This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page.

Jonathan Fletcher, a living Church of England clergyman, is facing allegations of abuse and been suspended, in effect, but has not been convicted. A recenty created article fails to give the benefit of the doubt to him. Nedrutland (talk) 20:24, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I have removed in 2 separate edits the lede and section. As its an acussation, it does not seem to meet the burden of WP:BLP. It is possible a briefer version would be acceptable but the lede statement would not be. Also not sure they are actually notable beyond this one event that likely should not be on wikipedia.Slywriter (talk) 20:34, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I see it's already been mightily trimmed down. I've added it to my watchlist, and I'm pondering AFD. Thanks to those who trimmed. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:36, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I can see why you cut as you did and why you're considering AFD. He's a significant, but not central, figure within a certain strand of Evangelical Anglican Christianity that was more important in the 80s and 90s than it is today. Without these allegations he would be less significant than his older brother David who doesn't have an article. You can get some idea of the general background from the article at Titus Trust. The allegations themselves have been very widely reported in a range of reliable sources, but as you note never rose to the level of formal charges, and all actions taken so far have been internal church measures. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:12, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I don't see any alternative to AfD. He's not a public figure and once you strip out the WP:BLPCRIME material there's essentially nothing left. --RaiderAspect (talk) 13:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Article creator here again - I respectfully disagree. There is significant coverage of the subject in a number of reliable sources, and an independent review confirmed he was engaged in abusive behaviour. This has to make him notable. Ephesians511 (talk) 16:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Nominated at AfD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:36, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I have removed references to JF from Anne Atkins and Emmanuel Church, Wimbledon. Nedrutland (talk) 21:56, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Given the text of the passage ("Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.") I think we can assume that Ephesians511 is principally here to right great wrongs. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 22:07, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, article creator here... firstly, the subject attracted considerable coverage in multiple reliable sources (including major non-tabloid newspapers, not just church ones) over a period of almost two years, which should establish notability. I felt an article under the subject's name rather than "Jonathan Fletcher abuse scandal" was more appropriate, as, prior to the scandal, he was an important figure who was known far beyond his own church. This was mentioned in many of the references I cited. I don't think WP:BLP1E applies as the event (ie the abuse scandal) was significant, as demonstrated by the large amount of press coverage. Secondly, regarding neutrality and WP:BLP issues, I would point out that the subject himself admitting to carrying out beatings, and I cited a source and quoted an extract to make that clear. In addition, a detailed independent review concluded that the behaviour occurred and constituted serious abuse. Again, I cited this and quoted an extract, which included the fact that the subject has not been criminally charged or convicted. This is a slightly unusual case in that someone has committed abuse towards adults but the police have not considered it to be a criminal matter. None of the sources suggest that the abuse did not happen. There are different types of wrongdoing (including abuse) and not everything is criminal. In these circumstances, I think it would contravene MOS:ALLEGED to use words like "alleged", as they create doubt which does not exist (according to the sources). I did try hard to make sure I presented everything from a NPOV and every sentence had a reference to a reliable source. I will await responses before editing the article. Ephesians511 (talk) 23:09, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

As no-one has responded to my comment above, I will do some editing on the article. I plan to return it largely to how it was, but to address the issues identified by others. Ephesians511 (talk)

You should not do that. See all of the discussion above, and read WP:BLPCRIME. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:32, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, you reverted my changes whilst I was mid-edit. Please could you give me the chance to fix the article. Regarding the content in the lede you reverted, it said

In 2019, it was reported that complaints of "spiritual abuse" and "naked beatings" had been made against him. Whilst he was not charged with, or found guilty of, any criminal offences, an independent review published in 2021 found that he had engaged in a range of harmful behaviours.

That was a good faith attempt to fix the concerns identified above. The first sentence about complaints were referenced with articles in the Daily Telegraph and Church Times, both reliable sources. The second sentence included a clear statement that there was no criminality involved (so BLP:CRIME is not engaged. However, an independent review from a recognised safeguarding charity found the subject was "engaged in a range of harmful behaviours" and that has to count as a reliable source. Overall, I believe the lede represented the sources from a NPOV. Ephesians511 (talk) 17:09, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

They are accusations of criminal conduct against a person who is otherwise not notable. If the only reliable secondary sources you can find deal with the accusations then the article should not even exist, and the accusations certainly should not be in the article while it's waiting for deletion. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I am shocked at the failure to understand BLP shown here. Stop all the whitewashing. This deletion of properly-sourced content is especially worrying. (Here's a small part of it and this isn't all the abuse:

It is only "unsourced" negative content that is a BLP concern, not such properly-sourced content. I see a concerted effort to delete properly sourced content about his proven abuses. The parallels to a similar article are interesting, and it is also undergoing whitewashing: John Smyth (barrister). These deletions are improper and reveal an abuse of BLP. We are supposed to document these things if they are mentioned in more than a couple RS, and they certainly are. See WP:Public figure. -- Valjean (talk) 17:22, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree that a vicar meets the threshold for being a public figure. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The number of RS dealing with this makes him a notable public figure. Without that he's just a public figure. This isn't just about one event, but a pattern of abuse over many years. -- Valjean (talk) 17:25, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources don't make someone a public figure, they make someone notable. Someone with a high rank in the clergy, or a position as a spokesperson would be a public figure, but being the vicar of a parish doesn't meet that bar. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

People also become notable for other reasons than their position. This man's long pattern of abuse made him notable. We're not dealing with someone notable only for a single event. That would be different. -- Valjean (talk) 17:34, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Alleged long pattern of abuse, which is allegations with no convictions against someone who isn't a public figure or otherwise notable. That's the kind of thing we don't document. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:40, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Convictions are not always necessary, especially when other investigations have proven the abuse. Even if there were no such evidence, the fact that the accusations have been so public makes this a matter covered by the principle behind WP:Public figure, and the air should be cleared by exposure of the facts, not burying and whitewashing them. That's what we do here. This is part of the "sum total of human knowledge" we are supposed to document, as long as it's found in RS, and this is. -- Valjean (talk) 17:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

That's not how being a public figure works. A public figure is a person, such as a politician, celebrity, social media personality, or business leader, who has a certain social position within a certain scope and a significant influence and so is often widely of concern to the public, can benefit enormously from society, and is closely related to public interests in society. A local vicar is does meet that threshold. I know that quote is from Wikipedia, and thus isn't reliable, so there's also A public figure, according to Gertz v. Robert Welch, is an individual who has assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of a society or thrust themselves into the forefront of particular public controversies to influence the resolution of the issues involved. Public figures also include individuals who have achieved pervasive fame or notoriety.[1] ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

That his "career" was impacted by the allegations does need to be documented, but there's far far too much detail and pull quotes to support that section, particularly with the unclear conclusion that was made. There's maybe a 3-4 sentence paragraph from all that, not the major section there. --Masem (t) 17:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It's currently difficult to assess this because of all the whitewashing going on. Lots of properly sourced content has been removed. Whitewashing is one of the most egregious types of NPOV violation there is. It needs to stop. How we deal with the accusations, the findings that document the offenses, etc. is a matter for us to deal with, but deletion of the article isn't a proper resolution, and neither is the complete hagiography we see now. -- Valjean (talk)

The only RS I see is one Telegraph article. --Masem (t) 17:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

