Talk:Rhea Chakraborty/Archive 1

ÆCE is edit warring to restore disputed content. Specifically, he falsely claims "Rhea being the prime suspect in the case" when the cited source says no such thing. This is a serious BLP violation. When users click the Edit source tab at Rhea Chakraborty, we see –

Notice about sources: This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. … 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. (Emphasis added.)

NedFausa (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

With due respect, I used the cite [16] to for the info BEFORE the "prime suspect" instance and was in the process of adding another source[17] currently present on the article, which confirms that she is a prime suspect. But, instead of discussing this with me first, if I've done my editing or not, you just decided to go for a revert, calling it a serious violation of WP:BLP. ♠ ÆCE | Talk | 15:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Also,If you would have discussed the issue with me before hurrying into slamming the WP:BLP and Edit Warring templates, irresponsibly on my talk page and on Rhea Chakrabory's talk page, you would have known that I was IN THE PROCESS of adding ANOTHER citation. I reverted it ONCE (and not repeatedly hence it won't count as edit Warring) in order to improve the article with proper citations from reputable sources. ♠ ÆCE | Talk | 15:54, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

ÆCE, how can you call someone a "prime suspect" without identifying what crime they are suspected of? Doesn't that strike you as important? If the police/medical examiners have thus far said that Rajput died by suicide, how can anyone other than Rajput be a suspect in a suicide? The police have not accused her of a crime, have they? What crime are you alleging that she is a suspect of? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:04, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Since, wikipedia is not my personal blog site, I only wrote what a reliable source has mentioned.I also, fail to understand why do you refuse to look at new revelations and continually want to stick with an outdated information. How can you call someone a "prime suspect"? ask HindustanTimes, ask CBI,who is constantly interrogating Rhea chakraborty for hours since last few days! Ask ED why they are so interested in rhea chakraborty and since you're at it, also ask why NCB is interested in Rhea Chakraborty so much that they recently raided her home? I humbly suggest you to read a bit more on drug use and crime. ♠ ÆCE | Talk | 16:18, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The only topic of discussion here is your sloppy implication that Chakraborty is a suspect in a crime that you failed to identify. This is potentially defamatory content that you didn't bother to treat with the seriousness that it warrants, and you submitted it multiple times, even though it was disputed, and even though you were told that it violates our BLP policy. That's what we're discussing here. Do you not see that it is a problem to say "her boyfriend Shushant was found dead at his residence in Bandra ... with Rhea being the prime suspect in the case"? Do you truly not see the problem here? Do you not see what you are potentially implying that could be gravely defamatory? You can't call someone a suspect in a crime when you don't identify the crime. It's also just sloppy writing. You know about the Five Ws, don't you? And even if I put back the "The cause of death is still being investigated by CBI with Rhea being the prime suspect in the case" this doesn't sound odd to you? The CBI (according to you) doesn't know how he died, but Rhea is a suspect? What? That's ridiculous. Believe it or not, we actually have to employ some common sense when writing articles, and if a bad journalist says something ignorant or poorly-conceived, we can opt not to publish that. That is an option, you know. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:53, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

The only topic of discussion here is your sloppy implication that Chakraborty is a suspect in a crime that you failed to identify. 

This is where it was verified from: a reputed source which is also used to cite other info on the very same page as well.

This is potentially defamatory content that you didn't bother to treat with the seriousness that it warrants, 

Declaring someone has committed a suicide while the investigation is still on going is also defamatory and disrespectful to the deceased and his family.

It's also just sloppy writing. 

You also mentioned "poor grammar" in your revert. Is it fair to revert the entire edit for a grammatical error which btw I was going to fix but interrupted by all of this. Couldn't you just fix the grammatical errors or at least marked it for clean up like other articles instead of reverting the whole thing?

The CBI (according to you) doesn't know how he died, but Rhea is a suspect? What? That's ridiculous. 

In order to find the culprit(s), investigative agencies like CBI look for the possible suspects with potential motives by gathering enough evidence to support that a person or a group of persons can be considered as suspects which are then further inquired to gather more evidences and leads. Later, they start to short list these suspects as they gain more information and finally find out the culprit(s) FROM those suspects. A quick summary on how it works.

