| Revision as of 05:57, 8 April 2024 editBenevolent Prawn (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users951 edits →Survey← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 00:30, 6 January 2025 edit undoTarnishedPath (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, IP block exemptions, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers17,692 edits Assessment: banner shell, Biography (Rater) |
| (44 intermediate revisions by 15 users not shown) |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{Talk header}} |
|
{{contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|protection=ecp|1RR=yes|ap}} |
|
{{contentious topics/page restriction talk notice|protection=ecp|1RR=yes|ap}} |
|
|
{{American English}} |
|
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=c|living=yes |activepol=yes |collapsed=yes |listas=Willis, Fani|1= |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell |class=B |blp=activepol |collapsed=yes |listas=Willis, Fani |1= |
|
{{WikiProject African diaspora |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject African diaspora |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography |politician-work-group=y |politician-priority= |activepol=y}} |
|
{{WikiProject Biography |politician-work-group=yes |politician-priority= }} |
|
{{WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) |importance=Low |atlanta=y}} |
|
{{WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) |importance=Low |atlanta=yes}} |
|
{{WikiProject Law |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Law |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject United States |USPresidents=yes|USPresidents-importance=Low|importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Women}} |
|
{{WikiProject Women}} |
|
{{WikiProject Women's History |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Women's History |importance=Low}} |
|
{{WikiProject Donald Trump |importance=Low}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{Connected contributor|Yedaman54|declared=1154772100}} |
|
{{Connected contributor|Yedaman54|declared=1154772100}} |
|
{{American English}} |
|
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
{{Annual readership}} |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
| algo = old(30d) |
|
| algo = old(30d) |
|
| archive = Talk:Fani Willis/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| archive = Talk:Fani Willis/Archive %(counter)d |
|
| counter = 1 |
|
| counter = 2 |
|
| maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
| maxarchivesize = 150K |
|
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
|
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}} |
| Line 23: |
Line 22: |
|
| minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
| minthreadsleft = 3 |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
{{reqp}} |
|
|
== RFC: alleged misuse of funds == |
|
|
{{atop|Closed as "yes", allegations from Timpson might be mentioned, with emphasis on high-quality sources and due weight as this is a BLP with lots of pageviews in front of it. This discussion had three distinct phases which wikipedians should learn to recognize: the early wild clash (2/10–2/12), the calmer heads (2/13–2/28), and the "now that we have sources" phase (2/28–current). By my reading, the last bolded "no" assertion was on 24 Feb. ] (]) 14:38, 13 March 2024 (UTC)}} |
|
|
<!-- ] 17:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1710608487}} |
|
|
Copied above from {{u|KiharaNoukan}} {{tq|The federal funds issue is: Willis employee Amanda Timpson reports potential misuse of federal grant funds in 2021 from colleague Michael Cuffee, saying Cuffee was proposing to spend it on Macbooks, travel, and "swag." The grant funds were intended for youth programs and gang-prevention measures. She ends up fired in 2022, sues the same year over whistleblower retaliation and racial bias. In 2023, House Judiciary investigates Willis for this and other issues, particularly whether the funding was used to prosecute Trump. In 2024, Audio of Timpson discussing misuse of funds with Willis comes out, and the House Judiciary Cmte subpoenas Willis. Willis says that this is interference from federal committees into a state case and that Timpson was fired for cause. Per AJC and above Forbes article.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
Should allegations from Amanda Timpson be included in this article? – ] (]) 16:33, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Survey=== |
|
|
|
|
|
Why shouldnt this information be included? ] (]) 16:37, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:You didn't let me vote yet. – ] (]) 16:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''No''' - This allegation lacks ], especially for a ] rather than the article about the prosecution. All that is reported on it at this point comes from the in 2022 and a rehashing now bubbling up through House Republicans efforts to investigate her investigation federally, though it is a state matter. AJC says there is one lawsuit pending, while another one was thrown out. That's all we know about Timpson's allegations as of now. – ] (]) 16:38, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*: Incorrect, updates of this whole ordeal have been published since 2022. The issue here is the misuse of funds, while the lawsuit for discrimination was "thrown out." But this was done due to the way the lawsuit was filed, not do to there being no merit to it. The judge dismissed a Federally filed case against Willis personally with prejudice, but without prejudice regarding the DAs office. '''''"Judge Ray ruled that this specific case should be litigated in state court as opposed to federal court"''''' () and the case alleging misuse of funds still stands without issue. There also has been updated reported on this issue, so the claim that it all comes from one 2022 article doesnt make sense. |
|
|
*: ] (]) 17:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*: That is not accurate that it is "one AJC article", there are plenty more sources and there is an audio recording that make the allegations very clear. |
|
|
*: https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/other/who-is-amanda-timpson-fani-willis-whistleblower-federal-funds-scandal-explained-as-da-subpoenaed-in-disqualification-hearing/ar-BB1hBXRb |
|
|
*: https://www.npr.org/2024/02/02/1224275208/fani-willis-misconduct-nathan-wade-trump-case (see end of the source) |
|
|
*: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/fani-willis-da-charged-trump-georgia-subpoenaed-house-gop-rcna136683 ] (]) 17:10, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:: NPR makes no mention of an alleged whistleblower. NBC News reports on a subpoena issued by the House Republicans on it, which like I said, is irrelevant as this is a state issue, not federal. Judge Ray's ruling confirms this. Court documents are not ]. MSN aggregated a source from "SK Pop" which is not RS. – ] (]) 19:15, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::: No, the NBC article reports on a subpoena issued by House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan to see if she used "federal funds in conducting her more-than-two-year investigation into former President Donald Trump." Alleged misuse of Federal Funding would indeed fall under the federal government. |
|
|
*::: Judge William Ray ruled that Amanda Timpsons lawsuit against Fani for discrimination is a state issue. He did NOT say or rule that the HJC cannot subpoena Fani or anything like that. |
|
|
*::: ] (]) 20:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::: Read better. Second to last paragraph of NPR story: |
|
|
*::: "On Friday, Jordan subpoenaed Willis for documents related to a firing of a staffer after it was alleged that she misused federal grant money. Willis on Friday said those allegations are "false."" ] (]) 05:52, 11 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*: Regarding ]; earlier in the previous discussion you had said that '''''"We weigh whether or not to include items based on their merit"''''' and has had been pointed out to you, this is not what WEIGHT says. There is no mention of "merit" but that "in determining proper weight, we consider '''a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources''', not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public." I didnt see you reply to this so could you please update your justification by appealing to this rule? |