That's because of the whitewashing. Just this one diff (then deleted in a gross act of whitewashing, so check the next diff) shows other RSes. -- Valjean (talk) 17:52, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Valjean, If you have an accusation to make then make it at ANI. There was no white washing. There was complying with WP:BLPCRIME and WP:DUE. Now kindly stick to the topic and not make another acussation of other editors motives, especially clueless and uninformed ones as you have done several times in this thread and AfD. Slywriter (talk) 17:56, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Wow! Don't personalize this. Whitewashing is a commonly used description for deletions of properly-sourced content and sources when it leaves only one side of the issue visible, and the article looks like a hagiography. That's also a violation of NPOV. Motives do not have to be an issue, just different understandings of how to apply policies, and that's what we're discussing here. So please stick to content and not the motives of editors. -- Valjean (talk) 18:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It's a loaded term that implies intentional censorship, but we will go with your definition of relating it to content. Regardless, the article looks like a hagiography because he shouldn't have an article in the first place and the only BLP compliant information is rather boring and unencyclopedic details.Slywriter (talk) 18:38, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I was looking at the RSes in that diff, but I see there's more sources outside of that diff from the Telegraph that relate to it. But the PDFs are definitely not RSes in terms of "wide coverage" aspects here. The only source we have covering this is the Telegraph at this point, even with multiple articles. --Masem (t) 18:01, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Walking With's home page clearly makes them self-published (and with an axe to grind). Anything to do with them, negative or otherwise, is completely out per WP:BLPSPS. FDW777 (talk) 18:03, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Livingchurch.org [2] also doesn't seem to be acceptable for claims about a BLP. The Christian Today source[3] is identified as commentary. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:12, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The Final Review is certainly a RS.^[1] We could easily source it to Thirtyone:eight, which is "the UK's only independent Christian safeguarding charity." Lessons learnt review concerning Jonathan Fletcher and Emmanuel Church Wimbledon . -- Valjean (talk) 18:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The Final Review is the equivalent of a judicial document and while we can use that to state a final conclusion (such as if they convicted him), we should not be sourcing that without help of a reliable third party to make claims about SPS. That charity is not a reliable RS for that purpose. We'd want something like the Telegraph to quote the Final Review to include such quotes within our article, otherwise it allows WP editors to pick and chose language to make the BLP as ugly or as clean as they want. --Masem (t) 18:26, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

That's correct. -- Valjean (talk) 18:29, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't see how an "independent review" cannot be a reliable source in these circumstances. It's not self-published, either - the website that hosts it is not the author. And any extract has to be an accurate summary of what it concluded. But was picked up by the media, and I can add cites for that. Ephesians511 (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

You cannot use any documents hosted by self-published sources for claims about living people. FDW777 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

@FDW777: This is not true, see WP:BLPSELFPUB. ––FormalDude talk 18:37, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is true in the current context. Since the websites in question are not run by Fletcher, they cannot be used for any claims about him. FDW777 (talk) 19:11, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, we'd need to find a secondary RS and summarize what they say about it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:13, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The press releases in PDF format are from the church and diocese, which count as reliable primary sources, allowed under WP:PRIMARY point 3. They support the secondary sources from major news media (Church Times as well as Telegraph, I have others to add). The independent review is a reliable secondary source, no matter what website it is on. 18:24, 28 January 2022 (UTC)Ephesians511 (talk)

Also, I found a better quote from the review (p.89) which is crystal clear: (emphasis mine)

From the evidence-gathering process of this Review, it is clear that JF engaged in a range of harmful behaviours that have been experienced by a number of people, through demonstrative accounts including a serious sexual act performed in front of another person, spiritual abuse, bullying, coercion and control, naked massages and saunas, and forfeits including smacking with a gym shoe and ice baths. The impact of these behaviours on a number of individuals has understandably caused great harm and many will live with this impact in the long-term.

I did include that in my edit today that got reverted.

Also note that BLP:CRIME is not involved. That doesn't mean we can't include the above finding of harm/abuse as it comes from a WP:RS. As far as WP:DUE is concerned, all the sources are about the subject's abuse. I was planning to include a statement from him to give full balance, but it's hard to edit when your work keeps getting reverted! Ephesians511 (talk) 18:27, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOR does not operate in isolation from WP:BLP. If BLP says something can't be used, that's it, period. FDW777 (talk) 18:33, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

I cannot see how anything I have ever added to this article amounted to original research. Some BLP concerns had been identified which I was going to fix before this edit war started.Ephesians511 (talk) 18:41, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

What?! You are the editor who said allowed under WP:PRIMARY point 3. WP:PRIMARY is part of WP:NOR. FDW777 (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Per WP:BLPUNDEL, I have repaired the content that ScottishFinnishRadish removed for BLP objections. I believe my version is policy compliant. ––FormalDude talk 18:35, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  I think the Christian Today source is a no-go, as it's clearly labeled as commentary, and Livingchurch.org does not seem to be an acceptable source for claims about a BLP. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:46, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Just so others know, those sources were not part of the BLP objections, they were just additional sources I added afterwards.

  @ScottishFinnishRadish: I'll remove the Christian Today source due to being op-ed. I'll need some evidence as to why The Living Church is not acceptable, as it seems reliable and independent. ––FormalDude talk 18:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  This doesn't inspire confidence about livingchurch.org. No editorial or fact checking policy, and a definite non-news objective. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  This says As publishers, teachers, and servant leaders, we pledge ourselves to produce excellent independent news reporting, incisive commentary, and edifying scholarship for a broad audience of thoughtful Christians. It seems to me they're a well-established publisher. It doesn't look like The Living Church has ever been discussed at WP:RSN, so we may wish to do that. ––FormalDude talk 19:15, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  And there's no visible difference between independent news reporting, incisive commentary, and edifying scholarship. There's no visible difference between this and this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:21, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  There is a visible difference, the former is tagged as news while the latter is tagged as a feature. ––FormalDude talk 19:58, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I only used the Christian Today ref to confirm that (1) the subject was an influential leader (2) the subject has an elder brother also in Christian ministry, and (3) that there were parallels with another related case of an abusive church leader. I can't see how that is problematic, and "commentary" is consistent with WP:SECONDARY - A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. It's not an WP:SPS and the author is a christian journalist so hopefully an expert. I never added livingchurch.org but it strikes me as a reliable secondary source Ephesians511 (talk) 19:02, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

• Regardless of sourcing, that writeup is definitely more appropriate to what should summarize the sources given the lack of more mainstream coverage. --Masem (t) 19:42, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

  Concur. I still think that the article should be deleted, but at least it's not a full-on hit piece now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:47, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

This is a continuation of my previous discussion.

It seems like sources like the Rolling Stone and Variety have started to use the supposed real name of Francis. Do you think it's safe to add? wizzito | say hello! 21:37, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Having had a look on Google news, it does appear to have been widely used by reliable sources. Not seeing a BLP issue including it. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:36, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

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

I think that the (wives and children) part in Mohammed bin Rashid Al Maktoum § Personal life is very poorly sourced and I don't think that's appropiate when listing this many living people. I'm not sure of the notability of the section anyway, especially when it leaves cells empty and says others details are unknown. I struggled finidng reliable sources that are this detailed in listing his wives and children, the only place where you can information that is this detailed is Wikipedia.

I'm here to flag the issue, it would be great if you could give me some details of what you think as I'm not too familiar with editing pages related to people.

Vyvagaba (talk) 03:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

List of stage names (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Re: Wikipedia's "List of stage names"

I have in my PC about 18000 stage names + birth names, i.e. approximately twice as much as are listed now on Wikipedia. What is the best way to upload this, because it would mean that the present list would have to be deleted.

Also, by uploading this list, which does include names of 'celebrities' that are deceased, there are a few things that would immediately be resolved, i.e. my list is purely alphabetical, whereas the Wikipedia list that is now viewable is not. It does not have an A or B or C list. It is one long list, alphabetically sorted on the surname of the celebrity's stage name, or when only one single name is used, this name is within the alphabetical order. Within the list that is shown at present on Wikipedia, there are a few mistakes. These do not appear in my list.

