| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Melissa Lucio article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
| This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
@Ved havet I disagree with this revert, firstly because you reverted the entire edit (including the changes to the lede) and not just the part that you object to. Please try to be selective when undoing, if only to make clear what content you're actually objecting to.
Secondly, I'm not sure to what extent WP:NPF applies to that "Early life" section. It seems to me that the history of abusive relationships is relevant to the person's notability
, as the amicus brief directly cited it in the legal proceedings (and the legal proceedings are the main source of notability for her). I'm not certain how to interpret WP:NPF for the loss of custody, but it seems like something the prosecution will have used in their case...?
Also pinging Connor Behan. Kind regards from PJvanMill)talk( 20:13, 9 March 2022 (UTC)
- @PJvanMill: Apologies about the lead. As the WP:NPF reads, we are to
exercise restraint and only include information relevant to the person's notability
. I will not deny that Lucio's history of being a victim of sexual assault and abusive relationships were relevant to part of the case, specifically the defence's argument regarding her interrogation. However, I believe exercising restraint and only including information relevant to the person's notability also demands that the information is included in the context of what it is relevant to. Not only is the connection to her defence's argument not clear when the information is added to a dedicated, "Early life" section without context ("She was molested as a child." vs "She was the victim of sexual assault as a child, leading to psychological trauma."), but the relevant part of her defence's argument is actually barely mentioned in the article. The edit was thus not exercising restraint or carefulness with what is incredibly sensitive information, and created issues in respect to WP:BALASP. For it to be included in a proper manner, more information about her defence's argument is required as the article is still relatively sparse, details about the background of these arguments needs to be included in or with proper context, and sources must be referenced truthfully (e.g. she did not lose custody due to cocaine "addiction" per the source). Ved havet ≈ (talk) 21:16, 9 March 2022 (UTC)