The fact is the job or the position is mentioned in various sources, and it is not something that is routine or standard for any investor in a company. A company can have a hundred of investors but not all of them automatically become advisors. These sources also note that the advisor role in the case of Siren is tied to funding/transaction, which seems to give the impression that this investment is notable for Siren and McKellar. Anyway I don't see a brief mention as UNDUE for a biography of this length --Deamonpen (talk) 01:29, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Since there is no way to know, we can't say it's a job or proceed with that assumption. The sources are poor. BLP requires better. --Hipal (talk) 16:44, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

I see no BLP policy starting that. I don't see BLP saying that sources must prove that Trump is actually doing his job and it is not the autopen either. Certain sources even state plainly that the government is controlled by others. Deamonpen (talk) 21:06, 25 September 2025 (UTC)

Read the nutshell for BLP. If that's unclear, keep reading. You'll see Be very firm about the use of high-quality, reliable sources. --Hipal (talk) 00:29, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

You are misapply policies again. High quality and the length of the relevant content are different things. Deamonpen (talk) 00:57, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

BLP, NOT, and POV indicate otherwise. --Hipal (talk) 16:22, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Again, I recommend against the misuse of Wiki policies without any basis or evidence. Deamonpen (talk) 16:31, 26 September 2025 (UTC)

Finsmes as a reference

Finsmes is not mentioned on Wiki guideline pages like perennial sources etc. It is however a news source on funding and VC, which is recommended by Forbes:

https://www.forbes.com/pictures/hdfd45edgm/finsmes/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deamonpen (talk • contribs) 22:52, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for finding it and pointing it out. That link falls under WP:FORBESCON. The publisher is a blog, and I'm seeing discussions referring to it as unreliable. The reference is just a press release, so NOTNEWS even if it were reliable. --Hipal (talk) 23:44, 24 September 2025 (UTC)

Portfolio list reset

The earlier discussion has become unproductive, so I am resetting it here. The current content reads:

Its portfolio includes Angle Health, Brave Health, Cooler Heads, Mach Industries, Obviant, Siren and Vannevar Labs.

This probably runs afoul of item 6 under Wikipedia is not a directory, specifically, Listings to be avoided include, but are not limited to: business alliances, clients [...]. That said, it is common for articles about corporations to name major partners, clients, etc., which are notable, and mentioned as such by multiple reliable sources. I am not aware of any specific policy which says as much, but note that it is common practice and discussions regarding the issue are often based on the concepts of notability, weight and dueness even though the letter of those policies may not give direct guidance on this question.

One thing notability clearly applies to here is that the sources given establish this VC firm's notability (not the other way around), and it is therefore fair to keep the good ones in the article even though we don't include the funded companies' names in the prose itself. In this case, the Octane source is a barely-edited press release and cannot be used. Tectonic has no About page, so we know nothing about its editorial staff, if any, and is therefore sketchy and probably should be dropped. SiliconANGLE has a large editorial staff and is probably fine. MobiHealthNews gives an executive editor and an Asia-Pacific editor; not a large shop, so somewhat iffy. Axios and San Diego Business Journal both have robust editorial staff and are good sources.

TL;DR: remove the individual company names, keep the good references, and describe the industries the funded companies are part of based on those citations.

References

Xan747 (talk) 17:55, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Interesting. I agree that the industries need to be described, but I do not think we should not drop the names of the companies from the prose.

My understanding is that what is emphasized is the need for

"directory contextual information showing encyclopedic merit", "independent source and encyclopedic significance for the mention, which may be indicated by mainstream media sources or books" (i.e we don't list the businessperson's partners just because they are partners, but because there are relevant discussions in the referenced materials), which we would've already provided had we not been bogged down trying to keep the whole thing from wholesale deletion. How can we give the reader an idea what kind of defense industry investor McKellar is if we don't even reference at least some of the companies she invests in? Deamonpen (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Include in the article what the sources say about a given company's business. That's more useful than saying the firm funded Vannevar Labs, an as-yet little-known firm whose name alone tells us nothing about their business. Xan747 (talk) 22:50, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, X747! This is what I've been arguing . Let's go ahead with this.