So, what can you recommend I should do ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Imthechief (talk • contribs) 15:23, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

It would be for the best if you added them to the existing list in small groups, making sure to cite each entry to a reliable source. Also, this should probably be discussed at Talk:List of stage names, rather than this noticeboard. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 15:28, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of sources, am I the only one concerned that the currently list is actually completely unsourced? Many of these may be sourced in articles, which of course isn't sufficient anyway, but I just removed one where the link is actually to a list i.e. the person is apparently not notable so the alleged birth name is unsurprisingly unsourced. This seems to be a major WP:BLPNAME risk to me. Nil Einne (talk) 19:58, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I gave up on list articles about 20 minutes after I started editing, except for the most blatant BLP issues. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:01, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Second ScottishFinnishRadish on list articles like this being pretty much unfixable, it took close to 100 edits over multiple years for me to get List of modern armament manufacturers purged and stable. Not sure its even a surmountable task with something as pop culture as stage names. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:07, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

While a lot of list articles, have problems IMO there's minor problems then there'a major problems. For example, I'd consider anything in list of modern armanent manufacturers a minor problem since I don't see how there can be any real BLP risk from that list. All lists which including living persons do have BLP risk, but there's a difference in severity.

There was a list of criminals or something that came up last year which is an obvious high risk. List of pornographic performers by decade is another one. That's also unsourced which isn't ideal but at least we removed most of the non notable ones. (The list is only blue links, but I wouldn't be surprised if some of them are redirects e.g. to lists like the one I removed.)

List of stage names seems to fit into the high risk category as well, and frankly IMO probably higher risk than the pornographic performers one when unsourced. If you've been dealing with BLP issues for a while, you've probably come across those who insist we need the birth/real name of people who use a pseudonym/stage name even when the sources aren't there. This can including trying to use trademark applications and other primary sources to prove the real name. Worse still are people using forums, shit like Porn Wikileaks and similar.

I wouldn't be surprised if a bunch of people have removed poorly sourced or unsourced real names from our articles on the person, not realising it persists in that list article. Requiring sources in the list wouldn't prevent poorly sourced additions, but at least barring those who lie about what their citations say, it would make it easier to glance through the list and look for obvious problems like that.

The example I removed is one where I feared this might be the case. Looking into it more the alleged birth name is on IMDB (as an alternative name) which has more info suggesting to to me our inclusion of the name was not that big a deal. However I'd be hardly surprised if there are bigger problems in the list and we shouldn't play any part no matter how small in the subculture dedicated to doxing/exposing the real names of people when it is not well established in reliable sources [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]

BTW, while my earlier examples involve (almost exclusively female) pornographic performers and similar where it tends to be a big problem it's not the only area where people for whatever reason prefer that their real names aren't associated with their stage name. I dealt with a case I think last year involving a notable singer where the name wasn't at the time well covered in reliable secondary sources. If the name is widely cited in reliable sources and they are notable, we probably can't help. But the issue is while the list is relying on citations in the linked articles, it very hard to see if there is a problem.

P.S. To be clear, I'm not saying most people adding such names are trying to dox or expose anyone. The problem is that this subculture exists which get the real name out there, and then well meaning people try to add it while not understanding our sourcing requirements and also either not realising or not carrying about the consequences. E.g. I'm sure the OP means well but unless they were very careful in how the made their list, I strongly suspect it does cover some such examples. Even in the sources I provided earlier, it seems clear some of those involved efforts to dox are on some sort of moralistic crusade (I didn't include [11] because of it was of limited relevance but it's one extreme example), while others have more mundane motivations.

Nil Einne (talk) 15:33, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

This list seems like a WP:SALAT fail as an overly broad list. I might take this to AfD. Hemiauchenia (talk) 20:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

This biography of a living person has multiple issues already noted on it including missing citations, but the bigger issue is that the person is not particularly notable and it appears the page was written by a friend and fellow artist in his neighborhood. Appears to be a promotional biography.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Albair The article was first posted by KryptoniteSF, and in early versions there is extensive unsourced personal history. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:KryponiteSF This user also posted his own autobiographical page, which might be considered for deletion for a similar reason (lack of notability and sources). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Vlahides

When googling "Stephen Albair" the first hit is his own website. The second is this Wikipedia page. Following that, there are some links to his "rate my professor" profile and links to arts websites where he has works listed for sale, and some other promotional pages on Facebook and elsewhere. There is not a lot else published about him in reputable journals or books that I can find. He may be a decent artist but there are thousands of such artists in cities like San Francisco, and I don't find much notable about him in the sense that Wikipedia's guidelines call for, other than having this promotional Wikipedia page. The links / citations on this page don't substantiate any notability and the majority of them are either broken or link back to his own website.

On the Stephen Albair page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Albair, the very first citation is to an arts blog promoting a show he did - it is not an independent journalistic article at all, but promotion. https://fineartmagazineblog.blogspot.com/2015/07/stephen-albair-private-views-hidden.html

The second citation, which is supposed to support his "notability" as an artist, is a page that never loads, on a page which seems to be a Chinese "knowledge website" similar to a wikipedia - but the page linked on Albair never opens. It's not a reliable source. http://www.ckcest.zju.edu.cn/kb/conceptsearch?searchType=-1&searchId=39355365

The third and fourth citations are just gallery exhibition online catalogs, where he is just listed, not an article about him.

Fifth citation is in a newspaper, SFChronicle, but it is just two paragraphs and clearly a promotion for a gallery show. https://www.sfchronicle.com/thetake/article/Stephen-Albair-s-Private-Views-6536351.php

Sixth citation link doesn't mention him at all, just a generic link to https://www.cnn.com/travel

Seventh citation is a link to his own website, which is a broken link (no article). http://stephenalbair.com/pdf/chicago_daily_news.pdf

Eighth link reads like a press release/promotion article about his show and the gallery it is in. Note, this one exhibit is the subject of several of these types of promotional "stories" in publications that are not widely read. https://artofthetimes.com/2015/07/22/stephen-albair-private-views-hidden-reflections-september-17-2015-october-29-2015/

Ninth link is similar, a promotional article about him in San Francisco's 7x7, which at that time was more of an advertising magazine promoting local businesses. Additionally the link goes to his own website which only has a pdf of the article, not a clear source (and I could not find it on 7x7's site) http://www.stephenalbair.com/pdf/7x7_Magazine.pdf

10th link also goes to his website with a PDF of a Bangkok times article, no way to independently verify publication http://www.stephenalbair.com/pdf/BKK_POST_2008.pdf

11th link is broken - http://www.kathmandu-bkk.com/exhibition_past021.html

12th and final link is back to his own website - http://www.stephenalbair.com/pdf/BangkockPost.pdf

Then there is a listing of his gallery shows, unsourced, which likely would have come from the artist himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElongatedGrin (talk • contribs) 16:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

He is not the head coach of Dallas Cowboys — Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.55.10.34 (talk) 18:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Just silly vandalism. Fixed. ValarianB (talk) 18:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Several tabloid and ideologically bias sources have been used, providing Circular-Reasoning as opposed to actual evidence of the person's views and/or behaviours.

"where he calls for the creation of a white ethnostate, pushes antisemitic messages, and advocates for the genetic superiority of white people." Amongst the citations for this claim are "Wired", "CBC" and the "SPLC", in-which none provide evidence for the claims and simply repeat the stated accusations.

