Talk:Natasha Mazzone

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Natasha Mazzone.jpg

Disputed academic qualifications
Hi Lefcentreright and Dumbassman, in order to avoid edit wars it is always good practice to discuss or vote. I think there are two aspect here, the first is the allegations that Mazzone has been accused of lying about her qualifications and the second is the fact that after this revelation her Wikipedia account was quickly edited to remove that she is an advocate, whether both issues are true or not, I think this needs to be acknowledged that there has been allegations like these because this is so notable such that it brought her into public attention. And although I acknowledge that it's hard to prove that someone has edited their own Wikipedia article, I would like to point out that looking at the history of this article there has been one Natasha Michael who is also known as Natasha Mazzone who added heavy content in this article kindly see |this link for reference. Bobbyshabangu talk 11:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi, . I've been following the whole story since Friday. First of all, Natasha has never claimed to an advocate. Politicsweb proved this in a string of tweets on Friday. What happened is that in October 2020 a long-term abuse anonymous editor added to the infobox that she was an "advocate", "attorney", and "public speaker", despite this not being the case. Admins and vandalism fighters did not pick this up. On 4 February 2021 an account called 'Libdem94' changed or "corrected" her profession/occupation. However, an anonymous editor on 8 February 2021 (see here) changed it back to Advocate. Now, on Thursday, an anonymous editor changed her occupation to "None" and that's where the nonsense started. Mazzone was then accused by "Jimmy" Manyi and Brett Herron of editing her Wikipedia article and it just snowballed. Also, even if this edit |this link was added by her, she didn't add that she has a degree or is an advocate.


 * Now, the reason you got reverted by Dumbassman and I is because you added your own opinion in the mix. This edit is unacceptable and untrue. The references which you used News24, SABC, and IOL, say something completely different to what you added.


 * The correct thing to say was "In April 2021, DA Western Cape leader, Bonginkosi Madikizela, was suspended for having lied on his CV. Mazzone's Wikipedia article was then edited to remove the word 'Advocate' from her infobox. She was then accused of editing the Wikipedia article about her to remove the word from the infobox, which was added by a long-term abuse anonymous editor. She denied editing her article to remove the word and denied having a law degree. She insisted that she only had matric."  or something like that. I'm pinging  for his observation. Best,  Lefcentreright  Discuss  14:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks Lefcentreright, even though I am not as well versed in this event as you, I share your observation. Bobbyshabangu you misrepresent the sources used, and only inserted the URL instead of proper referencing. Kind regards Rossouw (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * One of the reasons we ware Wikipedians is to improve Wikipedia content, thanks for improving the article by inserting proper referencing. Bobbyshabangu talk 15:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I would like to also highlight that I've also been following this story very closely. So, I would also like to point out that as Wikipedians we need to take a | neutral point of view, and refrain from being biased towards certain political parties even if we voted for them. I don't think the version you've written is entirely true, however I'm not going to argue with that because the truth is IOL, News 24, Politicsweb are all media publications which are pushing a certain agenda. My point is, the events that are taking place right now around this politician are notable to be added as part of her Wikipedia page. Removing them completely sends the message that we as Wikipedians are being complicit to the political propaganda that is taking place. The fact is "there are allegations of fake academic records levelled against Mazzone", whether this is true or not, I don't know but what I know is that this needs to be part of the article. Being emotional by using words like "nonsense" sends a message that we are part of the DA propaganda or paid somehow to do a PR exercise on this individual.Bobbyshabangu <b style="color:DeepSkyBlue">talk</b> 15:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with you that we can't just leave the allegations out. The allegations have been made and they have been covered by major newspapers and should be added to the article in a neutral and impartial manner. Mazzone's shouldn't be whitewashed, like what happened at Kamala Harris' Wikipedia article last year (See here: Someone is working very hard to dress up Kamala Harris' Wikipedia page, report finds). I have added the allegations in the section Natasha Mazzone. I believe it covers both sides of the event. Please just read over it and if you feel like I left something out, add it. Best, Lefcentreright  Discuss  17:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)
 * This issue is still a hot topic. I'm not sure how much of it will continue to be about WP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
 * @ I've actually abandon editing this article because I feel Wikipedians here are protecting this politician instead of stating facts. The fact is there's been allegations raised by the GOOD party that she lied about her qualifications on her Wikipedia page (full-stop), but Wikipedians went out of their way to write in a way that clearly vindicates this politician and that is not neutral, we all didn't now about her until such allegations were raised, this fact is of public interest, so it needs its own section not a sub-section hidden away in the article which is not even written in a neutral stand point. However to avoid edit wars, I decided to leave it at that. <b style="color: DarkOrange">Bobby</b><b style="color: DarkOliveGreen">shabangu</b> <b style="color:DeepSkyBlue">talk</b> 03:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Not seeing where anyone has gone out of their way to protect this politician. Yes, the allegation was made, but it appears no evidence was presented to back up the allegation.  The assertion that having it as a subsection hides it away is frankly ludicrous.  As if it were buried in the text of an unrelated paragraph somewhere.