User talk:Chrisstevens1985

Clarification
Hello Chrisstevens1985,

There appears to be a disagreement regarding the amendment made to this page on 12th August. Unfortunately the user who made the initial change has done so without registering so it is not possible to discuss with them directly. I note you have made many amendments to this edit so reaching out to you. When initially reviewing this edit I disagreed that the information was 'substantial' or 'factual' enough to warrant inclusion. I note then that you re-instated the edit. I made some changes to try and better what had been originally submitted however I note every edit has been met by one by yourself adding further details that I could not find substantiated evidence for based on the source being cited. For clarity, after the last edit you made I clarified that upon reflection: "As explained in the Encyclopedic principles: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Whilst a source is given it is rather tenuous and cannot be confirmed to relate to the article subject. Pillar 2 of Wikipedia editing states "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources" I appreciate the contributors efforts but feel the edits fall short of the editing principles." Could you perhaps then help me to understand why you feel so strongly that this edit is substantial enough to warrant inclusion on this page? I note the original edit referenced this information as an "allegation" and the source cited does not confirm either way the content of the edit. As such I would like to understand if you could help clarify how the edit is based on fact and the source cited confirms as such. I do not feel that allegations as the same as factual information about a subject and even so, as mentioned above, as per Encylcopedic principles: "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia." Furthermore this section deals with politics and I feel edits should be reviewed with care to ensure that they are made without political motivations behind them both from the edit and the any sources cited. Given the edit is referencing an unproven "allegation" and the source cited seems to confirm as such, I did not feel it warranted inclusion. I would be grateful for your response to help me understand the reasons you feel it should be included. Papawazo (talk) 20:42, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Good evening, and thank you for your message. The article does warrant inclusion: It is a very notable report on a public figure. As one can see - the report itself states the individual's name and details was found on said political party membership leak, which is factual. The news article does not explicitly state the individual was ever a member of said political party, because it cannot be proved for sure and the article itself makes this very clear. Therefore,the inclusion on the wikipage should also make this clear, which my edits have done. There is absolutely no reason why this news report shouldn't be included on the wikipage as it is a notable story about a public individual, and the article verifies its findings.

Whilst you did initially advise and quote the pillars of the Wiki editing, I do not think these reasons mean the mention of the article and a link should not be included in this article. Chrisstevens1985 (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Hello Chrisstevens1985
 * Thank you for explaining your rationale to me. The reference cited does confirm the the name of this page's subject appears on the Wikileaks list but I can find no mention in the source cited that other contact details were confirmed to be this page's subject and therefore I am questioning whether the source cited relates to this subject. I note the source cited does also reference a contact number but doesn't say that this is the subject's contact number just that one that "appeared" to match: "a contact number that appeared to match the mobile number".
 * In addition I note that the source is rather unsubstantiated in its conclusion: "We have not found any further evidence that would demonstrate a connection between him and the party, either as a supporter or an opponent." The source cited is unable to confirm or deny any link between the subject and the allegation and therefore I am finding it difficult to agree that this is substantial enough to warrant inclusion into the encyclopaedia as it is not really saying anything at all. Also I do not feel this meets the Wikipedia editing criteria for inclusion for the reasons I have already referenced above in relation to Wikipedia's editing guidelines. The source is not factual in its conclusion other than a conclusion cannot be reached and therefore an edit made relying on a source that itself states nothing factual is difficult for me to justify inclusion. Therefore I'm still not in agreement that this edit warrants inclusion on this page. Do you have any other further comments otherwise I suggest we ask for a third party opinion if we cannot mutually agree? Papawazo (talk) 16:05, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I still do not agree with your reasons to edit out this section, despite your arguments otherwise. However, I am not much concerned for this disagreement enough to wish for a third party to make an opinion on it. I do note that in your previous response you essentially allude for the need to ensure there is no conflict of interest and that posts and edits should be made from a NPOV from all editors and contributors, fully in like with wiki practices and procedures. I accept this, and in addition having looked at the history and creation of the page which you created I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest that there is a direct link between you and the page's topic. In general, Wiki advised individuals and organisations to not create their own pages and places emphasis on having information added that the creater may then find extremely disagreeable due to the nature of the Wiki project. If this assumption is correct then it is understandable that you would strongly argue for the edit to not remain on the article, but it doesn't show good Wiki practices are being followed. However, as previously stated whilst I strongly feel thrle edit should remain I am not really concerned enough to keep this issue ongoing, eitherway. Chrisstevens1985 (talk) 17:03, 31 August 2022 (UTC)