The ADL are also cited -- a well-known Jewish/Zionist interest-group that promotes Jewish ethno-states and belief in Jewish-Superiority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C4:AD19:3B01:FC3E:239C:5467:A574 (talk) 19:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

On Edward Mickolus's wiki page, there are several edits just adding more books to the article. The editor is Mickolus himself as in one of the notes he blatantly admitted so. The article is now mostly unformatted books added by the author themself and needs to be cleaned up. Seabass715 (talk) 06:42, 1 February 2022 (UTC)Seabass715

The article presents nothing much to indicate that Mickolus even meets Wikipedia notability criteria. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:49, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

A Night at Switch n' Play (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There have been a large number of edit requests at this page, as well as someone reaching out to me on my talk page, saying they're the director, and we're being offensive to the cast members by using incorrect descriptions of gender and the like.[12] It appears that we're using descriptors found in a source, but the IP says the source used their own interpretations. I've asked the IP for any sourcing they can find, and directed then to WP:OTRS so we can at least know they're the director. Any assistance with this would be appreciated. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I would just take out the descriptions for now pending clarification. The sourcing doesn't seem good enough to retain them against what superficially appear to be a genuine complaint. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

That's a good call. I've done that for now. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, BLPN regulars,

I don't frequent this noticeboard and I hope that editors who review pages like this can give a definite thumbs up or thumbs down on this article. My sense is that this article should be deleted, as the entire focus is negative, but I wanted to hear from you all about whether the Guardian article about the sexual abuse allegations is sufficient to mention them or if multiple reliable sources are called for in this situation. Thanks for any feedback you can provide. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 02:03, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

As it stands it is an attack page with reports of allegations but no convictions. I suggest it be deleted until criminal convictions are revealed. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:09, 27 January 2022 (UTC).

Nope. My motivation t write this articel was not to attack Narcis Tacau, but the reports of and accusations of sexual assault are obvers. So, there is no way to hide them. But I will work on the point, that there has been no conviction. --Bestof2022 (talk) 09:24, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

If you continue not to follow WP:BLPCRIME you could be blocked from editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 09:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC).

Instead of threaten me, it would make more sence to rewrite the articel in WP:BLPCRIME confirm way!--Bestof2022 (talk) 09:31, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Hello Liz, can you help me in discribing, what I can improve in the named articel. Thanks, best --Bestof2022 (talk) 14:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

That article should absolutely be G10'd. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:57, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I had tagged it as a G10 because it seemed like an attack page since it was completely focused on the accusations of sexual assaults, rather than as a biography of the person. I could not find any reports of a conviction. I see now that the article is tagged for notability. Netherzone (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

The only reason I haven't brought it to AfD is that I'm waiting to see if it gets G10'd. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:21, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Have to agree I don't think there's a salvagable article nor is one possible and it would be best just to G10 it. Nil Einne (talk) 21:40, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Have created Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Narcis Tacau. The G10 was removed (which is how we landed here), and the article has been stubbed, so I've erred to the side of a nomination. Vaticidalprophet 02:06, 28 January 2022 (UTC)

The WP:BLPCRIME content has been restored by MMc. Can we get the G10 yet? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:09, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish WP:BLPCRIME is not relevant for this article because WP:BLPCRIME is only relevant for "individuals not covered by § Public figures" and Narcis Tacau is a public figure as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Public_figures : "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." MMc (talk) 17:30, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

How is a yoga teacher that was in a single episode of a netflix show a "public figure?" Per Wikipedia, A public figure is a person, such as a politician, celebrity, social media personality, or business leader, who has a certain social position within a certain scope and a significant influence and so is often widely of concern to the public, can benefit enormously from society, and is closely related to public interests in society. And per Cornel Law School, A public figure, according to Gertz v. Robert Welch, is an individual who has assumed roles of especial prominence in the affairs of a society or thrust themselves into the forefront of particular public controversies to influence the resolution of the issues involved. Public figures also include individuals who have achieved pervasive fame or notoriety. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:37, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I have reverted again and Mmc is advised not to re-add without consensus.Slywriter (talk) 17:39, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Narcis Tarcau is the founder of an internationally-known yoga school, presents himself as a guru to thousands of people across multiple countries via in-person teachings, YouTube videos and more, and has had articles written about him by The Guardian, The New Zealand Herald, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, The Daily Mail (UK), the Bangkok Post and many more. I think he clearly qualifies as having "a certain social position within a certain scope and a significant influence and so is often widely of concern to the public". MMc (talk) 17:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Some postings on the talk page for this article are at least implicitly identifying the alleged victim in an alleged sexual assault case. Any way of dealing with this? PatGallacher (talk) 19:20, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Those revisions should probably be revdel’d. Under British law it’s an offence to publish the identity of the complainant in a rape accusation. Neiltonks (talk) 21:12, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

They're also included in the article's history, fwiw. Solipsism 101 (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Well that's a mess. I've rev-deleted some, specifically revisions containing a name. We can get semi-protection on the talk page if it continues. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:15, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I have decided to be bold and delete the offending material, but it would be worth keeping an eye on this article and its talk page. It might even be worth oversighting old versions. PatGallacher (talk) 19:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Sho (wrestler) § Personal life[13] The addition of the personal life section in this page is filled with unreliable sources which only link to other pages on Wikipedia, and the sources on the pages that it links to also are unreliable or unverifiable as they do not provide any real information on whether it is true.

Other pages alongside this that are affected:

• Mina Shirakawa § Personal life
• Unagi Sayaka § Personal life
• Giulia (wrestler) § Personal life
• Ai Shinozaki § Personal life
• Jamie Hayter § Personal life

It seems a user is making multiple accounts and adding these in since the start of December. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.4.138.75 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This has to do with Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Stardussst, where about a dozen accounts were CU blocked. It looks like the content has been removed from all of these pages now, but it wouldn't hurt if more people were to add these pages to their watchlists. Spicy (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I was looking through Saladin's article and in the cultural depictions section, several BLP's for Indian actors needed a lot of clean-up whether the formatting was off or some poor grammar. These people are Ghulam Mohammed, Mazhar Khan, Yakub, and Ishwarlal. I hope that some of these can be cleaned up. Seabass715 (talk) 16:49, 2 February 2022 (UTC)Seabass715

Steven Crowder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This is a procedural request based on WP:BLPKINDNESS: The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. Editors should make every effort to act with kindness toward the subjects of biographical material when the subjects arrive to express concern. - (As many may be aware, there is an ANI thread relevant to this report.)
The article subject has raised concerns on the talk page of their article about NPOV, specifically that they do not believe this content is backed by a subject-matter expert. Other editors expressed that this content was considered to be backed as an expert voice, as Bloomberg (a reliable source) quoted the individual. Kingoflettuce has now asserted that the content violates WP:NPOV by being “textbook WP:UNDUE” and challenged the inclusion of the content via reversion. It was then added back by Aquillion and FDW777 who assert the content is DUE. Given this is a highly contentious matter (regarding an individual who [verifiably] is contentious) I feel that ArbCom’s request that we take an article subject’s concerns seriously (no matter how we feel about them) requires more eyes on this matter for a final decision. - I myself hold no opinion on this matter, and am neutral on the content being re-included. But, I’ll note that WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:BLPSTYLE are both likely relevant here. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 23:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

There's no problem with the long standing content, other than Coffee's repaeated attempts to circumvent consensus. FDW777 (talk) 23:49, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Related discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Steven_Crowder_YouTube_video. The article subject didn't so much 'raise concerns' as use a sockpuppet account to attack their critics. - MrOllie (talk) 23:51, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It looks due to me, but can we get some clarification on whether the challenge is to the entire bit or just to the use of a direct quote? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

