Talk:Patsy Widakuswara

Redirect
Hi, I am writing to follow up on your restoration of this article after I redirected it to Voice of America, and I am wondering if you could explain your reasoning. After my attempts to revise and expand the article, it appeared to me that most of the content is covered in the Trump presidency politicization efforts section of the VOA article, but also with relevant context, and this article appears to be within WP:BLP1E, which seems to encourage a redirect under these circumstances. I don't feel that I found persistent coverage of the event sufficient to overcome WP:BLP1E exclusion, especially due to the context in which it happened, as documented in the VOA article. If you have any insight or guidance on this issue to share, that would be appreciated. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:34, 25 October 2021 (UTC)


 * I believe that being the White House Bureau Chief of a major American news organization represents sufficient notability outside of this incident. Gamaliel  ( talk ) 15:51, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your reply - I have not been able to find sources supporting WP:JOURNALIST notability for this role, which is part of why it seems WP:BLP1E currently applies. I am influenced by some recent AfD discussions, e.g. Heba Aly (journalist) AfD, Martina Castro AfD, Erica Johnson AfD, which seem to add support for a redirect here until secondary sources supporting notability are found. Beccaynr (talk) 16:13, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * Support restoration. There are several issues with the redirect rationale here. Redirection is not a best practice as a proxy deletion. But most importantly, this is not a good application of WP:BLP1E, as it fails two of the three criteria as stated in the policy. She was not a "low-profile individual" before the VOA removal event or after. The event is significant and her role was substantial and it was well documented. For those reasons, it should be kept here as an article as we have plenty of WP:RS for WP:N and WP:V. On a more general note, we should be careful not to overemphasize policy shortcut names (ie. "one event" or "not news") and add an extended interpretation that is not in the actual policy. - Fuzheado &#124; Talk 17:08, 25 October 2021 (UTC)
 * In my first comment above, I was trying to refer to the part of WP:BLP1E that states, The significance of an event or the individual's role is indicated by how persistent the coverage is in reliable sources, and to clarify my comment, I also have not found sources to show she is not WP:LOWPROFILE - she is now the White House Bureau Chief of a major American news organization, but that does not appear to have translated into actively seeking media attention for herself in the way described in the WP:LOWPROFILE explanatory supplement, or having done so previously, with the exception of a brief 2013 Washington Post profile I found and added to the article, which does not appear to be enough. If I had found sources that appear sufficient to support WP:JOURNALIST or WP:BASIC notability, these would have likely eliminated the WP:BLP1E concern of giving undue weight to the event. From my view, this context and the overlap with the target article supports a redirect at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 20:12, 25 October 2021 (UTC)

Revisions
An editor may a number of questionable revisions just now. Starting with one - why delete material from the lede that comports with wp:lede? And adding twov-why make it difficult for the reader by deleting headings that refer to and separate to distinct incidents from a multi paragraph section? The assertion of NPOV as a basis is not convincing. In fact, for an experienced editor to make these claims, I'm confused as to what is going on. It's pretty egregious deleting going on. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:95FD:29F8:EB8A:7855 (talk) 18:41, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Hi IP 2603, according to WP:BLPUNDEL, To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. The discussion above includes references to various policies and considerations related to WP:BLP policy, and this is even more important when information has continued to be added based on one news source about events related to a living person, particularly when it was framed by section headings that could highlight controversy, and if controvery is emphasized in the lead. For example, according to BLP policy, 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. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 19:10, 13 February 2024 (UTC)


