Talk:Saule Omarova

TJ Max Shop Lifting Arrest

May 19th 1995 TJ Max, Westgate Mall, Madison, Wisconsin, Omarova (aged 28 years old) was arrested for retail theft: Madison Police Dept. Case Number 199500008529... Socks, shoes (4 pairs), perfume (2 bottles), belts (x2), to a value of $213.53.

Recent changes

@KidAd: Let’s try to discuss this shall we [1]? As I already told you, making a bold change and then edit warring by saying ever heard of MOS:JOBTITLE? Give it a read and then gain consensus for your changes per WP:ONUS and is not very conducive to a good conversation, but perhaps today is another day for you, at least I hope.

Anyway, your edits are incorrect on two counts:

• This infobox we are using here is {{Infobox candidate}}, which is outlined at Template:Infobox officeholder § Nominee/candidate. As you will see there, the relevant parameter for the name of the office to which the subject has been nominated is "nominee", and not "office". This is not a "back-end" problem: as you have probably seen, the infobox experienced a weird changes as a result of your changes, as it went from saying "Nominee for Comptroller of the Currency" to "Comptroller of the Currency - Nominee", which is less clear. Also, you have introduced a parameter "term_start", which you have populated with "TBA". This makes no sense at all. If you read the article beyond the lead, you will have seen that her confirmation is not certain at all. TBA gives the impression that she has been confirmed, and that the date on which she will start is the only thing that has to be determined, which is—again—not the case here.
• You have removed the capital letters to Comptroller of the Currency, which is now written as "comptroller of the currency". You were kind enough to leave a helpful message saying ever heard of MOS:JOBTITLE? Give it a read. Well, I have read it, and it says nothing that would support your changes. The guidance says that Offices, titles, and positions that are common nouns should be in lower case. I don't really know what your point is here? In any case, it's pretty clear that "Comptroller of the Currency" is not a common noun by any stretch, so it should be capitalized.

JBchrch talk 12:51, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

This will be the last time I explain this to you. If you have further questions, I suggest you visit the WP:TEAHOUSE. "Infobox candidate" is indistinguishable from "infobox politician" or "infobox judge." They are all based off "infobox officeholder." The office parameter is for naming the office a person holds or will hold (Member of the U.S. House of Representatives, Vice President of the United States, etc.) The status parameter is for listing the status of an officeholder if they have been nominated. In Omavara's case, she has been nominated officially but not yet confirmed by the United States Senate. When she is confirmed, the "status" parameter will be eliminated and it will say "incumbent" in her infobox. Per MOS:JOBTITLE, Comptroller of the Currency is written in lower-case because "comptroller" and "currency" are not proper nouns. Neither is president of the United States or United States senator. KidAd • SPEAK 16:15, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• @KidAd: I thought a picture might help you out. Kindly double check and revert. JBchrch talk 16:34, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

• "Example for candidate template"? She isn't a political candidate. She is a nominee to serve in a role. I don't plan on reverting, but I'm sure you know what happens when you violate WP:3RR. KidAd • SPEAK 16:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

@KidAd: See Template:Infobox officeholder § Nominee/candidate which links to a section entitled Nominee/candidate, where you see this particular image. Honestly, get real for a sec here. And the Commons description is now changed if you insist lmao. JBchrch talk 17:04, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Take all your questions to WP:TEAHOUSE. Someone there will help you. KidAd • SPEAK 17:13, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Nah thanks I'm going to Template talk:Infobox officeholder if needed. By the way if you need some tutoring with WP:INDENT, let me know. JBchrch talk 17:18, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

Well that didn't take long. Going to Template talk:Infobox officeholder was a decent idea. I suggest you try it instead of digging a deeper hole for yourself. KidAd • SPEAK 17:28, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure what is unclear about Template:Infobox officeholder#Nominee/candidate or how it renders. Showing "Nominee" after the office is just awkward and does not conform to the documentation. – Jonesey95 (talk) 17:57, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

TJMSmith, do you have thoughts on this? Also, Caveman Caveman Caveman, as the editor who first expanded the original "officeholder" infobox here. KidAd • SPEAK 18:38, 3 November 2021 (UTC)

 Comment: I have started an RfC that will affect this use of the template. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 08:03, 27 November 2021 (UTC)

Lenin's Personal Scholarship was NOT personal

Lenin's Personal Scholarship was not personal. All full-time university students in the USSR received a monthly allowance (called a stipend in Russia) based on their grades: minimum 40 rubles a month if you don't fail any subject in the last semester, 50 roubles if you don't have any 3s (i.e. if get all 5s and 4s i.e. As and Bs), 60 rubles if you get all 5s (i.e. As). If you get only As for a certain period of time (a year if I remember correctly) then you get the Lenin's allowance, 90 rubles. I know because I was a recipient of such scholarship. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.154.18.108 (talk) 20:09, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Bias source for reason to withdraw from OCC lead

The current sentence use the word "maligned" which indicate something done with malice for which we have no proof it is the case. Additionally it is failing to mention that moderate democrats were also unfavorable to her nomination. Furthermore the article used as source (New York Times) is biased AND hidden behind a paywall. I initially made an update removing this altogether with concern regarding Wikipedia NPOV policy. I then later made an update to re-add the reason for withdrawing using an apparently unbiased article (no assumption of malice and adding moderate democrats were unfavorable as well), from a reputable source without a paywall.

The old sentence and article was once again added back by TrangaBellam with the mention that bias sources are ok with regard to NOPV policy.

I'm a bit surprise by this statement. Do we not care about source neutrality when such an unbias source is available? This doesn't seem right. If we allow this kind of biased source, can I then add Republican senator speech about his reason to distrust Saule Omarova. What about a Fox article mentioning her early life in 1995 where she stole $200+ of goods in a T.J. Maxx?

Anonymous 5726221 (talk) 17:38, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

— — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anonymous 5726221 (talk • contribs) 17:06, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

TrangaBellam sent me this link as an explanation why the biased source is ok with the reson "Source can be biased": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BIASEDSOURCE

To which I replied:

"The above link doesn't address my point that there are unbiased sources which include more details than the currently biased source cited. Even if there was the same level of information, why not choose the unbiased source when possible? Here's a quote from the article you linked "non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject". In this case we're discussing the reason for her withdrawal which is push back from Republicans and some moderate Democrats (which the bias source omit completely). I believe the bias of this source isn't helping the article on the contrary it is omitting important information and for this reason I believe the source and associated text should be change.

I will copy this discussion in Saule Omarova talk page and will once again leave you a few days to give me a good reason why we should leave this biased source up instead of an unbiased one with more information."

I will be updating the article to replace the biased source by an unbiased one unless someone as any reasonable objection why we shouldn't.

Anonymous 5726221 (talk) 17:05, 27 December 2021 (UTC)