Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 05:27, 6 September 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Fani Willis article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

African diaspora Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject African diaspora, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of African diaspora on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.African diasporaWikipedia:WikiProject African diasporaTemplate:WikiProject African diasporaAfrican diaspora Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Biography: Politics and Government This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography This article is supported by the politics and government work group. Georgia (U.S. state): Atlanta Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Georgia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Georgia (U.S. state)Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Template:WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)Georgia (U.S. state) Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Atlanta task force. Atlanta task force To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Assess : Rate Atlanta related articles from Unassessed Atlanta articles and Category:Unknown-importance Atlanta articles. Citing sources : Unreferenced Atlanta articles Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category, the tool's wiki page and the index of WikiProjects. Infobox : Atlanta articles without infoboxes Map : Misplaced Pages requested maps in Atlanta Photo : Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Atlanta Stubs : Work on stubs in Category:Atlanta stubs. Other : * Help out with articles placed in Category:Atlanta articles needing attention Add {{WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)|class=|importance=|atlanta=|atlanta-importance=}} project banner to Atlanta-related articles to talk pages and assess. Maintain and further improve articles already of high-quality. Get Atlanta into Featured article status. Improve groups of articles to meet the standards for a Good or Featured Topic. WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) To-do: edit history watch purge Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Crooked Creek (Georgia), Ed Defore Sports Complex, Audery Mill Creek, More (Georgia)... More (U.S.)... Assess : Rate articles from Unassessed Georgia (U.S. state) articles and Unknown-importance Georgia (U.S. state) articles. Citing sources : Unreferenced Georgia (U.S. state) articles Cleanup : Cleanup listing for this project is available. See also the list by category. Geographical coordinates : more Georgia (U.S. state) articles missing geocoordinate data Infobox : Georgia (U.S. state) articles without infoboxes Map : Misplaced Pages requested maps in Georgia (U.S. state) Photo : Misplaced Pages requested photographs in Georgia (U.S. state) Stubs : Work on stubs in articles in Georgia (U.S. state) stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) radio station stubs, Georgia (U.S. state) road stubs and Georgia (U.S. state) geography stubs. Other : *Deletion sorting: Please see the collection of discussions on the deletion of articles related to Georgia (U.S. state) - compiled by WikiProject Deletion sorting Help out with articles placed in Category:Georgia (U.S. state) articles needing attention Notability: Articles with notability concerns, listed at WikiProject Notability Tag the talk pages of Georgia (U.S. state)-related articles with the {{WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state)}} banner. Get Georgia (U.S. state) to a featured article quality standard Law Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. United States: Presidents Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject United States Presidents (assessed as Low-importance). Women This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women Women's History Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The following Misplaced Pages contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view. Yedaman54 (talk · contribs) This user has declared a connection.

Warning: active arbitration remedies 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: You must be logged-in to an extended confirmed account (granted automatically to accounts with 500 edits and an age of 30 days) You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Fani Willis be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible. The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

RfC: Nathan Wade relationship

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Currently the material on the relationship between Fani Willis and Nathan Wade takes up two paragraphs of the Fani Willis#2020 election influence investigation subsection. Refer to Special:Diff/1214511508 for current size of the section at time of writing this RfC.
Should the material on the relationship be trimmed so that it takes up no more than two sentences? TarnishedPath 12:19, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Survey

• Yes per WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE, WP:RECENTISM and WP:BLP. 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. TarnishedPath 12:30, 19 March 2024 (UTC)*
• Yes agree with above per WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE, WP:RECENTISM and WP:BLP.Slacker13 (talk) 01:21, 20 March 2024 (UTC)
• Yes to being more concise, Meh to exactly two sentences. (Summoned by bot) - 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. :) — Rhododendrites \\ 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.--Ortizesp (talk) 14:04, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
• No - per WP:BALANCE. 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? Magnolia677 (talk) 14:39, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

  She is most notable for prosecuting Trump, not dating Nathan Wade. Your argument is WP:GHITS. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:43, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:GHITS 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. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:34, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

At the top of WP:GHITS it reads: 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.. Paris1127 (talk) 21:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