 * There is zero sensationalist as to what you are deleting. You sought to turn the entire article into a redirect. You failed. Now you are trying to eviscerate it. That is not a case of you following rules. You cite rules - such as wp:lede. But then in a perfect exhibit of opposite day editing, do precisely what the rule says you should not do. And you delete headings. Same thing. These obviously do not improve the article. They make it worse. You are smart. Surely you understand this. And understand how obvious it is. Let's bring in a third party, since you appear disinclined to edit in the manner that wp calls for. Agreed? 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5878:D9D:5E2F:BDE3 (talk) 17:41, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * IP 2603, my primary concern is policy, including WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. For example, there is a section in NPOV policy, titled WP:STRUCTURE, that includes, Pay attention to headers, footnotes, or other formatting elements that might unduly favor one point of view or one aspect of the subject.Overall, this is a brief article, so a lead summarizing an already-brief article seems contrary to MOS:LEADELEMENTS, and an attempt to call further attention to what seems to be an insignificant event (covered by a brief burst of news without indication of enduring significance) in the lead, further seems WP:UNDUE and contrary to WP:BLP policy to avoid sensationalism.Whether this article should be redirected could be further discussed at Articles for Deletion, but perhaps two briefly-covered events without enduring significance and limited biographical coverage is sufficient for standalone article. Also, since my first comment in this section, I added information from a source that reported on the September 2023 incident, and another editor edited the lead to include a focus on the Pompeo incident. I think the recent lead edit is an improvement more aligned with NPOV policy than what I had removed, but at minimum I think it is not necessary based on the article size. Beccaynr (talk) 18:52, 14 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm just struggling with the simplest improper edits you made. And getting nowhere. What you have done flies in the face of wp:lede. Obviously. Your edit led to it in no way summarizing the text below. All of your acronym citations are irrelevant here - you are .. is it intentional or are you really misunderstanding? .. ignoring completely the essence of wp:lede. Your other edits seem similarly off. But I though we could at least start with you by addressing this very simple edit. But instead - as with your above discussion where two editors had to disagree with your attempt to wipe this out and replace it with a redirect .. you wrote long (thats fine with me) but miss-the-point remarks .. and I can't figure out what underlies your efforts here. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5878:D9D:5E2F:BDE3 (talk) 04:12, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think it is most productive to stay focused on content, not the contributor, because an article talk page is for discussion of an article, including applicable policies and guidelines. As noted above, the lead has been edited by another editor, and while I continue to have concerns about it, the current lead seems better than what had been in the article. And acronyms I have linked to in my comments include the biographies of living persons policy, as well as the neutral point of view policy, and sections within that policy, as well as a section with the Manual of Style guideline related to lead sections, all of which apply to article content. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 04:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, IP, there appears to be no source available for this addition ; I removed it as excess detail, but I am unable to find sourcing to confirm this was anything other than a formal meeting and press event or that president Widodo had created different protocols, that these were communicated to the press in advance, etc. Beccaynr (talk) 05:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I want to thank user:Anachronist for putting me out of my misery in trying to explain that wp:lede called for more than what we had, and in fact called for a summary of the below text, which the other editor in this discussion never agreed was the case, writing to Beccaynr: "Partial revert - You are violating WP:LEAD, which requires the lead summarize the body, and most of the body is about this topic. I trimmed it down drastically though.." --2603:7000:2101:AA00:5878:D9D:5E2F:BDE3 (talk) 07:09, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Help
it looks as if there is a lot of poorly-sourced contentious content being added to this article at a rapid pace, and more than I can handle. If you could review and assist, that would be appreciated. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 05:18, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * I did a first pass and removed some excessive detail. I didn't check sources thoroughly yet, although I see some red flags such as right-leaning sources and primary sources (WP:OR). – Novem Linguae (talk) 05:34, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you, and I have removed what appears to be unsourced content, and added sourced content, including from The Washington Post. I also removed some sources per WP:RSP because of WP:BLP considerations. Beccaynr (talk) 06:11, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Also, the coverage related to the VOA guidelines may be helpful for developing content in the VOA article, but we may need better-quality coverage to support inclusion of content about Widakuswara here. Further research seems needed. Beccaynr (talk) 06:22, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * We've previously had thorough and constructive discussion on similar issues related to another article, so I am pinging you because of your familiarity with the issues, policies, etc. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 15:54, 15 February 2024 (UTC)

Widakuswara suggestion content (WP:A/I/PIA/WP:ARBECR)
Beccaynr has just made a series of deletions and additions to the last paragraph that are in my view without proper basis.

Beccaynr deleted relevant information as to the precise criticisms stated by US politicians as to what she had done.

And at the same time - curiously - expanded other sections of the paragraph to discuss what her colleague was criticized for, and what the VOA leadership had to say about the criticisms directed at her colleague.

Neither make any sense to me.

The first is relevant. The second is not her burden to bear, and her article should not be tarnished with it.