|
|
*: ] (]) 17:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:: There is no merit to include these allegations, which could come down to a disgruntled former employee fired with cause. The lack of prevalence in RS discussing Timpson's allegations at all leads to a conclusion that this should be excluded for the time being. – ] (]) 19:16, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::: "which could come down to a disgruntled former employee fired with cause." As has been posted, we have confirmed audio of the employee in question confronting Fani about misuse of funds a couple months before she was fired. The idea that she just made this up after being fired is verifiably not possible. |
|
|
*::: ] (]) 19:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::: @], using your logic there's no reason to provide any details on anything related to the Trump investigation until everything has been adjudicated and a final result has been determined. After all, by this brand new '''"merit"''' standard, the Supreme Court may find that he shouldn't have been removed from the Colorado and Maine ballot. He may be found not guilty of the RICO charges. He may be cleared of any wrongdoing regarding inflating the value of his properties to obtain construction loans. The point is that there are reliable resources that verify the accusation of fraud, a lawsuit of wrongful termination, and a Congressional investigation for fraud. There's even a reliable source that says her original lawsuit wasn't rejected on the merits of the case, but rather because she filed it in the wrong venue. Furthermore, editors have listed several reliable sources to back up this issue. Your suggestion that it may amount to nothing is very close to ].''<ul>"...riginal research means material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published source exists. <u>This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that reaches or implies a conclusion not stated by the sources.</u> To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article and directly support the material being presented."</ul>'' |
|
|
*::: Even if you were to find a reliable source expressing your opinion that these accusations have "no merit," it wouldn't negate the reasons for acknowledging the accusation in Fani Willis' article. Note that an article where the accused says the accusation has no merit is not dispositive. For example, Trump has said that all the charges against him have no merit. Surely you wouldn't suggest that nothing should be posted about his charges merely because he has that opinion. Editors need to be consistent in their reasoning. This is major news that's been covered by almost every news outlet. How you can say there is a "lack of prevalence in " concerning the whistleblower's accusation is honestly rather shocking. Here's one of many major news outlets covering the accusations and Congressional investigation (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wifJRw0GWtw). Note that MSNBC is a reliable source and the video is valid because it is published by a verified news organization (see ], "''Content uploaded from a verified official account, such as that of a news organization, may be treated as originating from the uploader and therefore inheriting their level of reliability.''") ] (]) 09:37, 12 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::: Comparing Amanda Timpson to the Trump investigation (and indictments) is such an apples to oranges fallacy that I stopped reading once I got to "Trump investigation". Timpson's allegation has not been reported widespread to the point that it belongs on a BLP. Trump's indictments have. – ] (]) 16:15, 12 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::: @] You say it's an "apples to oranges fallacy" and yet you were able to make a comparison saying that "Timpson's allegation has not been reported widespread to the point that it belongs on a BLP. Trump's indictments have." I think that fallacy is "used with reference to two things that are fundamentally different and therefore not suited to comparison" and yet you were able to do the comparison. Here's the funny thing. I made no reference specifically to Amanda Timpson whatsoever. I would suggest going forward that you read posts before responding to them. Just a thought. |
|
|
*::::: ] says "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Multiple typically means more than 3. So let's say 4. Here are 4 references from reliable sources regarding the whistleblower: |
|
|
*::::: '''Atlanta Journal Constitution''': |
|
|
*::::: '''MSNBC''': |
|
|
*::::: '''CBS''': |
|
|
*::::: '''The Guardian''': |
|
|
*::::: There are several more if you'd like me to also list them. On a different note, there is a very clear consensus forming. Will you acknowledge it so the edits can be made? ] (]) 00:19, 15 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::: I agree, the consensus of the Yes vote has been made in the most concrete way possible. These no votes are just blatant ]. |
|
|
*:::::: ] (]) 02:13, 15 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''No''' Misplaced Pages is not a tabloid, we don't rush to print every accusation that trickles out of the news cycle. There's a reason why the few outlets even providing brief mention of this puts "whistleblowers" in air-quotes - there's nothing ''there'' yet, just an accusation. ] (]) 17:13, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*: NBC, NPR, and The Hill are not "tabloids" but legitimate news publications. Cases have been filed and Fani has been subpoenaed over this issue. As per ]: ""Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events." |
|
|
*: ] (]) 17:22, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:: Hi there! I don't care. You ] the previous discussion already with your replies, your point has been made. We're now holding a request for comment in order to see where a consensus, or lack thereof, may lie, so there is no need for you to reiterate your opinion again. And again. And again, to every editor that weighs in. Also, I did not call the sources "tabloids", I said that the Misplaced Pages should not be tabloid-like, in that it quickly prints the news of the moment. Please do not place other editor's comments in a false light, and comment on what you (mis)construed them as saying. That ]. ] (]) 17:26, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::: Zaathras, please be civil and not taint this discussion with accusations of bad behavior. ] (]) 17:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::: The bludgeoning is clear based on this section and the above sections. It would be nice for it to stop. – ] (]) 19:18, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::: Don't address me, Magnolia. If you have a complaint, go make it. ] (]) 19:49, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*: @] There are two lawsuits, a federal Congressional subpoena and investigation, a state Congressional investigation, a review board for the D.A.'s office, and coverage in almost every major news source in the world. However, at Misplaced Pages, we need to ignore what the rest of the world is talking about? That's an interesting position especially given the ] policy that says,<ul>"Editors are '''encouraged''' to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Misplaced Pages."</ul> |
|
|
*: The so-call "few" outlets include every major news organization in the United States! Name a U.S. news source and I can guarantee there is coverage of this issue. Everywhere except Misplaced Pages. 🤦🏾♂️ ] (]) 09:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Yes''' - This is information regarding a public official who is accused by a whistleblower of misuse of federal funds. This is beyond mere speculations or unsubstantiated rumors since the whistleblower has filed a lawsuit over this issue which is set for pre trial. This should be included in the article specifically mentioning that these are all just allegations at the time until proven otherwise. We also have a verified audio recording of Timpson, the whistle blower, confronting Fani about the misuse of funds () This has been reported on by multiple credible news sources and it meets the requirements for ], ], and ] {{pb |