@Horse Eye's Back: My understanding is the article subject challenges the use of a direct quote, and Kingoflettuce disputes the use of the bit altogether. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 00:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'm always a fan of rephrasing direct quotes from red ink people. Kingoflettuce is coming out of left field as long as I'm concerned. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:15, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I refrain from getting involved in tedious discussions and this feels like it may devolve into one. But, consensus, consensus, it's established content, yada yada, give me a break. And to be clear, as I already noted in the Crowder talk page, I think there's a case to be made for the stuff to be reincluded in a proper section (assuming one can be drummed up). But if that "researcher"'s opinion is the best you have... Also the stuff about aggressive Asian-ness is probably fine and seems to have been added recently. Kingoflettuce (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I just hope and pray that somebody can point out how flawed FDW777's argument is: "Going by the access dates, it's been in the article since October 2020 therefore it has consensus by default. There's no need to re-achieve consensus for inclusion every time someone comes along and removes it." Yawn... Kingoflettuce (talk) 00:24, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion this matter should be discussed once the ANI thread has been resolved. This seems like a very nuanced edge case in the BLP guidelines. Note WP:BLPKINDNESS states Edits like these by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should be invited to explain their concerns. I think it is important to wait for community consensus on how to deal with Crowder's edits and his subsequent video in order to properly determine if they've been allowed to express their concern or if there are other motivations than just sourcing issues. Note that there is WP:NODEADLINE, and so removing the relevant content until concerns are resolved or evaluated by the community either through the ANI thread or here is the wise choice of action. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 00:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to wait for the ANI thread to be resolved before we deal with this. Even if Crowder is banned, this doesn't mean we will ignore his concerns. It simply means he cannot express them on wiki. Nil Einne (talk) 15:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Nil Einne, especially since most of the "Oppose" !votes at ANI rest on WP:DENY, either explicitly or implicitly. If there is community consensus that this is bad-faith trolling, WP:BLPKINDNESS may not really apply. Generalrelative (talk) 19:18, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this looks like questionable content. My first concern is that this is an example of a "sound bite" sort of quote. It's not a quote with a lot of substance, instead it's a subjective opinion and in this case of a person who's qualifications to offer it are not clear. Yes, Bloomberg decided to quote her but that doesn't raise her to the status of expert, at least not to the point where we should include such a damning claim regarding racism (a very charged term) in a BLP. Regarding if Lewis is an expert, well the Bloomberg article only mentions her once and it seems only for the sake of including this alarming quote. Concerns that readers may assume she is a well established expert vs a 20 something grad student offering an opinion is an issue. It doesn't say anything about her research or why she feels the way she does. It doesn't offer examples etc. I agree with Coffee's concerns, especially since this is a BLP and we need to err on the side of not including harmful, subjective accusations. Springee (talk) 02:42, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Kingoflettuce (talk) 04:16, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

How much of a subbject matter expert does one need to be to determine whether Crowder's content is racist or not? What qualifications are needed? FDW777 (talk) 08:44, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

First, that question and it's answer doesn't address all of the concerns I raised. Second, more than the views of a random grad student. Springee (talk) 11:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Not a random grad student, an expert that was cited by Bloomberg. On Wikipedia we define an expert as someone 'whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications' - this is a person who, besides being quoted by Bloomberg, has peer-reviewed publications on harassment on Youtube, including one that specifically discusses harrassment by Crowder. MrOllie (talk) 14:04, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Is the topic harassment or racism? If her expert views are so notable why didn't Bloomberg ask her for more evidence or facts. What we have is her opinion, not evidence. That's not good justification for including a quote that is strong in hyperbole but contains no facts or evidence. It's an appeal to emotion rather than fact and a poor style for an article that wants to be encyclopedic. Springee (talk) 14:10, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

If you read the source I linked, it was both. And it isn't up to us to second guess a reliable source like Bloomberg - whatever additional evidence or facts they got from her they seem to have been satisfied, and that ought to be enough for us. MrOllie (talk) 14:20, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Bloomberg attributed only that single quote to her. The rest of the article didn't attribute facts/evidence to her research. Also, it very much is the up to editors to discuss how much weight should be given to claims even in generally RSs like Bloomberg. No source is always reliable and more critically, WP:V says that verifiable is only one part of inclusion. Springee (talk) 14:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Springee, I think you just made the case, albeit accidentally, that we should include more of this subject matter expert's analysis about Crowder than we currently do. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk)

Just commenting on one part: Yes, Lewis is a reliable source for harmful speech, extremism, and not-so-extremism on YouTube. Her research on the Alternative Influence Network (see here, also mentions Crowder, incidentally) is well known and a number of publications have cited as well as built on it directly. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 22:25, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there's an issue with the quote from Lewis from the Bloomberg article, but I do think it is rather inappropriate that from the same Bloomberg article there's no additional comments from ChowderCrowder himself in response to those statements that are included. (Even within the same paragraph from the Bloomberg article they give ChowderCrowder space to comment on the statements from Lewise). That's an NPOV issue on a BLP page. You don't have to give more than a sentence, but not to allow's ChowderCrowder's own stance, covered by an RS, to be there too, is a problem. --Masem (t) 15:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Masem, your autocorrect may be going a little wacky, or you're subconsciously hungry -- Crowder, not Chowder. :) I agree that the subject's stance should be included. Zaathras (talk) 18:57, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That's my own typo, my bad. --Masem (t) 19:03, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

So long as everyone is here, I noticed this text [14] (restored in another edit) that includes, "...Crowder's YouTube videos were put under review over his repeated use of racist and homophobic slurs against journalist Carlos Maza". This seems exactly like the sort of material that shouldn't be in Wiki voice. Based on the Wiki article Youtube found that Crowder wasn't engaged in sanctionable activates and thus I would assume wasn't engaged in "racist and homophobic" speech. The general content seems DUE to me but the specific telling looks like a violation of IMPARTIAL. Springee (talk) 18:14, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Quoting from the article in American Behavioral Scientist, which I linked above: In May 2019, Maza called attention to Crowder’s harassing content when he tweeted a compilation of Crowder calling him a “lispy queer” and an “anchor baby,” among other slurs. - MrOllie (talk) 18:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Why isn't that claim attributed? What counts as "racist" and "homophobic" is variable and depends on context etc. Since YT decided this wasn't sanctionable we have to assume they didn't agree with Maza's claims. Given the claims being made this should be attributed. That is a pretty fundamental rule for a BLP. Springee (talk) 18:37, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's not open for debate whether such slurs are racist or homophobic. Are you fucking kidding me? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 19:09, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

"Anchor baby" and "lispy queen" are offensive but I'm not sure if they are necessarily racist/homophobic. It's not very befitting of somebody to rail against such slurs anyway and then ending your statement with an expletive. Let's keep it civil... Kingoflettuce (talk) 19:49, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That was shock, not incivility. It's hard to assume good faith from someone with a comment like that. To be clear, these are objectively racist and homophobic slurs. It's pretty much impossible to characterize them otherwise, and it seems in bad faith for an editor to argue otherwise. If we can't agree on something as basic as this, that's utterly ridiculous. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

My bad, I misread "queer" as "queen". That does seem undeniably homophobic, nonetheless the point stands that it should be presented in a BLP-compliant way. Kingoflettuce (talk) 19:53, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't disagree, of course. And while this is a tired refrain, that's what reliable source are for. We let them speak for us. While we present it neutrally, watering it down too much can amount to white-washing. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 20:29, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

We still follow BLP policies. Context matters. We should use RS to state in their view what happened and what the controversy was. We should not state things in Wiki voice that could lead a reader to a false conclusion. It seems very unlikely that Crowder would have remained on YT if his comments were direct, racist, homophobic attacks as the sentence suggests. BI is not likely sympathetic to Crowder but it does suggest this isn't quite so black and white [15]. Again, claims like this need to be attributed and impartial. Springee (talk) 21:21, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

For the record, IMO the text is fine. If one wants to include some sort of rebuttal from Crowder himself, also fine. But the man is already described as a utilizer of racist and homophobic slurs in the lead, so let's not get too far into the weeds of his self-defense of his words. Zaathras (talk) 21:11, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

That's circular since the lead refers to this incident. Springee (talk) 21:22, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

No. The lead summarizes the body. There are already details in the body the article regarding Crowder's troubles with racist and homophobic content targeting Carlos Maza. The wrongly-detailed content was an analysis, along with an example of other problematic content. Zaathras (talk) 22:34, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The text is fine; it's well-sourced and clearly relevant. This is WP:CRYBLP from a troll. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Your edit summary is such a disingenuous and flimsy side-stepping of the real concerns here. Nobody is disputing that these ARE "factual" quotes from "reliable sources"--it's whether or not they are cobbled together in a way that does not conform to BLP standards. With all due respect, I think the likes of Coffee have a tad more experience than you. WP:CRYCRYBLP is equally as applicable too. Kingoflettuce (talk) 11:33, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Admins aren't super-users, they do not have a greater voice in a content discussion than you, I, or the user above. Tone it down a notch or two. ValarianB (talk) 13:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Kingoflettuce there is no need for that kind of animosity on this noticeboard. We're all here to improve global access to free, quality information. Criticizing someone's argument based on the time they've spent on wiki does not help this discussion progress. There's neither a hierarchy nor authority between editors except that we all must work under consensus. Please, I'd appreciate if you reworded your statement in a way that's more constructive towards further discussion.

