Talk:Jasmina Vujic

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.

Biography: Science and Academia

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Women scientists

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women scientists, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women in science on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women scientistsWikipedia:WikiProject Women scientistsTemplate:WikiProject Women scientistsWomen scientists articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

June 2020 content dispute

Heading added ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the reference to this person's connection to the Dveri party without further discussion. The article cited is well-researched and certainly should not be removed without further discussion or cited counter-points directly in the article. Iangcarroll (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Dveri claim in the article cited is unsubstantiated and potentially in violation of Wikipedia policy, which states that "the onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content." Therefore, please do not add this unsubstantiated claim back again. Data L!nk (talk) 20:06, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have included a source from a reputable investigative publication -- can you please provide a detail on why you believe it is not substantiated? Happy to discuss specific points. Iangcarroll (talk) 21:19, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This message seems to refer to [1] from Special:Diff/970507643. The relevant entry at WP:RSP#The_Daily_Beast might be interesting for the discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 21:34, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you ToBeFree. As the Reliable Sources page you cite mentions: "Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." Wikipedia's caution advised regarding this source is clear and noted in this discussion.

To respond to Iangcarroll: Rather than engage in the Contradiction form of disagreement, I would like to focus solely on the evidence and source reliability. The Daily Beast is a questionable source and the article does not link to evidence to support its claims. At one point the article cites "social media postings" to support its claims, however, according to Wikipedia's Verifiability standards, "social media postings are largely not acceptable as sources." If there is other evidence beyond the Daily Beast article to support such claims, I respectfully request that evidence here so that we can evaluate and reach consensus.Data L!nk (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's worth noting that your link calls the Daily Beast generally reliable (the highest status attainable), and that's just a warning caveat. It's not reasonable to expect a primary news source to cite articles like Wikipedia articles; even the New York Times would not do this, because it is generally recognized that their articles are backed by extensive research.

If we are in need of more primary sources, a comprehensive source may be this document, which cites 35 different external sources tying the professor to Dvari and the political beliefs of the party. Among them, there is a report (p. 415) by the Helsinki Committee for Human Rights in Serbia documenting Vujic's ties to anti-LGBT efforts alongside Dvari, links to Serbian news articles describing her elected position, and there are numerous photos and videos of Vujic holding her elected position, standing alongside Dvari politicians, or advocating her far-right views in alignment with her party.

In my opinion, there are easily enough primary sources to add this to the page. I would appreciate understanding if there is a bar you would like this to meet, as it seems you are disagreeing without providing a reasonable alternative or threshold that would allow this to be published. Iangcarroll (talk) 01:55, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't add primary sources, but the Daily Beast, a secondary source, should be OK. The fact that this collection of NPOV-primary sources are consistent with the Daily Beast reporting is an indication that the Daily Beast account is probably accurate: The subject is probably a ranking member of the Dvari party, and has described homosexuality as harmful. The Serbian news source, while in Serbian, is also an NPOV-secondary source for some of these claims. Mcfnord (talk) 04:52, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]