|
|
}} ] (]) 17:32, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Yes''' - Even has reported on this. Much of the reporting (even by leftie sources) refers back to . Willis is a ], and this widely reported allegation goes well beyond mere ]. --] (]) 17:45, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''No''' - "Timpson was fired for cause" - allegations about a motivation for Willis' administrative decision have no significance to her Misplaced Pages biography. The news stories about it are ], ], and ]. ] (]) 18:35, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Yes''' - "Firing for cause" is a common retaliation against whistleblowers. The combination of a record of the whistleblowing before the firing and the recording make it clear that "fired for cause" is just part of the story (which should be included in any discussion of this) ] (]) 19:04, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*: Suggesting that Timpson was fired as retaliation by Willis is a ] violation. – ] (]) 19:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:: Timpson is a whistleblower, a common retalliation for whistleblowing is firing. This is right out of the Misplaced Pages article on ]. (See second paragraph). I didn't assert that is what happened here. Might want to reread my comment. ] (]) 05:58, 11 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::: She says she's a whistleblower. This has not been adjudicated yet and we aren't the ones to do that. – ] (]) 16:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::: The issue here isnt arguing in favor of adjudicating, but that this has been alleged by a former employee of Fanis and this she has filed a lawsuit against. To make it perfectly clear, we shouldnt write that Fani did this, but that a former employee has filed a lawsuit against her alleging such. |
|
|
*:::: ] (]) 17:59, 11 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:: Well the whole issue here revolves around that Timpson reported misuse of federal funds and was fired a few months later, these are the objective facts. She then filed a lawsuit against Fani alleging that her firing was retaliation for calling out misuse of funds which is the core of the whole point of this conversation. It would not violate any MLP rule to include in the article that Fani has been accused of this ALLEGED crime. |
|
|
*:: There is no precedent whatsoever on Misplaced Pages that says you can only write about trials or lawsuits concerning living people only until after the court case has concluded and the person is found to be either innocent or guilty/liabel or not liabel. |
|
|
*:: ] (]) 12:40, 11 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:: Also, concerning ]: "If an '''''<u>allegation</u>''''' or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." |
|
|
*:: This meets case meets all of those requirements. |
|
|
*:: ] (]) 12:44, 11 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::: I don't think so. "Noteworthy" and "relevant", possibly, but it depends on factors that we don't know and it is not if Timpson was fired for cause rather than as a whistleblower. It's certainly not that "well documented". There's a lot we don't know about her allegation, and this is why we need to tread more carefully than just throwing this in somewhere because there's a source for it. – ] (]) 16:53, 11 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::: You arent grasping this. Amanda Timpson brought up what she believed to be misuse of funds to her boss Fani Willis and several months later she was fired. She then filed a lawsuit against Fani over this citing alleged retaliation against her as a whistleblower. Also attached to this issue, Chair of the HJC Jim Jordan subpoenaed Fani regarding the allegation of misuse of federal funds. All of this is objective fact that is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented in multiple verifiable news sources all relating to a public figure. The '''''<u>allegation</u>''''' of all of this should be included in this article because it meets every standard of BLP. |
|
|
*:::: We do indeed not know if these allegations are true or not as of now and will only find out after this has been investigated, but that does not mean that we do not include the coverage of the allegation only until after the court has ruled that these allegations are true or not. There is no precedent for this at all for wikipedia and in fact that parameters of BLP clearly state that allegations like this "belong in the article." After the conclusion of the case we can update the article with the findings. We do not need to wait until then to include any coverage of this. |
|
|
*:::: ] (]) 17:55, 11 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*::::: You aren't grasping what I'm putting forth. ]. In a ], we act conservatively so as not to do harm to the subject, such as with allegations of this sort which have not been "widespread". Not all allegations belong on Misplaced Pages, true or not. With this, I have said all that I can here. – ] (]) 19:37, 11 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:::::: Completely untrue, I have responded directly to each objection you have made so far and have illustrated exactly why you have been incorrect by quoting directly from the citied Misplaced Pages rules you have brought up. I have also directly pointed out instances where you were incorrect about facts of the case, its reporting, and what should be included in the article concerning these allegations. And as I have carefully laid, we are indeed being conservative with all of this. There is no actual reason not to include this information in the article and you have shown that you are not familiar with the various rules you have cited throughout this discussion. |
|
|
*:::::: And concerning your statement "Not all allegations belong on Misplaced Pages, true or not." I will refer to ] again; "If an '''allegation''' or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, '''''<u>it belongs in the article</u>'''''—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." |
|
|
*:::::: ] (]) 20:09, 11 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Yes''' (ish) - Timpson's relevance/importance comes pretty much entirely from the judiciary investigation using her recorded conversation to justify a subpoena, inclusion should probably focus around the House Judiciary investigation. Focusing on the Feb '24 subpoena is also a bit of missing the forest for the trees, but there is a bevy of RS reporting on the investigation itself dating back to its inception. While the probe initially investigated whether Willis coordinated with Jack Smith and/or misused federal funding, recent RS reporting appears to have narrowed it to the latter in scope or at least significance. Add right after: {{tq|Willis's office indicted Trump and 18 others on 41 charges on August 14, 2023}} {{pb |
|
|
}} {{tq|Shortly after, the Republican controlled House Judiciary Committee launched an inquiry into whether Willis used federal funding in her investigation of election fraud. This line of inquiry mirrored a similar House Judiciary probe into Alvin Bragg's investigation of Trump's business records. Willis has described the inquiry as unconstitutional interference into a state case.}} ] (]) 20:19, 10 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Yes''' - This is a major issue for Fani Willis that has been extensively covered by numerous reliable sources. In addition, there is a very disturbing trend of editors citing Misplaced Pages policies/guidelines that, when read, simply don't apply. I've been very clear about the '''actual''' meaning of ] and have obtained no contradictory response. {{pb |
|
|
|
|
|
}} I see a citation of ] that is incorrect. The policy states <font color=blue>"All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is <u>appropriate</u> to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."</font> {{pb |
|
|
|
|
|