The Google test specifically refers to deletions. Read it. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:47, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

I have. I think it should be applied to all discussions. Especially since Misplaced Pages:Arguments to avoid in Requests for Comment doesn't exist. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Let's avoid "I think it should" personal opinions, per WP:PPOV. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:17, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll rephrase to say that the "heap of coverage" is WP:RECENTISM that will be reduced in importance when the trial itself starts. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:26, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

"If" the trial starts. Magnolia677 (talk) 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. KiharaNoukan (talk) 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. – Muboshgu (talk) 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. _signed, SpringProof 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) Helpingtoclarify (talk) 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

Friedbyrd (talk) 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 WP:RECENTISM is justification for minimizing coverage of the relationship with Wade, then it's ALSO a reason to AfD this whole Fani Willis. - GretLomborg (talk) 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. User73663828 (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Benevolent Prawn (talk • contribs)
• Yes, it should be shortened; No, probably not to two sentences, it's currently too long but two sentences might be a bit too short. Avgeekamfot (talk) 19:56, 9 April 2024 (UTC)
• No It should be shortened, but placing a "two sentence" requirement is just overkill. Nemov (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
• No: It's unsurprising that there is a near-unanimous rejection of this RfC as it doesn't follow the suggested process. The process clearly states "Editors should try to resolve their issues before starting an RfC. Try discussing the matter with any other parties on the related talk page. If you can reach a consensus or have your questions answered through discussion, then there is no need to start an RfC." Basically, someone posted a concern about the text being too long, and with absolutely no discussion an editor immediately changed the text, and an RfC was subsequently created. In addition, there's no related Misplaced Pages policy detailing a valid reason for shortening this information. The proposed reasons for limiting to two sentences - including WP:WEIGHT, WP:DUE, WP:UNDUE,WP:RECENTISM, and WP:BLP - were near-unanimously rejected in the previous RfC, so using them again for similar content is pointless. Mkstokes (talk) 15:23, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

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 A hearing under McAfee was convened to decide whether to remove Willis from the racketeering case and lead the next sentence with After a hearing convened by McAfee, to trim a little bit. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:45, 19 March 2024 (UTC)

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. KiharaNoukan (talk) 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.

@Rhododendrites for example suggested "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 "During the trial it was revealed that Willis and lead prosecutor Nathan Wade had a prior personal relationship. Wade subsequently resigned from the case" TarnishedPath 00:23, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

Yes, @Muboshgu there should have been a detailed discussion before this RfC and a proposal for what text to change it to. The two suggestions in this discussion are inaccurate on the facts and obscure what really happened. I think the following details need to be provided:

1. On January 8, 2024, a defendant filed a pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment and disqualify Fani Willis for a conflict of interest.
2. On February 15, 2024, Judge Scott McAfee held an evidentiary hearing where he subsequently ruled on March 15, 2024, 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. However, he found that there was no "actual" conflict of interest under Georgia law and there was insufficient evidence to prove that Willis had benefited financially.
3. Based on the Judge's findings, Nathan Wade resigned from the case.

In my opinion, these are the important details and thus make it clear why two sentences cannot possibly provide enough context to accurately describe the situation to a reader. The first suggestion above leaves out too much detail and the second one is inaccurate within the first 3 words (i.e., all of this happened pre-trial), provides zero details about the judge's findings, and glosses over the fact that Wade was forced to resign. Mkstokes (talk) 16:21, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

Based on the Survey responses so far, the two-sentence RfC is going to be rejected. Unfortunately, this RfC gives very little guidance regarding what should be posted as none of the suggested modifications include essential details of what happened. Therefore, I'm suggesting the following based on the cited articles:

On January 8, 2024, Michael Roman filed a pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment and disqualify Fani Willis and her office from prosecuting the RICO case against him due to Willis having a financial conflict of interest related to her personal relationship with lead prosecutor Nathan Wade. On February 15, 2024, Judge Scott F. McAfee started an evidentiary hearing where he subsequently ruled on March 15, 2024, that either Willis - along with her office - or Wade must leave the case, because their relationship brought about a "significant appearance of impropriety." He also found no actual conflict of interest as there was insufficient evidence Willis had benefited financially. Based on the Judge's ruling, Nathan Wade resigned from the case a few hours later "...to move this case forward as quickly as possible."

