Talk:Cynthia D. Ritchie

Claimed or acclaimed blogger ? Just for information

@ FeanorStar7

Hello,

First of all thanks for instantaneous support. Frankly enough since Richie got encyclopedic notability and some one had to cover it and no one else did so I did (I had written Me too movement (Pakistan) article too so that was additional reason of covering topic) , other wise on an average I had mostly ignored Pakistani media hype around her. So I have not studied many sources about her, the one I referred while writing article and the same article doubts some of her claims including of being a blogger and says no one knows which blog she writes or which film ever she created. So 'a claimed' blogger was not a grammatical mistake but a chosen wording. If you know or believe she is acclaimed blogger I have no issues.

Issue is not a big deal as far as I am concerned but just wanted to keep you informed.

Bookku (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@ Bookku; thanks for the information. So based on what you've found, maybe we can agree to rewrite that part and say something like: "Cynthia D Ritchie, a woman of American origin, who has lived in Pakistan for the last decade, and is described as a blogger, filmmaker, and “a social media enthusiast” by at least one source ..." and cite the article. Does that seem reasonable? --FeanorStar7 (talk) 17:20, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

@ FeanorStar7 Thanks for good and very reasonable suggestion, very nice support from your side. Thanks again.

Bookku (talk) 17:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)

Reverting Pakistan2020 changes 9 July 2020

@Pakistan2020:

Your changes up till now do not provide any explanation in edit summary, not up to date to cover all the sides. And do not provide any new reference hence being reverted.

I would recommend to first discuss these changes on the talk page.

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

General Rani

Thanks, will do so.

However question is, how is "General Rani" relevant?

Above unsigned comment seems added by Pakistan2020 The edit difference: [1]

Bookku (talk) 06:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

The similarity is in non-Security service woman getting easy access to security establishment or people, which some in Pakistan would consider comparable.

Bookku (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

General Rani was a madam who ran a brothel. Ms. Ritchie secured access by properly going through security channels. To suggest there is a remote connection is not in anyway verifiable, nor appropriate.

Pakistan2020 (talk) 06:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Further, a simple google search on California's Secretary of State Page for LLC, show's A Different Lens Production is active : https://llcbizfile.sos.ca.gov/SI/Search/Detail

This inaccurate detail needs to be updated asap.

Pakistan2020 (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Though one finds Pakistan news paper refs about General Rani was a madam who ran a brothel. I don't know how much credible that is about General Rani and how much a rumor. These too can be just rumors for her being close to Pakistani ruling General then. Pakistani people don't like unrelated men- women co-mingling and such rumors could spread easily.

Though I don't want to take decision alone, let others too reflect whether to remove her name from See also list.

Bookku (talk) 07:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Cynthia D. Ritchie career

I wish some one in knowledge of this verify Further, a simple google search on California's Secretary of State Page for LLC, show's A Different Lens Production is active : https://llcbizfile.sos.ca.gov/SI/Search/Detail This inaccurate detail needs to be updated asap.

Bookku (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Requesting refs for following

@Pakistan2020:

although she is known to be a world traveler Other than Pakistan where else she has traveled substantially to describe her as "world traveler" please cite with reference.

has been referenced as participating in secretive genetics experiments. You will need to give reliable source reference

You removed Facebook page claims that she has Since her earlier background is sketchy and not confirmed independently, un till independent confirming sources come up Facebook page claims that she has need to be there.IMHO.

Through college and graduate school she worked in various political campaigns needs independent confirmatory reference-not based on refs created by herself.

as a senior executive with a government contractor needs independent confirmatory reference-not based on refs created by herself.

Her company, ‘A Different Lens Productions, LLC’ is registered in California

Relation with Swati family create a separate subsection if needed but mention official position of both side in neutral manner with reference (don't exclude sides of either one)

if you are going to mention About rape charges names then give detail briefing and status in Courts in a separate status in neutral fashion mentioning all the sides.

Ritchie also contested claims that she ever said that Pakistan was completely safe for women, stating her film work and images were taken out of context by anti-Pakistan elements. You can mention this with Reliable source reference but for that you do not need to remove Feminist objections mentioned with reference.

Thanks

Bookku (talk) 06:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

If facebook is being used as a "reference" then Ritchie's world travels are throughly documented there. She's lived in Australia and in 2014 Cynthia Ritchie lived in Japan, and studied for her Kikisakeshi- sake sommelier degree.

Pakistan2020 (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Further, using the word "sketchy" as part of Ritchie's background has a negative connoation. "Sketchy" needs to be replaced with a more neutral word.

https://twitter.com/cynthiadritchie/status/485952952285134848

Pakistan2020 (talk) 07:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

@Pakistan2020: You seem to be bit confused and mistaken in your assumption If facebook is being used as a "reference" then Ritchie's world travels are throughly documented there.

Direct facebook / Twitter / social media / blog refs are not allowed on Wikipedia unless some other reliable news source reporting about.

What is the diference? You and me can not pick up directly from Social media and write here. But if some other non-social media like reliable News report or published book has referred then we can refer here.

