Content deleted Content added
Line 424: *'''No''' per [[WP:BLP]]. AFAIK these are mere allegations. No conviction has been obtained (ping me if I'm incorrect about this). We need to be careful with what we put in BLPs especially when allegations concern what would be criminal behaviour, where no conviction has been recorded and especially where allegations may have political motivations or may come from a disgruntled former employees. :''[[User:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b>]]''<sup>[[User talk:TarnishedPath|<b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b>]]</sup> 01:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC) ::This is yet one more misreading of Wikipedia policies. For closure purposes, please take note. [[WP:BLP|Biographies of living persons]] very clearly states: ::<ul>''A living person accused of a crime is [[Presumption of innocence|presumed innocent]] until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. '''For individuals who are [[Wikipedia:NOTPUBLICFIGURE|not public figures]]'''—that is, individuals not covered by [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Public figures|§ Public figures]]—editors must seriously consider '''not''' including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed or is accused of having committed a crime, unless a conviction has been secured.''</ul> ::But, is [[Fani Willis]] a '''public figure'''? Well, what does the controlling precedent in the United States Supreme Court in ''New York Times Co. v. Sullivan'' say? It says, in part, that a public figure is, <u>a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs</u>. Is the duly elected public official for the District Attorney for Fulton County involved in public affairs? That is a resounding '''YES'''! Thus we need to look at what [[WP:BLP]] says about public figures. It says, in part: ::<ul>''In the case of '''[[Public figure|public figures]]''', there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and '''BLPs should simply document what these sources say'''. '''If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article'''—<u>'''even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it'''</u>. If you cannot find multiple reliable [[Wikipedia:Third-party sources|third-party sources]] documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.</ul>'' ::Is the allegation noteworthy (i.e., interesting, significant, or unusual)? '''Yes''', it's so noteworthy that both federal and local governments are investigating it and the vast majority of news sources are covering it. Is the allegation relevant? '''Yes''', it's a very significant life event for anyone to be subpoena by a congressional committee. Is it well documented? '''Yes''', this allegation, as noted by multiple editors, is covered in almost every major news source in the U.S. and some overseas as well. Thus, contrary to previously mentioned references to [[WP:BLP]] as a reason to reject this allegation. Wikipedia policy actually insists that this allegation '''BELONGS''' in the article. Furthermore, this Wikipedia policy makes absolutely no reference to "political motivations" or "disgruntled former employees" and expressly rejects the need for a conviction as it pertains to a public figure. If anyone disagrees with my interpretation of these policies, you are welcome to publicly refute them while using the appropriate citations to those policies, just as I have done. [[User:Mkstokes|Mkstokes]] ([[User talk:Mkstokes|talk]]) 06:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC) <br> <hr> | |||