That's 3 sentences with a healthy portion of the relevant details included. Honestly, several facts are missing and I had no problem with the extended paragraph. But in the spirit of gaining consensus I think this will work. Mkstokes (talk) 00:21, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Additional Discussion on text for Nathan Wade relationship

Since there was a consensus that this section can be trimmed, it was recommended that editors try to hash this out through the normal course of editing or start a new talk page section with concrete proposals for discussion. Here's my concrete proposal:

On January 8, 2024, Michael Roman filed a pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment and disqualify Fani Willis and her office from prosecuting the RICO case against him due to Willis having a financial conflict of interest related to her personal relationship with lead prosecutor Nathan Wade. On February 15, 2024, Judge Scott F. McAfee started an evidentiary hearing where he subsequently ruled on March 15, 2024, that either Willis - along with her office - or Wade must leave the case, because their relationship brought about a "significant appearance of impropriety." He also found no actual conflict of interest as there was insufficient evidence Willis had benefited financially. Based on the Judge's ruling, Nathan Wade resigned from the case a few hours later "...to move this case forward as quickly as possible."

That's 3 sentences. Thoughts? Mkstokes (talk) 15:38, 22 April 2024 (UTC)

That's pretty much what I'd already edited the section to except I'd substituted "Michael Roman" for "a defendant" purely because Mr Ruman had not been mentioned at all in the article and I felt it odd to drop his name all of a sudden unless there was prospect of his name being used again. I don't really mind if it stays as "a defendant" or is changed to "Michael Roman". TarnishedPath 12:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Bad infobox image and odd placement of image in body of article

1. The image of Fani Willis is oddly cropped, at a strange angle, and has a blurred background. Is there a better image we can use for this? A district attorney should have a recent, publicly available image online that we can use without fear of copyright.

2. The image of Fani Willis and Nikema Williams in the 2020 election influence investigation section is oddly placed. No mention in the article is made of how Fani Willis and Nikema Williams relate to one another, or why this image should be specifically placed within the 2020 election influence investigation section of the article itself. BootsED (talk) 03:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

@BootsED, please have a look at the edit I've just made. TarnishedPath 08:09, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks! #2 seems to be solved, but putting that image of Fani Willis as the new infobox image still isn't a great image. I'm not sure if there is another image of Fani Willis we have that could use. A simple headshot would work well, I would imagine. BootsED (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2024 (UTC)

We don't always have access to the best free images or sometimes have to wait for them to come along. Is the replacement image better than what was there previously? TarnishedPath 00:51, 29 April 2024 (UTC)

I would agree the infobox picture is oddly cropped and blurry. I wouldn't mind replacing it if we have access to a better one. I am just not sure if we actually do have any other pictures that don't impede on copyright infringement. MaximusEditor (talk) 18:27, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

Georgia Court of Appeals

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)

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. Paris1127 (talk) 02:47, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Is the case still proceeding during that time or is it on hold pending the outcome of the appeal? TarnishedPath 05:27, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages articles that use American English
• Biography articles of living people
• C-Class African diaspora articles
• Low-importance African diaspora articles
• WikiProject African diaspora articles
• C-Class biography articles
• C-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles
• C-Class Georgia (U.S. state) articles
• Low-importance Georgia (U.S. state) articles
• C-Class Atlanta articles
• Unknown-importance Atlanta articles
• Atlanta task force articles
• WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state) articles
• C-Class law articles
• Low-importance law articles
• WikiProject Law articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• C-Class United States Presidents articles
• Low-importance United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States Presidents articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class WikiProject Women articles
• All WikiProject Women-related pages
• WikiProject Women articles
• C-Class Women's History articles
• Low-importance Women's History articles
• WikiProject Women's History articles
• Articles with connected contributors
• Misplaced Pages requested images