}} Are the accuations verifiable? Of course! Is someone actually suggesting that the potential misuse of federal funds by the D.A. office prosecuting the leading candidate for what's arguably the highest political office in the world wouldn't merit a change to the article after the House hearing?!? {{pb |
|
|
|
|
|
}} As to ] the policy states <font color=blue>"Recentism is a phenomenon on Misplaced Pages where an article has an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view."</font> The vast majority of content in the article are old events. Specifically, the misuse of federal funds would be a tiny fraction of the article (i.e., not "overburdened). Furthermore, the policy cites both positives and negatives of using recent information. {{pb |
|
|
|
|
|
}} Finally, as to ], it's identical to my comments about ]. I'll repeat. {{pb |
|
|
|
|
|
}} ''"The 'viewpoint' discussed in regard to potential misuse of federal grant funds is not a "minority viewpoint" by reliable resources. As other editors have clearly shown , this viewpoint has been noted prominently by almost all reliable sources.... The editors on this thread have cleared the following hurdle;'' {{pb |
|
|
|
|
|
}} ''<font color=blue> If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with references to commonly accepted reference texts.</font>'' {{pb |
|
|
|
|
|
}} ''The golden rule is "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors or the general public." (see ])'' {{pb |
|
|
|
|
|
}} We really need to stop citing policy without citing why the policy applies. It doesn't help discussions at all. ] (]) 02:28, 12 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* <s>'''Yes''' - One person should not have control over facts which are added with reliable sources. ] (]) 04:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC)</s> <small>sock strike '']''<sup>]</sup> 10:10, 26 February 2024 (UTC)</small> |
|
|
* '''Yes''' - There now exists an overwhelming amount of coverage on this topic. ] (]) 16:56, 12 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Yes''' - Reliable sources have covered this issue to the extent it warrants inclusion.] (]) 19:22, 12 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Weak Yes''' - Many of the people you listed have already commented on this/made their stance clear, no need to @ them again. {{pb |
|
|
}} As for my view: I have concerns about how it's presented. That a complaint exists? That's well cited and could go in, along with its procedural history. Perhaps even a single sentence saying what the complaint is related to. But leave details and specific accusations for the court unless it's been otherwise corroborated by an independent source. So that's a... I don't know, '''Weak Yes'''? ] (]) 21:14, 12 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*: That's a fair point, but I've been admonished in the past for ] when I targeted only users that haven't voted, so out of an abundance of caution I pinged everyone I thought was relevant regardless of past contributions. ] (]) 22:11, 12 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Yes''' These accusations have enough sourcing to warrant a mention. ] (]) 15:58, 17 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Yes''' This seems to me to be related to the topic of the article and a relevant consideration. I'd say include it as long as the information presented is accurate and impartial. --] (]) 16:50, 19 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Weak Yes''' There's enough coverage to warrant a brief mention in the article. However, unless there's some new information that comes to light there's not much to cover here other than there's an allegation and the House wants her to talk. ] (]) 15:11, 20 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''No''' per ]. 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. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:21, 24 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::This is yet one more misreading of Misplaced Pages policies. For closure purposes, please take note. ] very clearly states: |
|
|
::<ul>''A living person accused of a crime is ] until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. '''For individuals who are ]'''—that is, individuals not covered by ]—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 ] 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 ] says about public figures. It says, in part: |
|
|
::<ul>''In the case of ''']s''', 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 ] 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 subpoenaed 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 ] as a reason to reject this allegation, Misplaced Pages policy actually insists that this allegation '''BELONGS''' in the article. Furthermore, this Misplaced Pages 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. ] (]) 06:37, 24 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::There really is no point in replying to my !vote with personal attacks, on others and myself, just because you don't like that there are people voting No. It doesn't make your position look any stronger. Stick to the argument, not attacking editors. '']''<sup>]</sup> 07:05, 24 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::A personal attack is "An abusive remark about a person, without supporting evidence." For additional references to what a personal attack is, please see ]. What is suggested as a "personal attack" is a refutation of the argument that ] necessitates exclusion of the allegation. '''In short, it's not even about you.''' I've provided evidence to back up my refutation of the reference. You are more than welcome to counter my argument with your own evidence. However, my reply has nothing to do with whether I "don't like that there are people voting No." Rather, I'm refuting the policy references that have been used to justify a no !vote. Thus, I am indeed sticking to the argument and ironically you are not. If you feel I'm in violation of Misplaced Pages's ] policy, please submit a complaint to ]. Otherwise, if you feel my refutation is inaccurate, then either refute it with evidence or move on. 🤷🏾♂️ ] (]) 08:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::"This is yet one more misreading of Misplaced Pages policies" and then you quoted a specific section of BLP (BLPCRIME to be precise) that I didn't quote. To put it in no uncertain terms you implied that other editors and myself don't know what a specific policy says when I didn't even quote that specific policy (also a CTRL-F on BLPCRIME indicates that although it is used in another thread in this page that it is not used once in this RFC). That is a personal attack. Please stick to the argument and not to attacking other editors by trying to belittle their knowledge of WP policies. '']''<sup>]</sup> 08:58, 24 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::If you say 2+2 = 5 and I say, no it equals 4 that is not a '''personal attack'''. Your understanding of the ] policy is wrong, period. I've provided you evidence that it's wrong. If you have evidence that I'm wrong then provide it. Otherwise, move on. I did the same thing in this talk page to an administrator regarding their reference to other Misplaced Pages policy (] and ]), and they respectfully said "I was probably wrong to cite those two pages" and moved on. I'll give you the same challenge. <u>If you can make a cogent argument that I'm wrong, then I will leave this talk page</u> '''permanently'''. All you've done is say "'''No''' per ]" and then expressed a personal opinion about what "we" need to be careful about that isn't reflected in the policy regarding public figures. So, either take your complaint to the proper location (which I'm sure will be rejected) or move it. I am not the topic! ] (]) 11:14, 24 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Doubling down on personal attacks doesn't make you right. Please stop and back away form the edge. '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:33, 24 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Yep, that's what I thought. Thanks for making it clear for everyone on the talk page to see. No complaint to ] and no cogent argument that I'm wrong. Guess I'll be staying. ] (]) 11:52, 24 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::This argument for "no" has already been dissected. There is NOTHING in any wikipedia rule for BLP or NOTNEWS that says you cannot include information about ongoing legal cases for people until after they have been resolved in court. The very obvious work around it to mention that they are facing allegations of wrong doing/criminal activity and then we simply include if they were found innocent or guilty after the court case has concluded. The fact that including this is still being debated, after a clear consensus has been reached, is an example of the egregious and politically biased motivated ] that unfortunately holds back Misplaced Pages. |