Thanks for the review of all these sources. WP:PRNEWSWIRE applies to Octane as well. I've not checked if there are more. I've noted in the BLPN discussion the general consensus as noted at RSP against using press releases.

I'll put together content based upon this discussion when I have time to do so, if no one beats me to it. --Hipal (talk) 15:57, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

If you "'ve not checked if there are more", User:Hipal, then next time don't just assume they are bad sources and apply your deletism indiscriminately. Deamonpen (talk) 20:45, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

Stop wasting our time and disrupting this page with bad faith assumptions and misrepresentations. --Hipal (talk) 17:04, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Xan747. I have edited the page. Do you think this look better now? It is always better to have help from a constructive editor who presents a detailed reasoning, rather than the wholesale deletism from overzealous users who invents new interpretations of policies every week or so. Deamonpen (talk) 20:43, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

It does almost the opposite of what I suggested, which would look more like Between 2019 and 2023, McKellar's fund invested in several medical-device and defense-logistics startups. My main concern is naming currently non-notable entities because knowing their names doesn't help us understand their respective industries, and risks being promotional to do so. It would be fine with me to add some additional details about the products and services, the total dollar amount invested across x number of companies, etc. Xan747 (talk) 21:35, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

First of all, I must say thanks, again. Regarding your remark that "Knowing their names doesn't help us understand their respective industries", "total dollar amount invested across x number of companies", I think you are touching a spot that is hard to deal with. I myself would like to know and have access to articles on VC investors, especially defense investors, that provide a broad view of their strategy and their impact on the industry, coupled with clear data. But even with the biggest investors, aka Peter Thiel and Marc Andreessen, do we know how much they (meaning the great number of venture funds that are found by thẹm or associated with them, for example as limited partners) have spent on defense startups across the years? How much of that is their personal money? Beside, the defense sector itself is sensitive and many startups do not try to advertise themselves as "defense". Many are bio, defense, AI etc at the same time. If you look at the articles about the company Palantir (which at least does not hide that they are defense, unlike others) some years ago, many articles wrote that it was a "software company", "big data company", "hot AI stock" or whatever (and Peter Thiel was generally described as "tech entrepreneur and backer of Donald Trump"), let alone presenting a comprehensive picture of the defense industry's development with focus on Thiel's or the Founders Fund's or Palantir's impact, or Thiel's defense investments organized by sectors (drones, satellites/space, AI, biodefense etc. And I suppose it could be done, but it sure would be confusing for a Wikipedia article. How to deal with all the dual use thing and the many venture funds associated with him that all invest in defense in some capacity). With Marc Andreessen (a very underdeveloped article that I will try to deal with later), there is the problem that he essentially invests in every tech sector. The current article also just generally lists his investments by year, the name of the companies, some of the companies's attributes, some of his other activities related to the companies. Deamonpen (talk) 23:13, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I am not unsympathetic to your arguments. While Andreessen's article could certainly use some help in areas, this In 2012, Andreessen Horowitz's portfolio holdings included Facebook, Foursquare, GitHub, Pinterest, Twitter, and Honor, Inc is qualitatively different from Its portfolio includes Angle Health, Brave Health, Cooler Heads, Mach Industries, Obviant, Siren and Vannevar Labs. There is encyclopedic value in listing companies that are household names and likely to be remembered 50 years from now, not so much in a list of unknowns, most of which probably won't exist past 10. Listing a bunch little-knowns does more to serve to serve their interests than our readers, and it is the latter we exist to serve. I think my proposal is a good compromise; you get to keep the citations which readers can click through to read, and Hipal seems to be satisfied that we've answered their promo and dueness concerns. I'd really encourage you to accept something in the arena of this solution and move on to other areas of this article which need improvement. Xan747 (talk) 23:50, 28 September 2025 (UTC)

I'm not satisfied in the least. We need to be extremely cautious of giving weight to anything from press releases, in whatever form the press releases take, not just the blatantly unreliable ones. As I pointed out at BLPN with seven links to separate RSP sections, press releases should be avoided in general. BLP articles require better, which is also well-documented at RSP.