NorthBySouthBaranof I'd appreciate if you expanded on CRYBLP, as I feel you might use the wikilink as an easy substitute for your full argument. As can be seen by the ANI thread this is quite a contentious and complex issue, so giving your full, comprehensive thoughts will be much more helpful than just referencing an essay and calling the job done.

I hope neither of you see this message as passive-aggressive, just trying to find some common ground here :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: Santa, my reference to one user's relative inexperience was preceded by a matter-of-fact explanation as to how he was misrepresenting the argument being made. As has been noted below, nobody is disputing that Bloomberg news is an RS. However, I am evidently not alone in feeling that the presentation of the information leans towards UNDUE and is therefore a BLP violation. Moreover, I think that insinuating that we are trolls or time-wasters is an actual form of animosity, so hopefully you can let them know that there is no need for such animosity. Indeed, we are all here as volunteers working to build a better free encyclopedia so I'll continue to do that and express my views as I have been doing. I do not believe that I've engaged in any personal attacks thus far and am merely latching onto arguments (or assertions) that others have made. At the same time, it is not unreasonable to assume that admins, by virtue of having earned their adminship, would have a better grasp of policy especially in a contentious scenario like this. And Valarian, I do not appreciate the condescension of being told to "tone it down a notch or two". Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:30, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thats not condescension its genuine advice which I will repeat for your sake, please "tone it down a notch or two" Horse Eye's Back (talk) 15:39, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

And people get a pass for assuming bad faith and calling others trolls?! I don't need your "genuine advice", I'd rather you work on the Crowder article and directly engage with the policy-based arguments that have been made, instead of being on the tone brigade. Kingoflettuce (talk) 15:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Lots of people have discussed this issue and multiple users have expressed the opinion that you are wrong. Your option here is to open an RFC, not to remove longstanding, impeccably-sourced material from a biography citing nothing more than WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Article subjects and their sockpuppets do not get veto power over content in their biographies. If you think the material is WP:UNDUE, then your remedy is to open an RFC and gain consensus that it is undue. Your personal opinion does not have special authority. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:57, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

NorthBySouthBaranof I forgot to include it in my previous statement, but I would like to extend a friendly reminder that labeling other editors as trolls, unless clearly backed by evidence, is not assuming good faith on their part. As the message is unclear as to who you are labeling a troll it adds fuel to a fire that does not need being lit, as it could be any of the editors you are disagreeing with. I understand that other discussions on this topic, whether in the article's talk page or ANI, are being highly contentious and stressful for all, but us using words like troll will only make establishing a consensus on this issue on this noticeboards ever more difficult. Let's all turn the page, Kingoflettuce and NorthBySouthBaranof, and get back to discussing the content aspects of the article that may or may not violate BLP guidelines. Additionally, I will remind the thread here that if necessary, dispute resolution is an option in case editors here believe having a moderator would benefit the discussion here. I don't necessarily think that is the case right now, but just thought I'd add the reminder :) A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Santa :) Now, there seems to be a little dispute as to whether the contentious material should stay up or not while the discussion is ongoing. The principle of "do no harm" seems to apply here but I do not wish to be involved in an edit war. I hope either you or somebody else who hasn't reverted anything on that page can make the appropriate determination once and for all, so we can continue the discussion without any distractions. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

"I do not wish to be involved in an edit war" -- says the editor who is well on their way [16] [17]... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 16:36, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomoskedasticity this is not the most appropriate noticeboard to discuss editor behaviour. Let's keep that discussion in the appropriate noticeboards, please. I understand you might see pointing out Kingoflettuce's behaviour earlier today as necessary for context or the discussion, but neither the wording nor the purpose of your comment will guide this conversation to a more constructive result. This whole issue is being stressful to all of us, let's not let the noise distract us and get back to discussing how the BLP guidelines instruct us to act regarding the content of the page. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I am uncomfortable making any edits myself, but would encourage caution under BLP guidelines to keep content off in case it violates BLP guidelines until discussion on the matter is settled. There is no deadline and I see the wiser choice of action as removing the content for a few weeks for it to be fully discussed before reinstating it (modified or not) or leaving it off the article. However much I might dislike Crowder, I don't see much harm in keeping a few sentences off the article while they are discussed. That would also allow us to discuss rewording them in a more sterile location (such as an RfC or an informal discussion here). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:37, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly!!! I believe I said something similar (think it was on Arbitration). Why is that so hard to handle? Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:41, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Nomo, I am just executing what I assume the principle of "do no harm" entails. If I must say it, I really do not wish to be involved in any edit war but for the greater good I might have no choice but to do so. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:45, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

This is what pretty much everyone who is in an edit war on any subject thinks, including both sides of this argument. MrOllie (talk) 16:47, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Kingoflettuce one always has the option not engage in an edit war. I would suggest backing off from this from a few days and rejoin the discussion once it's settled. If you feel you need to engage in an edit war it's probably just that you're too wikistressed and might benefit from a break. See also: WP:CANDOR. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

@A. C. Santacruz: But surely I alone cannot start a war, right? As I was the one who originally made the removal, does that count as the first revert or not? I did not understand that to be the case. If so, the ones who insist on having the stuff remain on the article right now should be the ones violating 3RR, right? Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Displaying a WP:ONEAGAINSTMANY mindset here won't help you or those who agree with you. The specifics of 3RR do not matter here. Please, I suggest you follow the spirit of the guideline and back off from the article for now, however right you may feel you are, Kingoflettuce. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 16:55, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I do not intend to touch the Crowder article anymore but I just hope the right thing is done. I think the specifics of 3RR do matter anyway, coz that would clearly determine whether the stuff should stay up or not... Hoping someone will see to that. Kingoflettuce (talk) 16:58, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Really bad take. You don't get to edit-war your preferred version in and think 3RR means that your version wins because you reverted first. Also edit warring doesn't require 3RR, so repeating a suggestion made several times now, create an RfC to change consensus, lest this becomes about editor conduct and not content.Slywriter (talk) 17:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Kingoflettuce 3RR will never determine whether stuff stays up or not. Editor consensus and the guidelines around BLPs will. No matter how hard it might be, or how unfair it might seem at this time, you must always trust the wiki community to do the correct thing by consensus. That is all any of us can do. No one does the wrong thing willingly when acting under good faith. If the content is remaining on the page, that means that enough people think that keeping it there is the right thing to be done. We'll see over the next few weeks as this is discussed both here and in ANI whether that is true or not. In the meanwhile, increasing animosity or putting pressure on the discussion won't help. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 17:03, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Obviously I meant if it would or should stay up or not for the time being while the discussion took place. You seem to agree with me there but I get your point. Anyway, the page is fully protected now, so it's a moot point. Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:13, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is fully protected as a direct result of your actions. The chutzpah here is astounding. ValarianB (talk) 18:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted an instance of blanking. The material is entirely in line with our conventional standards. There's all sorts of special pleading and policy invention in this discussion -- people coming up with reasons that have no basis in our policies or the typical application of them. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 13:49, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Doesnt appear to be anything approaching a BLP violation given the sourcing. Some of the arguments to the contrary are frankly ludicrous. There may be an argument its undue for inclusion in the article, but thats not a BLP issue and probably doomed to failure. Only in death does duty end (talk) 16:46, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not a separate analysis. WP:BLP does not just demand strict adherence to WP:V and WP:OR, but also WP:NPOV, of which WP:UNDUE is a part of. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:31, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

