Talk:Peter Navarro

message: Why is the editor deleting an active discussion?  I do not understand.  The editor did NOT discuss before deleting an active discussion.  Does the editor need help understanding the discussion rules.  Why did the editor not seek consensus? Karagory (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: These are years old discussion sections being archived by the bot. They are not remotely active discussions. MrOllie (talk) 17:22, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: These are active discussions using previous thoughts and opinions.  The editor specifically told the auto-bot to remove the thoughts and opinions.  Why did the editor take it upon him/herself to delete material that the editor knew was under active discussion without seeking consensus?  Why does the editor not try and seek consensus NOW, BEFORE deleting material?  Karagory (talk) 17:26, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: They have been inactive for YEARS. MrOllie (talk) 17:30, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I am adding updated references as they occur.  How is that not helpful?  What is the editor doing besides disparaging my attempt to make a more up to date article?  I not not understand the editor's actions and negativity.  Karagory (talk) 17:33, 14 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active discussion is being deleted (archived) - Part 2 

message: An editor just deleted an RS-supported mention of his notable attorney being his attorney. Apparently due to the editor's private personal view that that is not of interest.
It's widely covered by RSs. RSs deem it notable. The lawyer is notable. The RSs trump any person who is simply making a bland assertion in the face of that. It should be re-added. 2603:7000:2101:AA00:840F:B200:4CE4:7AE9 (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia isn't for posting trivia. A RS happening to mention or quote a lawyer is not the same thing as 'RSs deem it notable'. We don't include every factoid that can be sourced just because it can be sourced. MrOllie (talk) 23:53, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously, it's not for posting trivia. But trivia is "he came to the courthouse wearing a blue blazer." Not, "he is being represented by the following Wikipedia-notable attorney." That's not close to a reasonable assertion. Hopefully someone else will weigh in here. Or let's invite admins or others to take a look. Calling this a factoid is not close to real-world. --2603:7000:2101:AA00:840F:B200:4CE4:7AE9 (talk) 23:57, 22 June 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Someone's attorney is not notable in and of itself. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of attorneys he could have selected. His attorney is not part of his notability, and that's usually the case. If his attorney was possibly implicated in a related crime (such as Trump's attorney Michael Cohen), that might be worth mentioning. But that's not the case here. As for "inviting admins", opinions of administrators on Wikipedia don't carry any more weight than yours or mine. Unless there's vandalism involved (clearly not the case), you're spinning your wheels inviting admins. Not to mention raising problems of WP:FORUMSHOPPING and WP:CANVASSING. Sundayclose (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deletion 

message: To add to this article: Navarro's ethnic heritage. Is he of at least partly Hispanic ancestry? How could we claim this article to be encyclopedic if such basic information is omitted? 173.88.246.138 (talk) 00:45, 8 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  To add to article 

message: He is described as a "convicted felon."  His conviction is for a misdemeanor, contempt of Congress. 70.79.141.252 (talk) 02:33, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed that as well, and reverted the addition. TJRC (talk) 03:08, 19 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Navarro's conviction