Believe it or not, we actually have to employ some common sense when writing articles

Speaking of common sense, I've asked this question:

If these highly reputed bodies like AIIMS and CBI both premier in their respective fields, have still not figured out the cause, how come wikipedia or these media sources came to any conclusion?

on Talk:Death of Sushant Singh Rajput page but sadly no-one seems to have an answer. Can you answer this?

if a bad journalist says something ignorant or poorly-conceived, we can opt not to publish that. That is an option, you know

First off, who decides if a journalist is bad or not? You? Me? Secondly, If you are wiling to accept one journalist as "good" and at the same time calling another "bad", on your own terms, then you're not being objective here. Either, you accept media sources and document both the sides fairly and equally without making it appear as if the article has already declared something to be a fact while it is still being investigated by teams of expert OR you just disregard them all together but you can not choose one over another according to what fits your believes as it will only make the article biased, which is not something wikipedia aims for.

Moreover, the reports that were previously used as a "Proof", is now being scrutinized . Here you go :.

Don't you think the old information should be updated with the new findings that are emerging now?

Also, Why can't we call it a "death" instead of murder or suicide, at least until we hear something from the authorities themselves that are working on the case?

♠ ÆCE | Talk | 19:43, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't have time to answer all of this. We do not include potentially defamatory content, which is what you did when you added poorly-written content that heavily implied Chakraborty killed Rajput. That is egregiously bad judgment. You called her a "prime suspect", but didn't indicate what she was a prime suspect of. That ambiguity is very problematic. Police have not charged her with any crime as far as I know. They are investigating complaints raised by the family. A journalist calling her a "prime suspect" without indicating what she was a prime suspect of, is bad journalism. Repeating that without providing sufficient context, is no better. While Wikipedia relies on what reputable secondary sources say, when they say things that are downright stupid or irresponsible, we are not obligated to include that. As for the rest of your response, feel free to read the entire Talk:Sushant Singh Rajput page, where some of your other questions have been asked and answered multiple times. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Hi, I hope you're doing well in such a time!

You called her a "prime suspect", but didn't indicate what she was a prime suspect of. That ambiguity is very problematic. Police have not charged her with any crime as far as I know.

Pleas watch the entire video, coming from the same source that is currently being used for the citation in the article:

I hope this make things a bit clearer. Thank you! ♠ ÆCE | Talk | 08:56, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

ÆCE Well, prime suspect? Are we watching Republic TV here? A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law. We must give serious consideration to not creating the content on an alleged perpetrator when no conviction is yet secured. - The9Man ^(Talk) 14:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Hello, The9Man. Thank you for your participation. Her being a "prime suspect" is coming from the exact same source which is being used for citing "suicide by hanging" also on Shushant's page and not just Republic TV. I didn't mention Republic TV in any of the conversation regarding this, as a primary or only source.

The exact same source which is used to cite "suicide by hanging" has now changed their title from "Sushant Singh Rajput dies by suicide at 34 in Mumbai" to "Sushant Singh Rajput, 34, was found dead in his Bandra apartment in Mumbai on June 14."

My point is, if there's so much dispute regarding the cause being "suicide" or "murder" and the very sources that were cited for "suicide by hanging" has now changed their title to "found dead" instead, Why can't we do just the same by writing "found dead" instead of "committed suicide"? Don't you think that it would be more appropriate and neutral at this time until we hear from the experts working on the case which both sides are willing to accept? Instead of being a part of this mess, why can't wikipedia mention "found dead" instead of "committed suicide" and keep itself out of the controversy? ♠ ÆCE | Talk | 21:39, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Because "found dead" does not exclude suicide as a manner of death. "Found dead" merely means he was found dead - no more and no less. It's entirely possible to find someone dead no matter their manner of death. The initial investigation, which you have repeatedly tried to ignore and downplay, concluded foul play was not part of the cards for that hand. Finally, remember that at the point that video was shot, SSR's parents were (and still are) accusing Rhea of abetment of suicide, hence the "prime accused" that the video says. Abetment of suicide is not the same as actual homicide. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 01:06, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

