Talk:Mocha Uson#Personal life section

The content of this wikipedia page is libelous and against the subject instead of being neutral. NoNDeSCRiPT (talk) 09:25, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

: Examples? -Object404 (talk) 09:09, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

{{disdis|user=Azuresky Voight|spi=Azuresky Voight}}

If you wish to factually pinpoint her as a fake news peddler, you will have to do better than quote an editorial piece from Rappler which, although thought provoking, is clearly opinionated and not a factual article. Credible sources include court rulings or factual statements/declarations from organizations with authority on the matter.

I can see how such editorial sources may be included provided they are under the appropriate section (i.e. controversies), and not written as if stating an opinion as undeniable fact. Please adhere by Wikipedia's neutral writing standards or we will have to call an admin in here.

Rreginald1 (talk) 12:00, 20 March 2020 (UTC)

: Changed description to "known for spreading misinformation" which is factual, non-libelous and well-documented by reliable sources. -Object404 (talk) 07:59, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

:: Also, Rappler is a credible source, being a signatory of the [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poynter_Institute#International_Fact-Checking_Network International Fact Checking Network at Poynter]. Organizations must go through an extremely difficult and [https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org/know-more/what-it-takes-to-be-a-signatory rigorous vetting process] to be certified as a signatory. It is one of only three organizations that have been accepted as official fact-checkers by Facebook. -Object404 (talk) 08:18, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

::: Another thing, I wished to avoid WP:OVERCITE that's why I only included 2 citations. If you have further reservations as to the accuracy of the phrase above, I would be happy to add more citations for it. Before deleting more well-cited content, kindly list all content you find libelous under the "Libelous tone" section of this talk page, and we can discuss them properly. -Object404 (talk) 08:24, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

:::: Finally, the citations from Rappler are NOT editorial pieces, but an investigative piece and a fact-check. Did you read them? -Object404 (talk) 08:37, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

:: I have corrected the term to disinformation as Uson has exhibited a consistent and deliberate pattern of manufacturing and circulating false information. The term is also supported by a citation from an academic study. -Object404 (talk) 09:48, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Removed this from the lead paragraph for being contentious and is a violation of BLP policy on neutrality. Azuresky Voight (talk) 05:53, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

: It is not a violation of BLP and is neutral - they are backed by RS. -Object404 (talk) 10:35, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

It is. Azuresky Voight (talk) 10:42, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

: How so? -Object404 (talk) 10:46, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

:: See: Alex Jones. His article states that his websites promotes conspiracy theories and fake news, and it is not a violation of BLP. -Object404 (talk) 10:56, 12 August 2021 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|Mocha Uson|answered=yes}}

17 May 1982 223.25.63.225 (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

:File:Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. EN-Jungwon 13:43, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

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

• Mocha Uson 2017.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:08, 13 August 2021 (UTC)