I don't have objection to mention her visits to other countries if other news papaers reported you can mention those in Wikipedia with relevent news / book reference.

Visiting just four countries then do mention she visited four countries with WP:RS ref as per Wikipedia rules. If those news reports are basing their reporting on her own facebook or twitter or Insta without independent verification then mention cited cocial media name but with third party reference.

Visiting 4-5 countries does not make plenty enough to mention as world traveler.

Bookku (talk) 07:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

List of references on missing details

1) Birth date and birth place controversy

References

Like a Paan?

Material in tha paan

Paans at pan shop

This article's edit history some how reminds one about South Asians refer Page and leaf both as 'Paan'. Process of making Paans involves articulate skill of white washing the Green Paans with Chuna (slaked lime) Sweetened with Masalah and then Silver coated and topped with picked cherries in the end.

Bookku (talk) 12:38, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Copyeditor passing by

While Wikipedia allows for quotes, the content shouldn't have a substantial portion of it be quotes as it straddles copyright violation. I've also removed the Naya Daur paragraph and preserved it below:

Naya Daur content

A Naya Daur article, “Why Are Feminists Divided Over Cynthia Ritchie’s Rape Allegations?”, which was quickly taken offline, told of the moral dilemma Pakistani feminists and progressive circles seemed to be facing. “While some feminist activists have called for an investigation into Cynthia’s claims in their individual capacity, no prominent women’s rights organizations, including Aurat March, Aurat Azadi March, Women Democratic Front, Women Action Forum, and Women’s Collective, have even tweeted a word on the allegations, let alone release an official statement. The article asked: Why [Are] Feminists Silent And Confused? Many of the women rights activists here in Pakistan preferred silence due to the alleged affiliations of Cynthia Ritchie with the military establishment and her recent controversial tweets, including restating stories she had been told about the late Benazir Bhutto orchestrating rape of several women and having ‘connections’ with the sex toy industry.

There is a cached version of the page which can be viewed here. —Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝 ) 19:05, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• CDR grey vest.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:23, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Notability

I cannot see how this person merits a Wiki page, except in terms of her own self-generated publicity. I recommend that this material should be edited-down to a single paragraph, and transferred to a suitable Wiki page concerning Pakistani politics. Valetude (talk) 00:35, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

One calls it Drama or Nautanki or uncomfortable truths sitting around the peek-a-boo / seek and hide games, may be media and audience finds it entertaining enough. For good or bad Donald Trump too generates self publicity, and so many others do. IMHO As long as independent sources covering it, she remains notable.

As such I am not against article going through formal Article for Deletion process for mental satisfaction of those who feel or find the drama uncomfortable enough.

Bookku (talk) 03:47, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

What a patronising response. Apparently I'm feeling uncomfortable about facing up to the truth. I'm simply noting that this person seems to be of nil interest outside a very limited circle. There are plenty of 'independent sources' that support non-notable topics. And Donald Trump did not achieve his status through self-generated publicity. He was elected by the American public to the highest office in the world. Valetude (talk) 20:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC)

Slander of Benazir Bhutto

Cynthia D. Ritchie's This primary original source tweet dated 2020 May 28 (Which became an issue and well covered in secondary reliable news references) and another next tweet dated 2020 May 29, refers to https://www.dawn.com/news/1560158 dawn news and indirectly confirms BB means she was referring Benazir of PPP and Ritchie in same tweet saying 'BTW, it's not slander if it's true.'

(Though personally I am not aware of her charges against Benazir were proved before any court of law that means statement against deceased prime minister remains slanderous even though Pakistani law might not have punished the slander.)

Above primary original sources of contention and related reliable source news coverage is still online, still following doubtful changes have been made, IMHO which need explanation and examination.

1) User:Pakistan2020 edit dif insering word "erroneously"

Sentence before inserting word erroneous A social-media war broke out and the PPP accused Ritchie of online defamation of a deceased Prime Minister.

Sentence after inserting word erroneous A social-media war broke out and the PPP erroneously accused Ritchie of online defamation of a deceased Prime Minister.

2) User:Pakistan2020 this edit dif deletes wording  ; one ex-prime minister and one ex-cabinet minister. from As well as her allegations against former Interior Minister ... ..., Ritchie has also alleged on Twitter sexual misconduct by other Pakistani politicians; one ex-prime minister and one ex-cabinet minister.

Personally I do not have any reason to have any soft corner for any Pakistani politician nor the Benazir still find above changes doubtful hence requesting User:Pakistan2020 to explain and requesting other users to examine the above referred changes to the article.

Thanks and regards

Bookku (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

In general I am wary of women who claim they were raped by many people, #metoo to the contrary. I am utterly unaware of this controversy however. But, again in general, it is true that the first and best defense to libel is truth, but this is a legal doctrine and Wikipedia is not a court of law. I am inclined to sympathize with a rape victim but Wikipedia should not in its own voice call anyone a rapist unless a court has found that person guilty, nor should it even mention that the allegation has been made unless it is itself otherwise notable. I hope this helps Elinruby (talk) 00:28, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

References