Talk:Monique Holsey-Hyman

"Durham Officials Directed City Attorney to Try to Unmask Anonymous Wikipedia Editors"
Of note: https://indyweek.com/news/durham/durham-officials-directed-city-attorney-to-try-to-unmask-anonymous-wikipedia-editors/ 152.3.43.41 (talk) 15:44, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

https://www.newsobserver.com/news/local/counties/durham-county/article277624088.html -- 66.56.222.197 (talk) 14:54, 26 July 2023 (UTC)

== Including the recent WP-whatever that was in the news in the WP-article text BRD ==

Please join if you have an opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:32, 26 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with removing, for now, the story about Holsey-Hyman's attempt to squelch unfavorable Wikipedia coverage. If this gets picked up by media outside the Raleigh-Durham area, then we should put it back in.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:55, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * What we have here is something that has been covered by multiple independent reliable sources. The News and Observer is a deeply serious publication of statewide importance in North Garolina. That the sources reporting on this are based in the Research Triangle, an area with over 2 million people, doesn't seem to be all that different from the rest of the page's content, which is similarly sourced to publications from The Triangle. I see no basis to exclude this from the page of a local official on the basis that the content is produced by sources who cover local and statewide news when the vast majority page is already more or less derived from such sources. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 16:13, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I was thinking we could perhaps have one discussion on this, but it will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:17, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I had taken A.B.'s reply above to be indicative that we were having a page-specific discussion on each page. We can consolidate to the mayor's talk page, but I do think that the three people all may have different considerations to deal with regarding particular weight. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 16:25, 26 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I see the "thing" has been re-added, and IMO the current paragraph really fails WP:PROPORTION (very much so) and WP:NOTNEWS. There is also an essay called WP:NAVELGAZING. Also, how does it fit under the heading "Extortion allegations and investigation"? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:07, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * It is related to the extortion allegations and investigation inasmuch as there was an attempt to censor something describing the extortion allegations and investigation. Seems adequately placed in that section; there really isn't anywhere else it would go. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 13:55, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * We'll, it could go out the door. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:59, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * I understand. I am also wary of navel-gazing and the temptations to do so, but this seems just as well-sourced as much of the other content of that section, and I don't see a WP:BALASP issue. For what it's worth, it seems to be getting broader recognition as time goes on, which seems to bend towards inclusion rather than away from it. — Red-tailed hawk  (nest) 14:18, 28 July 2023 (UTC)
 * IMO, this thing from July 25 being the biggest paragraph in the article is absolutely a WP:BALASP issue. WP:RECENTISM is an essay, but it has happened in these articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:30, 28 July 2023 (UTC)