And, ÆCE, no officials involved in the case have said it was a murder, so from what I can tell, the only people who "dispute" the death determination of suicide are people with no first-hand knowledge of the case: fans, other actors, politicians, conspiracy theorists. That's not a dispute. If experts from the CBI case made a determination different to what the Mumbai medical examiners found, that would be a dispute. By the way, are you still confused about the BLP violation? I never saw an acknowledgment about that and you conveniently changed the subject. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 01:15, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

The family also disputed the initial autopsy findings of suicide, IIRC. Still, it's highly unlikely they had any first-hand knowledge of what happened in that room on that day, so your point still stands. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 01:26, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Because "found dead" does not exclude suicide as a manner of death. "Found dead" merely means he was found dead - no more and no less. It's entirely possible to find someone dead no matter their manner of death.

Good, that's what I want. For the article to be fair and neutral, it should not exclude either manner of death, as of now.

The initial investigation, which you have repeatedly tried to ignore and downplay, concluded foul play was not part of the cards for that hand.

First of all, I'd like to suggest you again to not use these game play terminology while discussing a serious matter. If you see it as a game, I'd like to have someone else to talk with, who's willing to take it seriously and not as a game.

Now, I never denied what initial investigation has said. I denied to stick with the initial investigation even when the entire investigation has come far from the initial investigation you are denying to let go of even when (again!) the source used for citing "committed suicide" is now calling "found dead".

"Was not part of the cards for that hand" : Well, now it is! which what I have been trying to tell you.

For how long are you willing to stick with what was there, denying any new findings which 'is now and here?

If you take this a bit more seriously than a game of cards, you'd figure out that they changed it to "found dead" for a REASON.

And, ÆCE, no officials involved in the case have said it was a murder, so from what I can tell, the only people who "dispute" the death determination of suicide are people with no first-hand knowledge of the case: fans, other actors, politicians, conspiracy theorists. That's not a dispute. If experts from the CBI case made a determination different to what the Mumbai medical examiners found, that would be a dispute.

Sorry but I have to ask, Do you even know who Subramanian Swamy is? He knows way more of insights than you, I or any media channels, being a highly positioned member of the central government that happens to supervise CBI including all other investigating agencies working on the case.

Are you denying the credibility of Subramanian Swamy?! wow!

By the way, are you still confused about the BLP violation? I never saw an acknowledgment about that and you conveniently changed the subject.

No, but what I am confused about is which part of it you think my I'm violating? ♠ ÆCE | Talk | 03:12, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

"Found dead" does not have any of the meaning you are ascribing to it, and we are emphatically not going to entertain your pet theory that you're trying to innuendo in. And, again, no source is walking back the suicide claim. In fact, given their reporting on Rhea, one could see it as doubling down on the suicide claim. I note that you're dodging the counterarguments in re the family accusing her of abetment of suicide. Cyphoid's comments about the officials not calling it a murder is, based on the sources available, accurate, as is his characterisation of those who're disputing it. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 03:19, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Where did I ascribe anything to "found dead"? Please cite me any of the sources currently being used for citations on the page, at the moment(and not from 2 or 3 months back) that's still, explicitly (as you demanded before) defending OR claiming it to be just a suicide and nothing else? Again, instead of fixing on to who accused who, try to see what's actually being revealed, regardless of accusations. People accuse one another all the time but would you please try and see what's coming out of it?. In fact, it's not even a topic of discussion anymore. But, If I have to, then I'd have to add the drug angle as well. Her home was raided by NCB and eventually arrested her brother for having connections with drug peddler and is also scanning Rhea for it. You many choose to deny this as well to your hearts content but it won't change the facts that are emerging now. Please have a look on Subramanian Swamy's recent tweets. Stop living in June, when it's already September! Happy autumns! ♠ ÆCE | Talk | 04:05, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Interesting attempt at a "no, u", coming from someone who says "found dead" obviates the prior (and still unrebutted) reports of suicide, cherrypicks and misinterprets sources that run counter their position, noticeably dodges every argument he can't turn into a strawman, and who makes Seeyou (talk · contribs) seem quiet. Note that one of those diffs is you evading the sources I proffered and setting up a strawman. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 04:17, 6 September 2020 (UTC)

Please add this:

On September 4th, Narcotics Control Bureau raided Rhea chakrabroty's resident in connection with the drug trafficking probe which is linked to the case of Sushant Singh Rajput's death and arrested her brother Showik Chakraborty for drug dealing.