|
|
::] (]) 21:39, 24 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::This RfC started on 10 February. Today is 25 February. The RfC has therefore been going for 15 days. Your statement "{{tq|The fact that including this is still being debated, after a clear consensus has been reached, is an example of the egregious and politically biased motivated wikilawyering that unfortunately holds back Misplaced Pages}}" is therefore premature given that RfCs generally go for 30 days and this RfC has not been concluded. Please keep your arguments on the topic and not on other editors. '']''<sup>]</sup> 02:21, 25 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It's good to know "...there is no restriction on participation in this RfC" as it pertains to ] articles. It means the RfC votes will likely stand as is. Furthermore, given the lack of a cogent argument for all the ], ], ], ], and ] policy references, this item will likely close in the affirmative. I haven't seen a single editor directly and effectively refute arguments against each policy reason to reject this addition. It seems like an obvious case of ], the most blatant being citing ] but ignoring the subsection for ]. Fani Willis is obviously a public figure, so there's no reason to ignore that subsection other than: |
|
|
:::<li>Applying a portion of a policy or guideline to achieve an objective other than compliance with that policy or guideline or its objectives. Particularly when doing so in a way that is stricter, more categorical or more literal than the norm. |
|
|
:::<li>Weaponizing policies, guidelines, noticeboards and other Misplaced Pages systems with the goal of deprecating an editor rather than of resolving a problem ] (]) 19:58, 28 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Yes''' - This is being covered by literally every major news outlet. ] (]) 21:31, 24 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Rephrase but yes''' There arise more than enough sources reporting on this matter but the exact reporting of this in Misplaced Pages will matter. The summary paragraph is unclear and badly written with an unclear and misleading timeline. I don't want this to be taken as a criticism because I know I need a lot of tools and time to get the phrasing right ] (]) 18:26, 3 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Yes''' - Echoing many previous comments about how coverage is good enough to justify inclusion and weight. It should be included. ] (]) 23:06, 7 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''Yes''' - On Feb 10, probably no, but given all the additional coverage since then, we should include it, with the proper phrasing and attribution per ]. Cheers! <span style="border-radius:9em;padding:0 7px;background:black"><span style="color:white">'''BBQ'''</span></span>'''boffin'''<sup>]</sup> 03:09, 11 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Discussion=== |
|
|
* '''Comment''' This probably should have been done sooner, but I'm pinging @], @], @], @], @], @], @], @], @], @], @], @], @], @], @], @], @] as editors who as far as I can tell have been involved in editing the most recent content for this page or discussions regarding it. In order to time box this, I'll be requesting closure for this ] on 10 March 2024 from a neutral party. @] I hope you can help out here when we request closure as I've found you to be a fair, honest, and capable administrator. Apologies if I've missed anyone. ] (]) 16:46, 12 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*: {{ping|Mkstokes}} No need to wait so long. There seems to be a rough consensus emerging. ] (]) 17:50, 12 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:: {{yo|Mkstokes}} I appreciate the vote of confidence, but I have a personal rule about not getting involved in American politics. If the discussion reaches a natural conclusion or you get to the end date and it isn't closed in a timely manner, you can request a neutral closer at ]. You also don't necessarily need to wait for a formal close if the result is obvious, but if it's a contentious issue then don't rely on that. ] (<sup>]</sup>/<sub>]</sub>) 18:18, 12 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*:: @] your point is noted. Per ], "Typically 7 days is a minimum...." Therefore, if "...there is little or no activity in the discussion, or further activity is unlikely to change its result" I will request a closure on 19 February 2024. I feel I need to make a request as this has been a very contentious issue and I expect some very vocal editors will insist upon it. ] (]) 23:06, 12 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Here's where we seem to stand. Absolutely nothing is going to be modified in this article without one specific editor's/administrator's approval. Thus the article is under protection ad infinitum. This is not casting aspersions, rather it is merely stating an assumption about the current trend of edits to this article. Thank goodness the topic of this article is being widely covered in numerous other sources because it's clear it's not going to get covered here anytime soon. I think this is a learning experience in that the 5 pillars of Misplaced Pages are a farce in many instances, especially ]: |
|
|
|
|
|
<b>Misplaced Pages has no firm rules</b> |
|
|
<ul>''Misplaced Pages has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and '''sometimes improving Misplaced Pages requires making exceptions'''. Be bold, but not reckless, in updating articles. And do not agonize over making mistakes: they can be corrected easily because (almost) every past version of each article is saved.''</ul> |
|
|
|
|
|
I'm invested though in this ] and can't wait to see how this gets incorporated into the article in late March. No doubt it will be entertaining to see how a massive consensus gets interpreted into Wikispeak. 😉 ] (]) 13:18, 20 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{adminhelp|answered=yes}} |
|
|
'''The "alleged misuse of funds" ] can now be closed'''. You can see the closure request at ] at . Thank you @] for clarifying the "500 edits and an account age of 30 days" restriction does not apply as "there is no restriction on participation in this RfC" and also removing the sockpuppet vote. '''Can an admin please close this RfC?''' ] (]) 18:00, 12 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{abot}} |
|
|
===Request to uninvolved admin concerning effects of the active arbitration remedies on this RfC=== |
|
|
{{atop |
|
|
| status = |
|
|
| result = Question has been answered. |
|
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{adminhelp|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Would an uninvolved administrator please clarify the effects of the active arbitration remedies that this article has on this RfC. The notice at the top of this article states that "{{tq|the following rules apply when editing this article ... You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days}}". Does that extend to participation in this RfC? I know that when it comes to the ] topic area it does have the meaning that editors who have less than 500 edits or an account age less than 30 days are prohibited from participating in RfCs in those topic areas. Is that the same with this article given the active arbitration remedies on this article? '']''<sup>]</sup> 07:06, 26 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
: {{u|TarnishedPath}}, there is no restriction on participation in this RfC. The notice is saying that the article is ], which is not the same as having a whole topic area under the ]. ] (] / ]) 04:48, 28 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@], I'm not talking about the extended-confirmed protection on the article. I'm talking about the active arbitration remedies notice at the which states that: |
