User talk:A1415

Jana Amin Article

Hi A1415, You make a good point as to this article. However, the Crimson article which remains on the page lists her as the president of the Society of Arab Students in September, and the removed sources list that group as one of the groups signing the letter. I'm not trying to have this article be a hit-piece on a twenty-year-old, but other people are going to revert this if there's no valid reason to remove it. I'm with you if you have suggestions for how to resolve this based on WP:BLP or WP:NOR or something. Maltice (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Putting 2 sources together like this is called "synthesis" and counts as a form of original research. For example: (1) how do we know she didn't stop being president between the time of the Crimson article and the time of the group being listed as having signed the letter? (A lot can happen in 2 days.) (2) how do we even know there's not 2 clubs with the same name? (3) if she was still president at the time of the letter being signed, how do we know she personally approved it and the committee didn't go behind her back? (4) if she did all of these things, how do we know she didn't subsequently distance herself (saying it was a mistake) and the campaigners against her failed to register that? All of these questions can be settled with more research, but as Wikipedia has a "no original research" policy, we have to wait for known professional fact-checkers to do that research, not to do it ourselves. We can edit the Accuracy in Media article with details of the campaign they're running, but we can't name individual students unless we can find a reliable source (Accuracy in Media doesn't count as an RS on Wikipedia) explicitly saying that yes this individual really was one of the ones called out and that yes this is notable. A1415 (talk) 15:11, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. Like I said, I'm not putting that info back. However I still have a few concerns, and I think this is still an arguable issue.

-It isn't impermissible synthesis to state that someone is associated with an organization, then to discuss that organization's actions. This practice is ubiquitous on Wikipedia. WP:SYNTHNOT (Section: SYNTH is not ubiquitous)

-I'm not so sure about this point because it depends what actions we're discussing. For example, suppose I said "Nigel Short is a director of FIDE, which banned trans women from women's Chess tournaments in August 2023", I'm unfairly implying that (1) Nigel Short was prominently behind this decision made by FIDE and (2) this decision is the most notable thing to say about FIDE. I'd call that construction a synthesis, even though it's stating someone's associated with an organisation and then discussing some of that organisation's actions. Much better is "Nigel Short is a director of FIDE, an international organisation that acts as the governing body of Chess federations" (or similar), and the trans controversy can go on the FIDE page, not Nigel Short's page. (I made up this example because I'm pretty sure Nigel won't mind being used in an obviously wrong example like this to help a girl.)

-The removed text does not state (nor does policy require) that she must have personally approved of an action taken by an organization for that action to be part of her page. Same response as to the chance that she could have subsequently distanced herself, or that there might be two student organizations with the same name. The standard for this isn't that information has to be proven to the exclusion of any conceivable doubt.

-The standard on a BLP page should be higher than the standard on a normal page.

-Bit of a nitpick, but sources aren't per-se unreliable on Wikipedia. Accuracy in Media is not on the list of deprecated sources. I am aware of the specific page you are referring to, and agree that it is unreliable and maybe illegal.

This is all just to say that the issue is arguable. Clearly some powerful organizations are going to a lot of effort to make this girl's life difficult. I think the strongest argument to remove the info comes from the presumption in favor of privacy that is part of the WP:BLP policy. Maltice (talk) 17:24, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. I do believe she's a victim in this case, and it's totally unfair that, of all the students named in the doxxing campaign, we should focus on her in particular, just because she happens to have a Wikipedia article. She has an article because of her unrelated activities helping Muslim women improve their lives; adding "by the way someone stuck a poster up outside her door saying she supports terrorists" is not a great way to thank her for that, especially if mainstream media has not said this. I am aware I'm "wiki-lawyering" but I'm doing it for a reason.... A1415 (talk) 17:58, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I do see that the history has been redacted. That's fine by me. Thank you for your time and consideration Maltice (talk) 17:52, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"Thomas Dickey" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Thomas Dickey has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 November 2 § Thomas Dickey until a consensus is reached. Arp242 (talk) 11:02, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]