Talk:Pearl Initiative

My edits are being reverted for no obvious reason
Hey, you reverted my edits for the section 'Structure and key people' with the edit summary 'we need actual relevant content, verified properly--not namedropping'. How is structure and key people of an organization not relevant to a Wikipedia article about the organization? I spent quite some time reading core content policies and there seems to be no rule or policy that'd disallow the use of bibliography in a Wikipedia article about the subject. Same for organization structure. 197.61.72.205 (talk) 23:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
 * Instead of looking for what is not disallowed, why don't you write up proper, relevant information that is sourced to non-trivial secondary sources? "Key people"--who cares? (Besides the key people, that is.) Drmies (talk) 02:39, 18 April 2022 (UTC)
 * They are both relevant to the article. May you share your opinion why you see the 'bibliography' and 'organization structure' not relevant to an article about the organization? 197.61.72.205 (talk) 02:25, 19 April 2022 (UTC)
 * , I expected a response from you as to what you object to in my edits, which I think are relevant and follow the three principal content policies. In case you'd again revert my edits, I ask you to please respond here or give an adequate edit summary, so I can turn things around and write up proper, relevant information. 197.61.62.105 (talk) 03:07, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * If "structure and key people of an organization" are written up by secondary sources, that would help make a case for their relevance. Drmies (talk) 14:43, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your response here and in the edit summary, appreciate it. But Zawya is a secondary source yes? You said it belongs to Refinitiv, which as far as I know, isn't related to PI.197.61.62.105 (talk) 01:21, 7 May 2022 (UTC)