On September 6th, after the arrest of his brother Rhea also confessed to the Narcotics Control Bureau (NCB), that she sourced drugs for the late actor through her brother. Acro94-00 (talk) 01:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. All three sources you provide are problematic.

1. India Today says A search is underway and is obviously a preliminary story. It does say Showik taken away by NCB for further questioning, but incorporating that into his sister's BLP at this point would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:NOTNEWS. Moreover, India Today does not report, as you claim, that Showik Chakraborty was arrested for drug dealing.
2. We can't cite that particular tweet because it involves claims about third parties, which is prohibited by WP:TWITTER.
3. India.com relies not on its own original journalism pursuant to an official statement but on secondhand, indirect coverage—"a report published in India Today" to which no link is provided. This makes it a dubious source that is likely to be disputed.
   

Faced with these issues, we cannot add the content you propose. NedFausa (talk) 02:51, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Showik Chakraborty was arrested after NCB raided Rhea Chakraborty's residence - Acro94-00 (talk) 04:15, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

This isn't an article about Showik Chakraborty. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Rhea's house was raided!! And showik is her brother!!! What the damn are you even saying???!!!Acro94-00 (talk) 04:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

This article isn't about shushant's death either but both shushant and showik are mentioned in the article they are ASSOCIATED!!! Can't you see???! Acro94-00 (talk) 04:23, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

If you try and read, you will figure out that they live in a same house!!!!!Acro94-00 (talk) 04:24, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I'm tired of you all blatantly biased!!! When someone ask to add something you ask for legitimate sources and when they are provided you call it irrelevant topic to the article. What the hell is going on here??? This is a very suspicious behavior from you all!!! makes me wonder whether or not you guys are also a part of her PR????Acro94-00 (talk) 04:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Huh? You're a brand new editor, right? How "tired" could you be if you've never participated in a discussion about this subject prior to this? Have you had any other accounts here? Oh, and you should be aware that NedFausa and I are two different editors. So if he took issue with the sources you provided, that's one issue, and if I don't particularly think it's relevant, that's a different issue. To add the two together and make it seem like one person changed the rules on you, is not exactly reasonable. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:40, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

YES, I know what you all have been doing. My brother has been trying to tell you guys the same and you guys banned him. I also read everything others have been saying which is plenty to know how you have been dealing with this. This is wikipedia remember???? everything remains here!!!

ALso, now you're just avoiding my request to add those information taking about something that is irrelevant to the article!!

AND! DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME YOU FOUND LOOPHOLES IN THESE SOURCES TOO as you all have been doing!!!!!Acro94-00 (talk) 04:47, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Who's been banned over this? Most of the editors who have commented on this issue were one-time editors who know nothing of Wikipedia policies. They come by, leave ignorant comments, people respond and we never hear from them again. You should also be aware the personal attacks are not tolerated. Your frustrated suspicion that I or NedFausa are part of Chakraborty's PR team is totally unfounded. I have over 145,000 edits to my name and ten of them are to the Chakraborty article. So maybe scale the screaming and fist-shaking back a little, eh? Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright I am Extremely extremely sorrry!!!! Now, can we talk about those additions to the article please? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Acro94-00 (talk • contribs) 04:58, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Acro94-00: Since your edit summary requests "Please let me know when you think I've provided enough sources," I am glad to respond. You have provided enough sources. NedFausa (talk) 05:09, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! I hoping to see the update soon! :) Acro94-00 (talk) 05:10, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

You misunderstand. I have no intention of adding what you proposed. You first provided three sources, which I checked carefully. As I explained, the sources did not justify the additions you sought. You then deluged us with many more sources. Given my experience with your first three, I am disinclined to check those. But really, the matter goes beyond sources.