Here's Deamonpen's proposal:

In 2019, McKellar's Anathem led an investment round for the startup Cooler Heads, which sells a FDA-cleared scalp cooling device called Amma for cancer patients, and McKellar joined the board. By 2021, the startup had raised $1.5 million.

In 2020, she led the Series B round in Siren, a maker of smart socks that helped diabetes patients to avoid foot amputations. The round collected $11.8 million in total. The Axios notes that Thiel had chosen not to comment on the dispute between McKellar and Mithril, but his more prestigious firm, the Founders Fund, chose to invest alongside her. It was reported at the time that McKellar would join Siren as an advisor.

In 2021, McKellar invested in the Maine breastfeeding startup Pumpspotting's 1.15 million seed round. The startup partnered with the state of Maine to build an initiative that provide breastfeeding support through software and services to 11,000 state employees and 20,000 employees of state-affiliated agencies. Much of the funding came from Maine investors.

In 2023, McKellar joined the Series B funding for the defense startup Vannevar Labs, which helped officials to made decisions in military and foreign affairs. The Wall Street Journal remarks that the 75 million deal Vannervar raised from Felicis Ventures, Aloft VC and others showed the growing interest in the defense industry, spurred by concerns on China and the backing of the Department of Defense.

I suggest Xan747 make a proposal. Apologies, but I'm unlikely to find time to make my own anytime soon. --Hipal (talk) 17:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I already made a proposal here. It would please me greatly if both editors would refrain from making personal comments about the other, and simply ignore such comments from the other editor should they not be able to restrain themselves. Xan747 (talk) 18:36, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I did not reply to your last comment yesterday because I knew Hipal would delete everything today again. If you provide passages ready to be integrated into the article, it would be welcomed. Deamonpen (talk) 22:32, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

I was hoping to avoid doing that, but that seems to be where we are. It'll take a bit, not more than a day. Xan747 (talk) 22:50, 29 September 2025 (UTC)

Don't worry, just take the time. One day, or three, doesn't matter. Deamonpen (talk) 00:39, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Xan747, you mean the proposal here?

It would be extremely helpful if editors could go through all the proposed references and identify any that are more than just press releases in some form. The Axios (Primack 2020) ref is one, the San Diego Business Journal (Clemetson 2021) ref is not. --Hipal (talk) 17:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

@Hipal yes, more or less. It's a compromise solution which the other editor seemed amenable to. The penultimate paragraph of this post contains the list of sources to ditch or keep, and why. I preserved the entire list of citations, even the "bad" ones, for reference. Finally, there may be some confusion about the scope of my suggestion, which is limited only to modifying this sentence

Its portfolio includes Angle Health, Brave Health, Cooler Heads, Mach Industries, Obviant, Siren and Vannevar Labs.

to remove the non-notable company names and replace them with general descriptions of their industries. If there are any products that are particularly notable (can be found in at least two reliable secondaries, but preferably more) then I am ok with describing that product. At that point we might need to discuss whether that warrants naming the company and the product itself.

You can put your draft right here in talk, or on a user page and link to the candidate version here. Whatever works best for you. I often prefer the latter when the draft text is extensive and needs to behave more like a real article. Xan747 (talk) 19:08, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you yet again.

A general note: Rather than having content in mind, then looking for references to support such content, editors should look for BLP-quality references with depth of coverage, then summarize them. Otherwise we get the problems found here.

Axios seems to be the only usable ref of the bunch, and it's a brief (Axios' style of choice). --Hipal (talk) 16:02, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Could you please explain your specific objections to the other sources? Xan747 (talk) 00:34, 2 October 2025 (UTC)