|
|
::"The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: |
|
|
::*<b>You must be logged-in, have 500 edits and an account age of 30 days</b>" |
|
|
::'']''<sup>]</sup> 05:01, 28 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::When we apply extended-confirmed protection to articles as an arbitration enforcement action, we are encourage to add a templated notice at the talk page. That's what you're seeing. ] (] / ]) 05:04, 28 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Thank you for the clarification. '']''<sup>]</sup> 05:05, 28 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Happy to help! ] (] / ]) 05:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{abot}} |
|
|
|
|
|
== 6 charges against Trump in her case have been dropped == |
|
|
|
|
|
"Fulton County Superior Court Judge Scott McAfee wrote in an order that six of the counts in the indictment must be quashed, including three against Trump, the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential nominee. But the order leaves intact other charges, and the judge wrote that prosecutors could seek a new indictment on the charges he dismissed." |
|
|
|
|
|
Source |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 14:57, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:My two cents: this is more material for the article about the prosecution, not the article about the DA. ] (]) 15:01, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:Key sentence from AP: {{tq|But the judge left in place other counts — including 10 facing Trump — and said prosecutors could seek a new indictment to try to reinstate the ones he dismissed.}} We'll see if they do refile or not. I agree this is relevant to the prosecution rather than the prosecutor. – ] (]) 17:05, 13 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Sources have commented that these dropped charges are the direct result of Willis' incompetence, appointing her lover to oversee the case instead of an experienced prosecutor. This rarely happens with competent DA's...so yes, this should be in this article. I'll look for a source. ] (]) 19:43, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Neutrality applies to talk pages too. Your comment fails NPOV and you should strike it. – ] (]) 19:54, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::: Agreed. |
|
|
:::: "There have been several screwups, frankly, by the DA throughout the history of this case. Going back to the investigative phase, the DA got herself disqualified from a small piece of the case because she created a political conflict of interest," Honig said, in reference to a separate examination the judge is conducting into an alleged relationship between Willis and a special prosecutor on the case. "We've seen Fani Willis make public statements in the church and elsewhere that have now been called into question that I think violate the ethics of prosecutorial rules, and now we've seen six of the charges thrown out of the case and unlike the conflict of interest issue, this does go to the charges against the defendant. This does go to the indictment itself." |
|
|
::: ] (]) 20:45, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::The opinion of one CNN commentator is not really of interest to Willis' biographical article. As for the {{tq|Sources have commented...}} assertion above, it is interesting that Magnolia did not present said sources for discussion. Why is that? ] (]) 21:29, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::"Incompetence" ... "shitshow" ... again, more personal opinion from editors who seem to want to knock the subject of a BLP without regard for what sources actually say. The behavior here is egregious. – ] (]) 21:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Kind of like when you called Jim Jordan's subpoena just him grandstanding? |
|
|
:::::] (]) 22:06, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I didn't commit a BLP violation in saying that. – ] (]) 22:12, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Agreed, and neither are other users when they say things like Fani Willis is incompetent. |
|
|
:::::::] (]) 22:14, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::This talk page is a great example of how discussions should not go. Calling someone "incompetent" in the absence of sources calling them "incompetent" is a BLP violation. – ] (]) 22:17, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Kind of like you saying Jim Jordan was grandstanding without a source saying so. How are you not getting this lol? You have shown that you are completely ignorant to the facts of this case this whole time as well as ignorant of Misplaced Pages guidelines so please don't grandstand on either of those grounds. This hypocrisy of yours even when it's specifically pointed out to you going over your head is completely unproductive. |
|
|
:::::::::] (]) 22:24, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Y'know, this sort of namecalling might make you feel better for a moment, that's all internet interaction really is anymore, the ''zing!'' and the ''pow!'' of artfully-delivered one-liners. But here, all it really accomplishes is that you provide a evidence trail if your name ever comes up on the dispute or discipline noticeboard. (as we see happening at ] with a participant on this and related pages right now). Addressing the topic is always best for self-preservation. ] (]) 22:37, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I will call incorrect appeals to wikiguidlines when I see them, especially from users who are guilty of the very thing they are accusing others of. In fact he is STILL making false claims about this case even after it has been pointed out to him multiple times. |
|
|
:::::::::::] (]) 22:49, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::You're leaving out the discussion of Jordan going after Willis for something outside of his scope, i.e. not federal, which was the point. Now we're getting these nonsense comments about the DA's competence and an unspecified "shitshow" over some charges being dismissed. We're gonna be back on those drama boards soon I fear. Stay on topic. – ] (]) 22:41, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Once again, for the up-tenth time, Jim Jordan was going after her for alleged mishandling of federal funds which would indeed fall under the scope of the federal funding, hence the article I just posted about her facing a possible contempt for not complying with it. This is the ignorance I was talking about. |
|
|
:::::::::::] (]) 22:46, 14 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:This article isn't a running commentary of a blow by blow account of charges against Trump. Take it to another article. '']''<sup>]</sup> 11:09, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== DQ Ruling == |
|
|
|
|
|
Judge McAfee released his ruling this morning: he did not disqualify Willis, but ordered her to choose between either having her and her office voluntarily step aside and handing the case over to the Prosecuting Attorneys Council of Georgia for reassignment to another DA or to make Nathan Wade step down. He found no actual conflict of interest or forensic misconduct on the DA's part (though he did agree there is an appearance of impropriety it didn't rise to the level to force a DQ). In addition, he denied the defendants' motions to dismiss. So, that should probably go in the article. ] (]) 13:42, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Georgia Court of Appeals == |
|
:Since your post, it has been added. Does anything need to be reworded? – ] (]) 15:16, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Mostly looks good. I might suggest putting in the first part explicitly that he didn't disqualify her, followed by what he did order. Something like "while McAfee didn't disqualify Willis (and by extension the entire Fulton County DA's office)," followed by what's there now. ] (]) 15:32, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::It has since been expanded. I don't know that we should include the judge saying that he ''might'' institute a gag order, rather than including it if he does, but I am not jumping in to edit this right now. – ] (]) 17:46, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I agree that if/until one is instituted maybe we don't need mention of it here. ] (]) 18:25, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} regarding Fani's incompetence should be included: |
