Talk:Natasha Mazzone

This article has been mentioned by a media organization:

Staff reporter (16 April 2021). "DA's Mazzone slams claim she lied about her qualifications". The Citizen.

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.

This page is about a politician who is running for office or has recently run for office, is in office and campaigning for re-election, or is involved in some current political conflict or controversy. For that reason, this article is at increased risk of biased editing, talk-page trolling, and simple vandalism.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography: Politics and Government

	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
	This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

South Africa Mid‑importance

	South Africa portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa 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.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Wiki Loves Women

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wiki Loves Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women in Africa 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.Wiki Loves WomenWikipedia:WikiProject Wiki Loves WomenTemplate:WikiProject Wiki Loves WomenWiki Loves Women
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Women

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women 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.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

Natasha Mazzone.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed academic qualifications

Hi Lefcentreright and Dumbassman, in order to avoid edit wars it is always good practice to discuss or vote. I think there are two aspect here, the first is the allegations that Mazzone has been accused of lying about her qualifications and the second is the fact that after this revelation her Wikipedia account was quickly edited to remove that she is an advocate, whether both issues are true or not, I think this needs to be acknowledged that there has been allegations like these because this is so notable such that it brought her into public attention. And although I acknowledge that it's hard to prove that someone has edited their own Wikipedia article, I would like to point out that looking at the history of this article there has been one Natasha Michael who is also known as Natasha Mazzone who added heavy content in this article kindly see |this link for reference. Bobbyshabangu _talk 11:59, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, @Bobbyshabangu:. I've been following the whole story since Friday. First of all, Natasha has never claimed to an advocate. Politicsweb proved this in a string of tweets on Friday. What happened is that in October 2020 a long-term abuse anonymous editor added to the infobox that she was an "advocate", "attorney", and "public speaker", despite this not being the case. Admins and vandalism fighters did not pick this up. On 4 February 2021 an account called 'Libdem94' changed or "corrected" her profession/occupation. However, an anonymous editor on 8 February 2021 (see here) changed it back to Advocate. Now, on Thursday, an anonymous editor changed her occupation to "None" and that's where the nonsense started. Mazzone was then accused by "Jimmy" Manyi and Brett Herron of editing her Wikipedia article and it just snowballed. Also, even if this edit |this link was added by her, she didn't add that she has a degree or is an advocate.

Now, the reason you got reverted by Dumbassman and I is because you added your own opinion in the mix. This edit is unacceptable and untrue. The references which you used News24, SABC, and IOL, say something completely different to what you added.

The correct thing to say was "In April 2021, DA Western Cape leader, Bonginkosi Madikizela, was suspended for having lied on his CV. Mazzone's Wikipedia article was then edited to remove the word 'Advocate' from her infobox. She was then accused of editing the Wikipedia article about her to remove the word from the infobox, which was added by a long-term abuse anonymous editor. She denied editing her article to remove the word and denied having a law degree. She insisted that she only had matric." or something like that. I'm pinging @Dumbassman: for his observation. Best, LefcentrerightDiscuss 14:31, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Lefcentreright, even though I am not as well versed in this event as you, I share your observation. Bobbyshabangu you misrepresent the sources used, and only inserted the URL instead of proper referencing. Kind regards Rossouw (talk) 15:21, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

One of the reasons we ware Wikipedians is to improve Wikipedia content, thanks for improving the article by inserting proper referencing. Bobbyshabangu _talk 15:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Lefcentreright: I would like to also highlight that I've also been following this story very closely. So, I would also like to point out that as Wikipedians we need to take a neutral point of view, and refrain from being biased towards certain political parties even if we voted for them. I don't think the version you've written is entirely true, however I'm not going to argue with that because the truth is IOL, News 24, Politicsweb are all media publications which are pushing a certain agenda. My point is, the events that are taking place right now around this politician are notable to be added as part of her Wikipedia page. Removing them completely sends the message that we as Wikipedians are being complicit to the political propaganda that is taking place. The fact is "there are allegations of fake academic records levelled against Mazzone", whether this is true or not, I don't know but what I know is that this needs to be part of the article. Being emotional by using words like "nonsense" sends a message that we are part of the DA propaganda or paid somehow to do a PR exercise on this individual.Bobbyshabangu _talk 15:30, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Bobbyshabangu: I agree with you that we can't just leave the allegations out. The allegations have been made and they have been covered by major newspapers and should be added to the article in a neutral and impartial manner. Mazzone's shouldn't be whitewashed, like what happened at Kamala Harris' Wikipedia article last year (See here: Someone is working very hard to dress up Kamala Harris' Wikipedia page, report finds). I have added the allegations in the section Natasha Mazzone#2021 Wikipedia article qualifications controversy. I believe it covers both sides of the event. Please just read over it and if you feel like I left something out, add it. Best, LefcentrerightDiscuss 17:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This issue is still a hot topic.^[1] I'm not sure how much of it will continue to be about WP. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@ I've actually abandon editing this article because I feel Wikipedians here are protecting this politician instead of stating facts. The fact is there's been allegations raised by the GOOD party that she lied about her qualifications on her Wikipedia page (full-stop), but Wikipedians went out of their way to write in a way that clearly vindicates this politician and that is not neutral, we all didn't now about her until such allegations were raised, this fact is of public interest, so it needs its own section not a sub-section hidden away in the article which is not even written in a neutral stand point. However to avoid edit wars, I decided to leave it at that. Bobbyshabangu _talk 03:15, 24 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing where anyone has gone out of their way to protect this politician. Yes, the allegation was made, but it appears no evidence was presented to back up the allegation. The assertion that having it as a subsection hides it away is frankly ludicrous. As if it were buried in the text of an unrelated paragraph somewhere.

References

^ Gerber, Jan (21 April 2021). "DA responds after GOOD pens open letter seeking clarification on Mazzone's qualifications". News24. Retrieved 22 April 2021.

[1] Gerber, Jan (21 April 2021). "DA responds after GOOD pens open letter seeking clarification on Mazzone's qualifications". News24. Retrieved 22 April 2021.

[1]