• Wikipedia:Recentism cautions us against an inflated or imbalanced focus on recent events. It is writing without an aim toward a long-term, historical view. This can result in, among others: Articles overburdened with documenting breaking news reports and controversy as it happens.
• WP:BLPNAME advises: The names of any immediate, former, or significant family members or any significant relationship of the subject of a BLP may be part of an article, if reliably sourced, subject to editorial discretion that such information is relevant to a reader's complete understanding of the subject. (Emphasis added.) In this case, it is imperative that we focus on Rhea Chakraborty. Developments concerning her brother must be strictly germane. And that requires Wikipedia:Consensus. NedFausa (talk) 05:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

My dude, her house was raided by Narcotics Control Bureau and her brother was arrested. If taking about shushant's death is relevant in the article and all of that is there in the "media coverage" is relevant, Can you not even add this atleast in media coverage ? Acro94-00 (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

I am not your dude. Your manners are as atrocious as your banned brother's. NedFausa (talk) 05:32, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Alright! I deeply apologize for that from the bottom of my heart. I did not realize calling someone a friend as a friendly gesture is considered as atrocious behavior on wikipedia. Is there a policy about not calling someone a friend too like WP:DICK? Any, this page is not for discussing me. you call always come to my talk page for that. Also, spot on sherlock! you got it right!Acro94-00 (talk) 05:41, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Also, how can I help to provide you guys enough inclination to have a look at the other 13 sources? because if you guys won't see it then who else will?Acro94-00 (talk) 05:30, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Excellent work guys! You guys have been doing an excellent job at keeping away all those who tried to request a change with all the valid reasons and citations but instead of addressing that, you just start finding different ways to get them banned. Anyone who is opposing you is either a violator or sockpuppet. I won't be surprised if you call me a sock puppet to, cause in your world none can stand for anyone else. Sanjiv74 (talk) 06:36, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

See WP:Sockpuppet investigations/ÆCE. The checkusers are enjoined from running checks on a whim, so it's very likely ST47 saw the above conversation/was pointed to it and noticed something off. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 06:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Conduct issues in most cases are linked to content issues and tend to go away if the content issue is resolved. As I can see here, an IP before the last user requested a revision without providing any citations and was rightly asked to provide the same, but when another user demanded pretty much the same revision, and provided more than dozens of sources, it was told that it was not relevant to the page's subject. After reading the rest, the first question that came to my mind is, instead of focusing on the request why the entire discussion was redirected to the user's character? Calling someone "dude" in the planet where I live is not considered as atrocious manner. Another thing that I noticed is that the article contains a section named "Death of Sushant Singh Rajput" which by your own definition of relevancy, must not be there. Media coverage section provides plenty of information regarding his death which on a biography page does not warrant a dedicated section. The request made by the last user seems to be good enough to be added in the media coverage section as the events mentioned has already happened and is not entitled to change regardless of the outcome of the investigation. In my opinion, you should probably re-consider the request regardless of whether or not the account was a sockpuppet or not. In fact, I believe such actions will only attract more sockpuppets and trolls if handled the way it was handled here. Do not comment on users character, dialect or mannerism. Sanjiv74 (talk) 08:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sanjiv74: Have you read WP:BLPCRIME? Do you know the difference between an arrest and a conviction? Do you understand we have a policy WP:NOTNEWS? Your implication behind I believe such actions will only attract more sockpuppets and trolls if handled the way it was handled here, says alot. Unlike you, we aren't here to right great wrongs. - hako9 (talk) 09:49, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Her brother is arrested and her residence was raided by Narcotics Control Bureau.Sanjiv74 (talk) 10:01, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

@Sanjiv74: Read WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLPCRIME, WP:LPI. - hako9 (talk) 10:12, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Righting great wrongs

WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS

Wikipedia is a popular site, and its articles often appear high in search engine rankings. You might think that it is a great place to set the record straight and right great wrongs, but that's not the case. We can record the righting of great wrongs, but we can't ride the crest of the wave because we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it. So, if you want to:

• Expose a popular artist as a child molester; or
• Vindicate a convicted murderer you believe to be innocent; or
• Explain (what you perceive to be) the truth or reality of a current or historical political, religious, or moral issue, or
• Spread the word about a theory/hypothesis/belief/cure-all herb that has been unfairly neglected or suppressed by the scholarly community;

on Wikipedia, you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media or published in books from reputable publishing houses. Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead; we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them.

Only strengthens my point. Think more than twice before accusing someone of anything.

WP:NOTNEWS : Why have a "media coverage" section?

