Talk:Rahul Ligma

Anyone have photos?

Would be great to add these to the article. If any readers have ones that can be added to the public domain (respecting all copyright laws, of course) via Wikipedia Commons, please upload them here and follow the directions. Then I or another editor can add them to the article. Thanks! BBQboffin (talk) 20:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

Move page to "Rahul Ligma and Daniel Johnson"?

The page seems basically to cover both characters & their antics, so I think perhaps we should use WP:AND. Of course, Ligma has the more notable name, but that doesn't seem relevant to what the page title should be, since both characters are notable for the same events & are covered in this page. Dingolover6969 (talk) 10:53, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, there's a redirect to this page from "Ligma-Johnson Hoax" already. The argument for keeping the page would be:

(1) "Ligma" was a tell that the name being used for a prank, as it is not an actual Indian surname, while Johnson is a common surname.

(2) There's sourcing for the "Ligma" meme.

(3) The Rahul Ligma character (looks to me like it's a different person) reappeared in the FTX layoff coverage, without Johnson.

(4) The actor who played Ligma gave an interview about the character, so we have more material on that.

What do other editors think the best way to present the subject matter is? BBQboffin (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Deletion

This page should be speedily deleted because... this event was not noteworthy and nobody in the mainstream media talks about it anymore. This is an alt-right meme. --CornSyrupEnjoyer (talk) 07:04, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

CornSyrupEnjoyer Which criteria at Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion do you believe apply? Alternative would be to start an AfD. David notMD (talk) 09:56, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

I came across this article organically and don't see any reason for speedy deletion, so I'm going to remove the tag. If there are improvements needed or a notability discussion, then please do post about that.

Voice of Indonesia a questionable source?

@FormalDude, I was puzzled by you reverting me with this edit: [1] as I was not able to find any discussion on the RS Noticeboard about the Voice of Indonesia being a questionable source. I'd like to add back the text: The following day, the Voice of Indonesia published the photo with the caption "Rahul Ligma, Elon Musk, and Daniel Johnson, are back as a team" in an article that remains uncorrected as of December 2022. and to cite the VOI article which also has a paragraph on the rehiring where it is covered as if it is an actual news story. Could you explain why you think VOI is a questionable source and should be removed? BBQboffin (talk) 17:17, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not that I think Voice of Indonesia in general is questionable, it's that this specific article from them should obviously not be used for the statement you're making. We need a source that says that VOI article is incorrect in order for that sentence to pass verifiability. ––FormalDude (talk) 03:47, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

OK, well I took "remove questionable source" literally. So your real beef is with the statement? I still don't see what your problem is. VOI published a photo and reported that Musk rehired Ligma & Johnson, reporting this as if it were actual news. That such an article is "incorrect" is self-evident (WP:SKY). These pranksters never worked for Twitter; they weren't fired, they can't be re-hired; it's all a hoax. VOI obviously didn't get the joke when it ran its article, and the article is still up today. I removed the "remains uncorrected as of December 2022" part; is that acceptable? I do hope, though, that other editors would support me in my contention that my original statement is clearly proven by the article's publication date and access dates and should be added back to properly document this article. BBQboffin (talk) 07:23, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Remove notability tag?

The recent AfD closed as "no consensus" (the !votes were Keep 9, Merge 4, Delete 1), with instructions to continue the discussion on the talk page. As the subject has national and international coverage, and sources which span October 28, 2022 to December 23, 2022, this seems to be WP:SUSTAINED enough to pass WP:GNG.

@FormalDude has today placed a notability tag on the article saying that we need "reliable secondary sources that are independent of the topic and provide significant coverage of it beyond a mere trivial mention". I think we have plenty.

I propose that the notability tag be removed. BBQboffin (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

• Remove tag seems reasonable given the instructions following the AfD close and the fact that reliable secondary sources are not the issue here. Thanks for starting the discussion. Cielquiparle (talk) 21:13, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Washington Free Beacon "Man of the Year"

I was reverted here[1] by @FormalDude when I attempted to add back the sentence: That same month, conservative political website Washington Free Beacon named Rahul Ligma and Daniel Johnson as the publication's "2022 Man of the Year". WFB is not an RS, but this seems to me a case where WP:BIASED would allow us to use an inline citation to quote what the WFB is saying about its own award. Reading WP:ABOUTSELF I think the sentence as written above is not an exceptional or a disputed claim, and there is no doubt about its authenticity and therefore we can and should include it in the article. BBQboffin (talk) 02:45, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is not about WFB, so ABOUTSELF does not apply. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:07, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF says "Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities". The activity is the WFB's issuing of the award. BBQboffin (talk) 04:19, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

By that logic I could make a website and add it as a source to any article that I mention on my website. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

"Ligma Balls" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Ligma Balls has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 11 § Ligma Balls until a consensus is reached. B3251 (talk) 20:14, 11 October 2023 (UTC)

Content removal and merge/redirect discussions

Simultaneous with discussions about merging the page, and the "Ligma Balls" redirect, FormalDude has removed a large amount of long-standing content from the article with this edit: [2]. Does his removal of content improve the page? I think deleting the background information to understand the humor is not helpful for the reader and the content should be restored. What's the consensus? BBQboffin (talk) 03:50, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

When someone unfamiliar with the term is prompted to ask "What's ligma?", the punchline is to respond with "Ligma balls", "Ligma nuts", or something similar.

I removed this sentence because it is WP:SYNTH. To be mentioned in this article, a reliable source that discusses that content in the context of Rahul Ligma is needed.

The multiple references to pop culture and internet memes as well as the crude pun formed by combining the two names as "Ligma Johnson" (Johnson is a slang term for a human penis) went initially unnoticed by several field reporters, technology editors, and their news outlets.

I removed this sentence because it fails verification. None of the sources used for it mentioned references to pop culture or memes, a combining of the two names, or that it was initially unnoticed by reporters. ––FormalDude (talk) 04:04, 12 October 2023 (UTC)

Per FormalDude's first point, the WP:SYNTH problems are probably best solved by just having a standalone page for the pre-character "ligma" material, which I created at Ligma joke. That also creates space for related material about updog, bofa, and such memes that would not have relevance here. The "Ligma-Johnson" linkage I think does need some explanation (perhaps a hatnote?) especially as Elon Musk himself commented about the pairing. As for "the crude pun ... went initially unnoticed by several field reporters, technology editors, and their news editors", that is exactly what happened that day. I can put back some in-line sourcing to the articles already in the reflist, but we wouldn't have this page at all if Bloomberg, CNBC, etc. were familiar with the meme. BBQboffin (talk) 00:23, 13 October 2023 (UTC)