But whether or not something is unsourced or poorly-sourced is generally a straightforward question - is the source reliable or not? If not, it should stay out - BLP is clear that such material may be removed unilaterally without limitation. A reasonable editor should be able to make the determination that something sourced to "DirtBag90210" posting on "MyGossipTrollFarm.biz" is prima facie not reliable, while something sourced to journalists of the British Broadcasting Corporation is prima facie reliable. By contrast, whether or not a particular passage is due or undue is not a straightforward question, and involves issues of sourcing, context, appropriate rebuttals, etc. It is a question requiring consensus and discussion, not easily placed in the hands of a single editor. Thus, it makes sense that there is no provision in BLP policy permitting unilateral removal of material an editor believes merely to be undue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:40, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

You should look at WP:ONUS (Part of V) and WP:BLPUNDEL, especially the part about "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies." It is not enough to for an editor to state there is consensus for WP:DUE. They must actually demonstrate that, usually through past discussion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:00, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Sigh, that's pretty much what I thought. Perhaps I didn't Wiki-link enuf in expressing what I felt was a common-sense view. I apologise for kickstarting this whole chain of events. Even if I may have been justified in doing so, it is now clear to me that it's better off just leaving contentious BLPs as they are. I wish all of you all the best in the discussion! Kingoflettuce (talk) 23:11, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, no one has raised any BLP concerns here outside of WP:BLPKINDNESS, which does not reference article text. Coffee, who performed the removal, specifically said it was purely procedural (eventually, and mistakenly, citing WP:BLPKINDNESS when pressed), and none of the earlier reverts cited BLP as the reason. This is part of the reason why I feel that Coffee's initial "procedural" edit is the root of the problem - for there to be a BLP dispute, someone has to actually raise an objection that can be engaged with. Nobody has done so here yet outside of the suggestions that we should be polite to Mr. Crowder as an editor and not ban them for vandalism, which have no bearing on whether the disputed text is included or excluded. --Aquillion (talk) 00:55, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Comment: To be clear, that is simply not accurate. My procedural revert was not the "initial" edit, nor was it done per WP:BLPKINDNESS. The initial change of content was done by Crowder himself, and the secondary removal of the content was done by Kingoflettuce. As I noted in my opening statement: Kingoflettuce has now asserted that the content violates WP:NPOV by being "textbook WP:UNDUE" and challenged the inclusion of the content via reversion.
  
  My action to revert to that version was not based on BLPKIND but was based on WP:BLPUNDEL, specifically: To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. And per WP:ARBBLP which echos this, specifically in the unanimous finding of Principle 1 (BLPs): In cases where the appropriateness of material regarding a living person is questioned ... such material should be removed until a decision to include it is reached, rather than being included until a decision to remove it is reached. (emphasis added)
  
  Where WP:BLPKINDNESS comes into the matter is that the initial challenge was done by the article subject, and we are to at least address the individual's concerns, so opening a BLPN thread was a rational decision to make. There are now multiple challenges to the content as it is (including from Masem), but they began with Crowder and then were actioned further via Kingoflettuce's UNDUE challenge. So, to claim no one has "actually [raised] an objection that can be engaged with", is flatly false. I think Masem's objection actually holds weight on the merit of: if there is a response from the person to a statement made about them, we should include their response as well. And, while I don't hold an opinion on Kingoflettuce's challenge, an argument of WP:UNDUE is also an objection that can and (from my reading of this discussion) has been actively engaged with. — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 18:52, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

And let me be clear: the "troll" I refer to in this case is Steven Crowder, through his admitted sockpuppets - not any established Wikipedian commenting on this issue. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 19:22, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll just chuck my 2c in here. First up, I can't see anything wrong with the content in question. It looks like perfectly ordinary, sourced and valid content which is not new to the article. Furthermore, it is not clear to me (and I apologise if I missed something somewhere) that Crowder has actually approached Wikipedia about this matter in any valid way. Sending meatpuppets to edit on his behalf is not a legitimate way to approach this and the meatpuppets should all be blocked. As regards the call for "kindness", I feel that this is the wrong metric. Kindness is appropriate when we are approached in good faith by somebody who has genuine concerns (whether actually valid or not) about what we say about them. In Crowder's situation (a man who has been extremely unwilling to show any kindness to those he arbitrarily defines as his political enemies) I feel that what we owe him is not kindness but fairness. That means that we need to openly and impartially address any genuine concerns that he may put to us in a valid way. I've yet to see any and I'm not sure why this has been discussed at such length. --DanielRigal (talk) 22:25, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The 2c that DanielRigal provides here are pretty much the same 2c that I was going to add. XOR'easter (talk) 23:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

If you don't mind me building a wall of text, I'll give my own analysis of how BLPKINDNESS applies. Now, even if we agree to bind ourselves by WP:BLPKINDNESS in this case, it states Edits like these by subjects should not be treated as vandalism; instead, the subject should be invited to explain their concerns. (emphasis my own). Crowder's person or conduct outside of the relevant video I think is extraneous here. We should first ask ourselves "Has the subject raised their concerns in good faith?" If you (and I'm speaking in a general "you" here) do not believe that he has, then I don't see a way where you would see BLPKINDNESS applying here. However, if you believe he has we now proceed to the second question. We should then ask ourselves "What exactly are the subject's concerns?" Note that other editors' additional concerns on the content do not apply to BLPKINDNESS even if they do to other BLP guidelines, and editors should raise their separate concerns within the thread but in another discussion to the subject's concerns. Coffee said above that Crowder disagreed with using a direct quote but did not explicitly mind the content (from what I understand). Here we can finally discuss policy, namely WP:DUE, WP:BLPRS (particularly WP:BLPREMOVE), and WP:RS/QUOTE. We need to remember that subjects will very rarely understand either the encyclopedic mission nor policies and guidelines of Wikipedia, but we can extend their statement to where we see it would naturally do so. That's where I think BLPKINDESS applies. I personally believe we have a duty to do this as Crowder certainly won't join the discussion on WP:PAGs, but we still must ensure that the content in the article is in accordance with our PAGs. Now trust me, I think every single sentence in the article saying he's said racist and homophobic things is true and founded. However, this must be proven through proper discussion and calm, content-oriented arguments. It can't be that every time a conservative pundit is up in arms about the media we start a food fight. BLPKINDNESS applies to the subject. Wiki kindness applies to each other. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 23:01, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I want to particularly underline that what WP:BLPKINDNESS means is not being rude to the BLP subject themselves, and not treating their edits as vandalism - their edits are allowed, not given special force or weight. Nothing about it says, or implies, that anything a BLP subject says should be given even a whisker more weight than anything a random editor says; it is considered in the same way any point raised by any editor would be, ie. it should not be summarily disregarded because it would otherwise qualify as vandalism or because of their COI. BLPKINDNESS protects them from being banned (at least as a vandal purely for removals made to their own page, even if those edits would otherwise qualify as vandalism; it obviously doesn't protect any other policy violations they commit in other contexts) and discourages people from calling them names. It gives absolutely no additional weight to their edits, nor does it allow for the removal of longstanding text simply because they find it objectionable, nor does it add anything of significance at all for what the article text should look like, either in the short or long-term. BLPKINDNESS is solely and exclusively about how we interact with editors - it has no bearing on content or content disputes at all beyond that, fullstop. --Aquillion (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Potentially biased article, opinionated in regard to his competitors in the introduction. Sascha Grabow — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.58.189.199 (talk) 18:06, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted recent edits by an IP who added the inappropriate content.Slywriter (talk) 18:26, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Pretty sure the article has one or more undeclared COI editors. It has undergone a significant reduction in size as trivial and unsupported material has been removed.Slywriter (talk) 19:14, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if he's notable given that there seems to be no RS in the citations for all this puffery. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:48, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Someone without an account made a series of derogatory updates still visible in the edit history section. These are baseless accusations without sources and a personal attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keepitreal46 (talk • contribs) 07:10, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The edits have correctly been reverted because they weren't reliably sourced but IMO there's nothing there which is so bad that it requires removing from the history. Neiltonks (talk) 08:20, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Bakary Gassama, a football referee's article is seeing massive vandalism. I think it urgently requires page protection and some revisions will also need to be deleted. See [18], for example. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:13, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I see it was protected this very moment. That means we only need some revision cleanup. Robby.is.on (talk) 23:14, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Once again - this is Richard Skinner (broadcaster) protesting the inaccuracies on the page regarding my life! Why -oh Why - do you insist on publishing the wrong information re my birth date? your concern seems based on an inaccurate BBC article which says I joined Radio 1 Newsbeat in September 1973 at age 19 I didn't! I was 21, which if you care to look at the timeline in the rest of my bio is the only age that makes sense when factoring in when I left school aged 18 (September 1970). That is a fact you could check by contacting the online team at my old school - Portsmouth Grammar School - they have records of who attended the school - when they did and how old they were. Meanwhile I have already provided you with a picture of my passport which clearly states my accurate date of birth - December 26 1951 And in December was able to provide further proof - as if it is needed - via a link to a 'music birthdays' page created by John Kutchner I worked with Mr Kutchner at the BBC in the 1980s and he knows very well when I was born! The reason the link to his reference appears 'dead' is that he changes the month available to view to fit the current calendar month ie - it currently shows February anniversaries etc His website allows for people to email him - and if anyone at Wikipedia cares (which I begin to doubt) he could be asked about my birthdate. Or you could accept that I am Richard Skinner - I know when I was born - and I have provided the proof you need in the picture of my passport!! I look forward to this ridiculous situation being resolved. I was born - on December 26 1951 - fact. Richard Skinner — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.122.46 (talk) 20:23, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi Mr. Skinner. I'm sorry this has been such a problem for you, and if there is anyway to help, we most certain want to correct any factual errors. Most people over 30 don't seem to mind shaving a few years off their date, but that's beside the point, because we do want to get things as right as possible.

