Talk:Rama Duwaji

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 28 May 2026

{{subst:trim|1=

{{delete}} ~2026-25947-49 (talk) 15:09, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

 Not done - not elegible for speedy deletion. -- Whpq (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

{delete|your reason here}

"I move to delete this article based on WP:GNG and WP:INHERITED. The subject does not possess independent encyclopedic notability. Most of the recent media coverage is a byproduct of her husband’s political position, rather than her own independent achievements. Furthermore, her profile as an artist does not meet the deep, sustained third-party critical coverage required by WP:ARTIST. This biography should be deleted o ~2026-25947-49 (talk) 15:14, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

A deletion discussion has already been held recently and the article was kep. -- Whpq (talk) 15:16, 28 May 2026 (UTC)

Infobox

Therequiembellishere (talk · contribs) challenged the implicit consensus on the contents of the infobox. I reverted them. They refused to open a discussion so I will. What version of the infobox do you guys prefer? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:18, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

I don't understand the issues that Therequiembellishere has with the infobox, as they seem to be quite controlling about it, but it definitely makes sense to include/keep her occupation at minimum. ~2026-30415-19 (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

They made a lot of fuss about it but as soon as I opened a discussion they disappeared. This is also interesting. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:26, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Her "occupation" is clearly not being Mamdami's wife prima facie. I support the current infobox field regardless of any changes that may arise elsewhere. Pietrus1 (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2026 (UTC)

Qualifying partisan sources

Again, forced to open a discussion because the user challenging the content won’t. Gjivhj (talk · contribs) has been repeatedly trying to remove information on the political affiliation of the original outlet that started the whole “Hamas” controversy. I believe it to be important information to include in the text. Opinions? ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

you claimed that the outlet made the investigation out of its political positions. Can you bring reliable sources that confirm this? If not, then it's undue.Gjivhj (talk) 19:10, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

You can find all the sources you need at the dedicated article. I guess you would know if you took one minute of your time to open that link instead of using it to repeat the same removal over and over. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:12, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

no. You need to bring reliable third party sources, that will explicitly confirm the investigation by the WFB was politically motivated. Gjivhj (talk) 19:15, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Read the separate article. There’s no need to clutter this one with useless sources about self-evident stuff. You don’t ask for sources for phrases like “American actor James Dean” – if you want to find a source stating that he was American and an actor, you open the article. I’m waiting for an actual argument as to why we should remove this information at all costs. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:17, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

no, don't play games now, you're the one who said "the investigation was done out of the outlet's political positions", so bring a source that unequivocally confirms this. You can't reference wikipedia in wikipedia, you perfectly know this Gjivhj (talk) 19:22, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

“Most of the posts in question were first reported by Jewish Insider and The Free Beacon, conservative outlets that have been critical of Mamdani.” said in this source which was there all along. Try again. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:23, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Is this supposed to back up your claim? Gjivhj (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I couldn’t do more literally. Any source to back up your proposal that we shouldn’t mention that? Apparently none despite my repeated demands. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:51, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

do you want me to bring sources that will say "the WFB's political lean shouldn't be mentioned in a wikipedia article about Rama Duwaji"? I'm more and more coming to the conclusion, that you don't know how wikipedia works Gjivhj (talk) 19:56, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I was obviously provoking to point out you didn’t answer my questions when I complied with all your demands. For the last time, why should we not mention the political affiliation? Final time I’m asking before I stop writing here. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:03, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

and I will repeat it again, that there is no evidence from a reliable source to imply the report by the WFB was politically motivated Gjivhj (talk) 20:18, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Then you didn’t read them. Too bad for you. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

obviously we'll not come to an agreement, so I'll just wait for other editors to weigh in Gjivhj (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

I suggest you read WP:COMPETENCE, since you attached links to two articles completely unrelated to the controversy. Gjivhj (talk) 11:43, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

That James was born in America is a factual fact, whether the report by tye WFB was politically motivated is your claim, for which you still haven't brought reliable sources Gjivhj (talk) 19:24, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

That the WFB is conservative is also factual. The claim is backed by a source that was there all along, which clearly outlined the relation between the political affiliation and its history of attacking the Mamdanis. No matter how much you try to say “no”. Facts are facts. Again, why should we not point these facts out? Again, aside from denialism, crickets and no arguments. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 19:45, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

And, considering your previous bans for edit-warring and disruptive behaviour, it indicates a lot about your personality Gjivhj (talk) 19:59, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

WP:NOPERSONALATTACKS. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 20:04, 25 June 2026 (UTC)

Rather than looking to policy ‐ which we all seem to be in broad agreement on anyway – if the political-lean of the outlet is relevant it should kept, if not, nix it, I looked around at similar articles (admittedly difficult as this gets into the PI conflict, where there are not a ton of FAs). It does seem that the political-lean of sources is not always included with attribution. To boot, the subject's comments seem to indicate some level of acceptance of the reporting.

Perhaps another party more knowledgeable than me as to policy intricacies can comment, because I am increasingly ambivalent, though I think it does not NEED to be included. I think you two should not continue to reply to each other though.

Pietrus1 (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2026 (UTC)

It absolutely does. Lots of this politically-motivated reporting exists among American right-wing news sources, and this seems no different. Failing to state the political affiliation of the source is masking their intentions. That said, in my view the paragraph shouldn't be included at all, because its only purpose is to parrot the views and findings of a politically motivated source. Electricmemory (talk) In solidarity 08:58, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

FYI, the latest anonymous edit was mine. The Wikimedia session unexplainably expired while I was editing. ~ IvanScrooge98 (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2026 (UTC)

The Free Beacon is considered a reliable source currently – WP:FREEBEACON –, and the subject essentially admitted to the accusations in the Hyperallergic interview linked in the article. It's rather relevant to include the information regardless of whether or not the Free Beacon was motivated by animus towards Mamdami (Personally, I think it's reasonable to assume their intentions personally given the source, but simply assuming their intentions is certainly unacceptable original research here). I think Duwaji's explanation should also be presented (and it is). I don't think that the presentation of the political orientation of the source from which the claim originates is necessarily required (that also does not mean that I think that it should not be presented) so long as the claim is presented sufficiently neutrally, which I believe @IvanScrooge98 has done successfully. If there is a policy or MoS mandate that example articles were just not following, I think that is definitive, but as it stands now, I remain ambivalent.

Pietrus1 (talk) 21:47, 28 June 2026 (UTC)