|
|
* "Significant appearance of impropriety that infects the prosecution team". |
|
|
* "a tremendous lack in judgment". |
|
|
* "the unprofessional manner of the D.A.'s testimony". --] (]) 20:58, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In the section dealing with teh 2020 electoin interference investiagation it is stated that "{{tq|In May 2024, the Georgia Court of Appeals agreed to hear an appeal to the ruling, revisiting whether Willis may be allowed to stay on the case}}". Has there been any progress on this? I ask because I'm in Australia and I don't see the same news as American editors. '']''<sup>]</sup> 00:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:It's already in the article. To wit: {{tq|... their relationship brought about a "significant appearance of impropriety" that impacted the structure of the prosecution. Willis committed a "tremendous lapse in judgment" and her "testimony during the evidentiary hearing" was "unprofessional"...}} ] (]) 22:15, 15 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:Good question. The appeals court has scheduled their hearing on this matter for December 5, 2024; they then have until mid-March of next year to issue their ruling. That ruling could be appealed to the Georgia and ultimately to the United States Supreme Court. Any effects the November election would have on the process would be pure speculation at this point. ] (]) 02:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
=="2020 election influence investigation" section, Willis relationship== |
|
|
|
::Is the case still proceeding during that time or is it on hold pending the outcome of the appeal? '']''<sup>]</sup> 05:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
Currently the section under "2020 election influence investigation" heading about this material reads: |
|
|
|
:::I believe it's completely on hold until the appeals court rules. Even for defendants who weren't part of the appeal. ] (]) 14:04, 6 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
<br /> |
|
|
"In January 2024, a defendant in the racketeering case alleged that Willis and Nathan Wade—the lawyer whom Willis appointed in November 2021 to lead the prosecution—had had an improper romantic relationship. According to the filing, the relationship began before Wade's hiring and created a conflict of interest. Willis and Wade acknowledged that they had had a personal relationship, but denied any wrongdoing. Wade said that their relationship began in 2022, after his hiring. A hearing under Judge Scott McAfee was convened to decide whether to remove Willis from the racketeering case. |
|
|
In March 2024, McAfee ruled that either Willis (along with her office) or Wade must leave the case, because their relationship brought about a "significant appearance of impropriety" that impacted the structure of the prosecution. Willis committed a "tremendous lapse in judgment" and her "testimony during the evidentiary hearing" was "unprofessional", but "simply making bad choices – even repeatedly" does not establish an actual conflict of interest under Georgia law, stated McAfee. McAfee found that there was insufficient evidence to prove that Willis had benefited financially from the case or from her relationship with Wade. McAfee criticized Willis for publicly claiming that Wade was being targeted due to his race, stating that it was "legally improper". Wade subsequently resigned from his role as lead prosecutor." |
|
|
<br /> |
|
|
This is too much text given the ]. This is ] and needs to be trimmed. '']''<sup>]</sup> 12:01, 16 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== RfC: Nathan Wade relationship == |
|
== Image in infobox == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hi all, for the infobox image what should the best corse of action be. I feel that the most updated photo of Willis is not very good when compared with the other images available on commons. Any thoughts? ] (]) 20:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
<!-- ] 13:01, 23 April 2024 (UTC) -->{{User:ClueBot III/DoNotArchiveUntil|1713877276}} |
|
|
{{rfc|pol|bio|rfcid=521E65D}} |
|
|
Currently the material on the relationship between Fani Willis and Nathan Wade takes up two paragraphs of the ] subsection. Refer to ] for current size of the section at time of writing this RfC. |
|
|
<br> |
|
|
Should the material on the relationship be trimmed so that it takes up no more than two sentences? '']''<sup>]</sup> 12:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:The image with the blurred background looks weird as the blurring goes right up to her face and makes her hair look funny. The most up to date image, while not perfect, is preferable. '']''<sup>]</sup> 00:25, 16 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
===Survey=== |
|
|
|
::Dude she looks like a gremlin in that photo. It also a large amount of motion blur on her hands. The other photo while yes having a blurred background has a clear photo of her face and quite frankly its a less ugly image. ] (]) 02:34, 16 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
* '''Yes''' per ], ], ] and ]. Notably BLP says "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Misplaced Pages's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives". Minimal material that notes that during the trial it was revealed that Willis was engaged in a relationship with a prosecution lawyer, that she was criticised by the judge for the relationship and that the lawyer resigned as a consequence should be sufficient. '']''<sup>]</sup> 12:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)* |
|
|
|
:::Looks like a gremlin is your subjective opinion. The blurring of the entire background in the older photo is jarring when all of a sudden her face is in focus. '']''<sup>]</sup> 03:07, 16 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
* '''Yes''' agree with above per ], ], ] and ].] (]) 01:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::Your opinions of the blurring is also subjective. Look I get you like the photo cause you uploaded it but we need some other opinions on this. ] (]) 17:04, 16 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
* '''Yes''' to being more concise, '''Meh''' to exactly two sentences. {{sbb}} - Whereas I would expect more details in the main article, this should be a summary. Something like this seems like it would work, just to offer possible wording: "In January 2024, a past relationship between Willis and lead prosecutor Nathan Wade came to light which the defense argued constituted a conflict of interest. Judge McAfee did not find a conflict of interest under Georgia law but ruled that either Willis or Wade must leave the case to avoid the "appearance of impropriety", leading Wade to resign from his role." Last sentence is a little run-on to squeeze into two sentences, which is why I went back and added my "meh" above. :) — <samp>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></samp> \\ 13:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''No''', maybe it should be trimmed but I'm not sure 2 sentences is enough, especially due to the huge amount of justified coverage.--] (]) 14:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Honestly neither photo is that great. Perhaps there's an official portrait that we can use under Fair Use or something? ] (]) 20:37, 16 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I agree that neither photo is perfect. Unfortunately we can't do Fair Use of photos that are under copyright when we have alternative photos available to use that have free use. In this circumstance it's a decision of which of the imperfect photo is better. '']''<sup>]</sup> 01:02, 17 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