WP:LPI : Only explains the diff between high and low profile individuals. Also, This page is intended to provide additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community.

A must Read for you all :WP:MOSBIO (Hint:This is not how you write a biography here.) Sanjiv74 (talk) 10:28, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

It is requested to remove sections:

1. Death of Sushant Singh Rajput (Highly inappropriate to add in someone's biography.Does not follow WP:MOSBIO)

2. Media coverage

from the biography page, as they prove to violate:

WP:IMPARTIAL

WP:CONDD

WP:BDP

WP:NOTPRESSRELEASE

WP:RECENTISM

WP:UNDUE

WP:BALASP

WP:BALANCE

WP:ASSERT

WP:WIKIVOICE

WP:MOSBIO (Not Followed)

WP:ADVOCACY

WP:BLPREMOVE

WP:OWNBEHAVIOR

by both the content itself and associated editors (applicable violations mentioned above). Sanjiv74 (talk) 13:21, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

Point by point:

1. Wikipedia is not engaging in the dispute, but describing it. Your implication here is that the topic of SSR's death is closer to the tactics the Bogdanovs and their opponents pulled. This argument is nonsensical.
2. CONDD has no bearing on article content except as a means of describing how consensus works on Wikipedia. This argument is nonsensical.
3. The claims made in the Death... section appear to me to be well-sourced, so WP:BLP (of which BDP is a part) is satisfied. This argument only has any sort of logical sense if you're rejecting sources out of hand. The Media coverage section's first half seems to rely entirely on the BBC source for the claims provided, so the BBC source needs to be cited for each.
4. The section is not written in such a way so as to look like a press release. In fact, if this were the sort of thing I saw on a press release for a company I ran, I'd likely fire the persons responsible. This argument is even stranger considering the most damning parts of it are either direct quotes (which need attribution) or heavily sourced.
5. The recentism argument is especially silly considering that most of the people demanding changes to this article are more guilty of this than the articles are, generally trying to cite half-baked news stories (and even then cherrypicking those sources) or Twitter. This argument is aimed at the wrong parties.
6. The UNDUE argument applies more to the "She killed SSR" conspiracy theories, and in any case considering this has become a cause celebre, and an ugly-looking one at that, I can't see how those sections at present violate UNDUE. I do agree that these sections might need to be forked into the Death of SSR article at some point, but not at present.
7. Her connexion to SSR/his death is at this point a fairly major aspect, so BALASP isn't relevant here for the same reasons as UNDUE isn't.
8. " " " "/" " " " " " " " " ", " BALANCE " " " " " " " " " ".
9. Whatever opinions are asserted are as quotes that should be attributed, but even without the attribution it is clear that the opinions are not in Wikipedia's voice. Everything that is a matter of facts has been cited. This argument is nonsensical.
10. WIKIVOICE is a rerun of most of the arguments presented in re opinions/balance, and thus fails for the same reasons those do.
11. Name the specific section of MOSBIO being violated. I'll be more willing to buy this argument if you explain how it's being violated, and not just that it is. Details are important, especially on an article that we now know has been targeted by a sockpuppeteer.
12. I do not see where either of these sections are engaging in advocacy, other than quoting people who're complaining in news sources about how this has played out.
13. The "unsourced" claims in the Media coverage section has been addressed above.
14. WP:OWN is a bad argument to make given the context here. We'd love to remove the protection, but given there appears to be a concerted effort to use Wikipedia to advance murder conspiracy theories...

This help? Your arguments are not particularly great. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 13:53, 8 September 2020 (UTC)

She is only arrested, not convicted. At least wait for the supreme court's verdict. She's already suffering a lot of abuses from public. Please remove the line for sake of humanity this is so cruel07:22, 9 September 2020 (UTC)Pyropic (talk)

Nowhere in the article does it say she was convicted (and given the attention hako9's been giving the article there's no way in hell the article would say anything of the sort without ironclad sources). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Hasteur Hasteur Ha-- oh....} 07:31, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Just dont talk abt her arrest please... until court decides for sake of whatever good she did, plzzz if you have a bit of respect for her and mercy 07:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)07:40, 9 September 2020 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pyropic (talk • contribs)