Talk:Maripily Rivera

This article was nominated for deletion on 30 December 2013 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep.

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: Arts and Entertainment

	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 arts and entertainment work group.

Puerto Rico Low‑importance

	Puerto Rico portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Puerto Rico, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to Puerto Rico 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.Puerto RicoWikipedia:WikiProject Puerto RicoTemplate:WikiProject Puerto RicoPuerto Rico articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Edit to remove "weakly justified allegation"

Regarding this followed by this by @Mercy11:, basically, it's a WP:BLP issue.

I removed "The public has largely expressed that she married Alomar for money, a question she evaded as she exited divorce court." because it seemed like the source (which states, via machine translation of this version, "Also, she evaded reacting to the public's opinion that she married for money and that she made sure to receive a good deal after her divorce.") did not support the allegation that the public "largely expressed" anything. There may be a linguistic misunderstanding, but to me the source is saying that the opinion is held by the public, not expressed by the public. (You can have a belief without expressing that belief.) And that it is definitely not clear what fraction of the public actually has this belief. To lend credibility to the statement of what the public believes, the reporter could have explained why this is true; perhaps how they asked many people, or that they had been told this many times, or had been covering the story for a long time and came to this conclusion. Since we don't have that, the source is weak. More generally, a bare assertion that the public believes something salacious about a living person seems inappropriate given the instruction that gossip should generally be avoided.

Also, the source doesn't literally say that she evaded a question that was presently being asked, but rather says she avoided addressing the opinion held by the public. (If nobody asked her directly, it is not evasion to say nothing.) And bear in mind my understanding of the situation comes mainly from reading the article and the source, so if she actually did evade, then I'd prefer that we cite a source that clearly establishes that.

And regarding Mercy11's statement in the edit summary that "Next time it might help if a search is first performed for the original cite", observe that my original edit added the archive-url parameter to the source in question, so I believe that that objection can be dispensed with. TheFeds 07:07, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think this should stay removed. I agree with TheFeds here. That she largely married for money is what the public believes is not properly sourced. How was the survey done? What public? The Eloquent Peasant (talk) 11:25, 16 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Without going into endless arguments, I do agree with some of the statements above but strongly disagree with others. We should, however, always grant the benefit of the doubt to the individual when the subject of the article is alive, so I'll go along with your views in the generality. My bad if TheFeds had already looked up --and posted-- the archived copy of the newspaper article in question, which I must have somehow missed, yet I still went out of my way to look it up and post it myself as evidence. Best regards, Mercy11 (talk) 00:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]