Talk:Nathan Lean

Nathan Lean

Professor of Religion specializing in Islam and Islamophobia at North Carolina State University. Interested in editing help and ideas. Thanks. 1969camaro12121966 (talk) 22:44, 6 July 2026 (UTC)

i removed the "controversy section" which was poorly sourced: 1 source was a conservative think tank and 1 source was a "Breaking news" article from Forbes. for a biography of a living person, especially for negative content, we need better sourcing than that.

please read WP:CSECTION; we typically avoid sections that focus on controversy/criticism in biographies.

please also read MOS:TERRORIST; we typically avoid using the word terrorist; in this case the source you cited doesn't even use that word. Rainsage (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

What better source did you add? 1969camaro12121966 (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

If you are left wing and don't like right wing think tanks, wouldn't it be important to provide that to prove the veracity of the professor's teaching? I think so. 1969camaro12121966 (talk) 17:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

Sorry, you being any person, not you personally. My bad for the poor wording. 1969camaro12121966 (talk) 17:41, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

please read the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. we need to support info about living people, particularly negative info, with multiple, reliable sources. Rainsage (talk) 17:54, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I didn't think this was negative. I thought the sources appropriate and leave the reader to consider whether the professors's teaching is valid or the person attacking him is. I neither inferred nor implied a personal opinion. The source is not inflammatory, and I thought must be given so a reader could know about it. The controversy section could benefit the professor or be negative toward him depending on whether a reader agrees with the professor or the "opponent." Without this we are left with writing biased articles about people, No? 1969camaro12121966 (talk) 18:40, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

if you want to cover negative information about a living person, you need to use multiple, high quality sources. to give the full picture, you would ideally use sources that represent all significant points of view on the topic. the sources you used don't cut it. Rainsage (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

I read it. We disagree about the citation quality. 1969camaro12121966 (talk) 18:43, 13 July 2026 (UTC)

AI usage

Concerns have been raised about myself about AI usage. This is the talk page to discuss it. RossEvans19 (talk) 00:03, 7 July 2026 (UTC)