The deletions are reflected here. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patsy_Widakuswara&diff=1207601618&oldid=1207585689 2603:7000:2101:AA00:5878:D9D:5E2F:BDE3 (talk) 07:21, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * It seems contrary to WP:NPOV policy to present content about Widakuswara as if the coverage is only about her; for example, the WP:WIKIVOICE section tells us that editors should should strive in good faith to provide complete information and not to promote one particular point of view over another. (emphasis added). Without the context emphasized by the available reliable sources, this article seems to promote a point-of-view as if the brief burst of criticism was directed only at Widakuswara, when the coverage of the incident from the U.S. Press Freedom Tracker (according to its About page is a news organization) and The Washington Post makes it clear that it was not. The WP:PROPORTION section of this policy also seems relevant to consider.I have started looking for whether there is significant or continuing coverage in high-quality independent and reliable secondary sources about Widakuswara's suggestion to Guensburg (as reported by the Press Freedom Tracker) but so far have not found further support to help develop this contentious content in this biography of a living person, e.g. according to WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPBALANCE. Beccaynr (talk) 16:24, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * This seems troubling. If there is a controversy about the organization it should be in that article and not in the article about a single individual.   Gamaliel  ( talk ) 17:02, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * The letter is a WP:PRIMARY source, and is likely not appropriate for sourcing of contentious information in a WP:BLP. No strong opinion on the National Review piece (also removed) at this time, but I do note that NR is yellow-listed at WP:RSP.  Do you have other reliable secondary sources?  Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:35, 15 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I am thinking there is insufficient sourcing available to support inclusion of this contentious content, and the content seems to be a bit of WP:COATRACK. The Press Freedom Tracker discusses Widakuswara's suggestion but is overall focused on the criticism of the VOA guidelines. The Nov. 29, 2023 The Washington Post source currently in the article does not mention Widakuswara at all. The removed National Review piece mentioned by  is overall focused on the VOA guideline sent to employees by Guensburg, but refers to it as a "policy" and then says Widakuswara "responded by urging her colleagues...". This NR piece was written by Jimmy Quinn, the national security correspondent for National Review and a Novak Fellow at The Fund for American Studies, in "The Corner" blog section of the National Review on Nov. 7, 2023.Unlike some BLP subjects who have received substantial coverage in independent, reliable, secondary sources about contentious aspects of their biographies, this level of coverage does not seem to be available here about Widakuswara - to the extent that coverage about her in the context of the overal coverage exists, it is relatively brief; I think when we are reviewing politicized contentious content for inclusion for a BLP, particular care is needed so we do not amplify a minor aspect of coverage disproportionately and contrary to, e.g. WP:PROPORTION and WP:BLPBALANCE. I am going to sleep on this, but am considering removing the paragraph from the article. Beccaynr (talk) 06:51, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and removed the paragraph ; WP:BLPBALANCE includes The idea expressed in Eventualism—that every Wikipedia article is a work in progress, and that it is therefore okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape—does apply to biographies and without sourcing demonstrating an impact, e.g. on Widakuswara's career, or multiple independent and reliable secondary sources with a substantial/sustained focus on her, it seems more appropriate to workshop content and review sources at this talk page, and develop consensus about inclusion, given the contentious nature of this content.Also, from a general writing perspective, the narrative seemed clunky to me - there is no beginning/middle/end about Widakuswara similar to other paragraphs. There was criticism (and a call for firings) from senators, mostly related to the VOA guidelines; according to The Washington Post, VOA clarified that the guidelines are only guidelines. This seems to raise issues related to whether proportion of content emphasized about Widakuswara is appropriate. Beccaynr (talk) 17:08, 16 February 2024 (UTC)
 * This removal could probably go back in with better sourcing. Until good sourcing is found though, it is probably WP:UNDUE. Just the political right making noise and trying to create a controversy, but not an actual controversy yet. The Washington Post article in that diff does not mention her at all. – Novem Linguae (talk) 22:05, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

WP:A/I/PIA application
, I am pinging you because of your past explanation of how WP:A/I/PIA has applied to similar issues in another article; if you can review and provide an explanation here, that would be appreciated. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 17:51, 15 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the ping.
 * Editing about, and discussing, the Arab-Israeli conflict, is limited to extended-confirmed users. Details can be found at WP:A/I/PIA and WP:ARBECR. As described there, the restriction applies to all pages including this article and including this talk page here, with edit requests being the sole exception "provided they are not disruptive."
 * Edits made in violation of this restriction may be reverted by anyone and can lead to a block from editing to prevent them from continuing. I have now added a notice about this to the top of this page here, and an edit notice that is displayed when editing the article. Additionally, I have removed two sections above that were created in violation of the restriction and had no replies. &#126; ToBeFree (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2024 (UTC)