* '''No''' - per ]. At least four sentences. Internet searches for "Fani Willis" yield a tsunami of results regarding her dalliance with Wade. This heap of coverage should be reflected in her Misplaced Pages biography. Seriously, what is Willis most notable for? ] (]) 14:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
*: She is most notable for prosecuting Trump, not dating Nathan Wade. Your argument is ]. – ] (]) 16:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::How about no photo until a better one is uploaded? ] (]) 08:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Any photo is better than none. I think the questions comes down to which is the best of the two imperfect photo. '']''<sup>]</sup> 09:32, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::] applies to deletion discussions, which this ain't. Moving on from that awkwardness...Google, Bing, Ask Jeeves...they're all indicating her romantic entanglement is big news. ] (]) 18:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::At the top of ] it reads: {{tq|While this page is tailored to deletion discussion, be that of articles, templates, images, categories, stub types, or redirects, these arguments to avoid may also apply to other discussions, such as about deleting article content, moving pages, etc.}}. ] (]) 21:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::The Google test specifically refers to deletions. Read it. ] (]) 21:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::I have. I think it should be applied to all discussions. Especially since ] doesn't exist. – ] (]) 21:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Let's avoid "I think it should" personal opinions, per ]. ] (]) 22:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Fair enough. I'll rephrase to say that the "heap of coverage" is ] that will be reduced in importance when the trial itself starts. – ] (]) 22:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::"If" the trial starts. ] (]) 22:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''No''' Consider putting a suggestion as to how you would trim it to two sentences? Content here is pretty concise as is, hitting on the most basic and notable aspects of this story while maintaining NPOV between the differing perspectives reported by RS in this controversy. It looks fine right now. The only suggestion for a change I would have is refocusing the first paragraph to firstly note that Willis appointed Nathan Wade as the lead prosecutor for the case, which in turn leads into the relationship and allegation of impropriety later on in the paragraph. Wade's appointment and role as lead prosecutor is probably notable enough to be a paragraph topic sentence. ] (]) 21:10, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''No to two sentences, but sure let's trim''' I don't know how much more could be trimmed. Maybe a little in c/e, but I don't see how to get it down to two sentences. – ] (]) 22:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
* '''No.''' Seems fine as is. I'm not necessarily against ''trimming'', ''per se'', but no shorter than a paragraph seems right. <sub>signed, </sub>] <sup>]</sup> 04:32, 20 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:No. What is summarized is already concise, but also complete and objective. I do think it can be summarized in two sentences (or much less than it is now) ] (]) 13:05, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''No:''' Their relationship is a significant piece of information regarding her and her most famous case. I believe the amount of coverage in media is reflected evenly with the amount of coverage on this article |
|
|
:] (]) 22:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:'''No''', that relationship with Wade is a major point in the news story that is pretty much the only reason she's notable and we're discussing her. Mention of it should not be minimized. And frankly, if ] is justification for minimizing coverage of the relationship with Wade, then it's ALSO a reason to AfD this whole Fani Willis. - ] (]) 20:06, 22 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
'''No,''' The length of the paragraph is needed to convey the information. It would be impossible to trim without removing key information about the relation ship between Fani Willis and Nathan Wade. ] (]) 00:03, 23 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
'''No''' Two sentences is too short. Especially since it's one of the first things that comes to mind when people think about her. It doesn't have to be two paragraphs, but two sentences would be just trying to squash the controversy in laconic silence. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Fani REMOVED from case == |
|
===Discussion=== |
|
|
I see the above section that nobody responded to a few days ago... shouldn't we have engaged in a discussion before this RfC? Shouldn't the RfC have a proposal for what text to change it to? I could see trimming as useful, but I don't think we can trim it to two sentences. We could cut {{tq| A hearing under McAfee was convened to decide whether to remove Willis from the racketeering case}} and lead the next sentence with {{tq|After a hearing convened by McAfee,}} to trim a little bit. – ] (]) 16:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Appeals Court has removed Fani Willis from the Trump Georgia case |
|
:I removed and summarized most of the quotes from that initial passage referenced in the section. There really isn't much left to take out. ] (]) 21:14, 19 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:I'm not going to die on a hill of two sentences. If three is what is required to say what is required then I'd accept that, but one way or another the material needs a trim. |
|
|
:@] for example suggested "{{tq|In January 2024, a past relationship between Willis and lead prosecutor Nathan Wade came to light which the defense argued constituted a conflict of interest. Judge McAfee did not find a conflict of interest under Georgia law but ruled that either Willis or Wade must leave the case to avoid the "appearance of impropriety}}". |
|
|
:As an alternative "{{tq|During the trial it was revealed that Willis and lead prosecutor Nathan Wade had a prior personal relationship. Wade subsequently resigned from the case}}" '']''<sup>]</sup> 00:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://apnews.com/article/trump-fani-willis-georgia-election-indictment-removed-0aa6db3b7abed22eb08ed9323f687972 |
|
== Inclusion of Jim Jordan's name as HJC chair == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://thehill.com/regulation/court-battles/5048455-fani-willis-disqualified-trump-georgia/ |
|
] removed "chaired by ]" from {{tq|In 2024, the ], chaired by ], subpoenaed Willis regarding the former employee's whistleblower complaint after a taped conversation of the employee discussing the alleged misuse of federal funds with Willis was released publicly.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/georgia-appeals-court-removes-prosecutor-fani-willis-from-trump-election-case |
|
I reverted this, as I think this provides important context, since Jim Jordan spearheaded this action, but I was reverted. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Should this detail be included or omitted? Thanks, <b>]<small> + ] + ]</small></b> 13:55, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 15:37, 19 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
:I'll say this: one more revert and it's an edit war. I don't see why Jordan's name should be removed, the second article is clearly titled "Jordan threatens Fani Willis with contempt over subpoena on federal grants". ] (]) 20:51, 6 April 2024 (UTC) |
|
In the section dealing with teh 2020 electoin interference investiagation it is stated that "In May 2024, the Georgia Court of Appeals agreed to hear an appeal to the ruling, revisiting whether Willis may be allowed to stay on the case
". Has there been any progress on this? I ask because I'm in Australia and I don't see the same news as American editors. TarnishedPath 00:23, 6 September 2024 (UTC)
Hi all, for the infobox image what should the best corse of action be. I feel that the most updated photo of Willis is not very good when compared with the other images available on commons. Any thoughts? Yedaman54 (talk) 20:52, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
