Talk:Fani Willis

RfC: Nathan Wade relationship
Currently the material on the relationship between Fani Willis and Nathan Wade takes up two paragraphs of the Fani Willis 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? TarnishedPathtalk 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. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia'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. Tarnished<b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 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. - 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  <sup style="font-size:80%;">talk \\ 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 Wikipedia 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 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 talk 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 Wikipedia 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" <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 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: <li>On January 8, 2024, a defendant filed a pre-trial motion to dismiss the indictment and disqualify Fani Willis for a conflict of interest.</li> <li>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.</li> <li>Based on the Judge's findings, Nathan Wade resigned from the case.</li> </ol> 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". <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 12:41, 23 April 2024 (UTC)

Bad infobox image and odd placement of image in body of article
1. The 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 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. <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 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? <b style="color:#ff0000;">Tar</b><b style="color:#ff7070;">nis</b><b style="color:#ffa0a0;">hed</b><b style="color:#420000;">Path</b><b style="color:#bd4004;">talk</b> 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)