Unfortunately, most of your solutions are not viable for Wikipedia purposes. We can't use public records or other such primary sources, nor can we just take your word for it, as harsh as that may sound. We're all a bunch of anonymous volunteers here, and I wouldn't recommend giving us your passport or driver's license or anything of that nature. There is a secure way to verify your ID, and that is for you to contact WP:OTRS, and then we can give some more weight to your request. Perhaps, if we're just gleaning the date as you say, it should just be removed entirely. (We can often do that upon request.)

However, to correct the date, we need to find it somewhere in a reliable source. We're a tertiary source, which means we get our info from reliable secondary-sources. You can do more yourself from out there to correct the date than we can from in here. For example, try contacting the BBC and have them run a retraction. Any good source will want to correct their mistakes, and then we will have something we can use. There are other options for you to use, and correcting source mistakes is one of them. I hope that helps, Zaereth (talk) 21:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Could you explain you concerns a bit better? I understand why you were unhappy when we were reporting your year of birth as 1953-1954, but as far as I can tell, we haven't done since September last year [19] [20]. Instead we report the year 1951-1952 which based on what you've said is accurate i.e. it's no longer "wrong information" since a date of December 26 1951 is definitely circa 1951/1952. Per WP:BLPDOB we don't report precise dates of birth unless it's either well established in reliable secondary sources or by sources linked to the subject since plenty of people do not like their full dates of birth to be so public. Apparently you fall into this category, if you had an official website or verified social media account and published the date there we could consider it, but there's really no reason why we need your exact date of birth. We intentionally to not have it for a lot of our biographies. And as I've said based on what you've said the information we report in our article on your birth year is no longer inaccurate even if it's not precise. Nil Einne (talk) 07:17, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

For clarity, the Twitter account linked on our Wikipedia article is not verified, so even publishing your date of birth there doesn't help us. Nil Einne (talk) 07:23, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

How about using [21] (Bibliothèque nationale de France) for YOB, not DOB? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

"Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous."

Per the article, Robert W. Malone has spread "misinformation" about COVID-19. Controversial information does not equal misinformation. Sources that indicate that his prior statements are "misinformation" are sparse to non-existent. Scientific discoveries regarding COVID-19 as well as related mRNA vaccines are still regularly occurring. Furthermore, the use of the term "misinformation" implies a malicious intent that borders on libel. I suggest the term "misinformation" be replaced with "controversial information" to better portray the spirit and intent the original author likely intended. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scottaevers (talk • contribs) 22:39, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia's BLP policies are not a crude cudgel to remove well sourced negative information from BLP articles. Hemiauchenia (talk) 22:43, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Key to the quoted policy is "unsourced or poorly sourced". In the case of Robert W. Malone, the term "misinformation" is well-sourced. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:46, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Malone is spreading misinformation and we don't do WP:FALSEBALANCE by giving debunked ideas equal weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:02, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, it's not "contentious" that Malone's wrong claims are wrong. The OP calls it "controversial" but it really isn't in sane sources. Classic WP:GEVAL. Alexbrn (talk) 09:12, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The talk page had to be protected because of the constant flow of similar trolling. —PaleoNeonate – 09:33, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

• DJ Envy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Good Morning... My wiki page keeps being changed...I am not from Dominican Republic and i was never a landscaper or a pool cleaner — Preceding unsigned comment added by Realdjenvy (talk • contribs) 13:09, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Realdjenvy: Good morning. I've added a level of page protection which should help cut down on that kind of editing. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 14:35, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I completed a malformed AfD for this article on an academic only to discover that the IP that solicited it is from Yale University (where he teaches), had blanked a section detailing sexual harassment allegations from 2017 (with multiple citations), and that the IP had asked another editor to remove the page stating González Echevarría would like the entire page removed from this cite. The subject probably passes WP:NPROF. I suspect that the course of action for this page is not going to be a deletion outcome, and because of the BLP issues, I am asking for the input of other editors knowledgeable with the policies and guidelines. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 17:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

It probably shouldn't be deleted given the feature article in the Miami Herald, but the allegations might not satisfy WP:BLPCRIME nor WP:WELLKNOWN and WP:REDFLAG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:19, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The subject would have a clear pass of WP:Prof, so it's not a case of BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2022 (UTC).

• The AfD has been closed, but some BLP expert eyes would definitely be appreciated at Talk:Roberto_González_Echevarría#After the AfD. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 23:54, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
• There is also now a RFC on this subject matter.[22] Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:01, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Roberto González Echevarría § Request for comment. ((u|Sdkb)) ^talk 04:22, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Christine Dietrich (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I'm Christine Dietrich and I'm not a right wing extremist. This information is wrong. I never "operated the right-wing, Islamophobic platform PI-News." I've not been in contact with this platform for over 11 Years The information "Years active 2007-present" is a simple lie unwothy an ecyclopedia. I demand the clearly infamatory article about my person to be deleted immediately, thank you Christine Dietrich — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1210:3EA9:8100:19D4:FD1A:40B:3209 (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Wow, that article is a mess. My lack of German language skills will make it difficult to do any appreciable cleanup, though. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:32, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll remove what is unsourced and see what it looks like from there. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:38, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Unless the sources are unreliable, cited content seems to match what the sources say.Slywriter (talk) 18:42, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

I saw at least two blogs, one cite to the de.wikipedia Der Spiegel article (?), and the article seems to leave out things from the sources like In the "Tages-Anzeiger" she distanced herself from the website this week - it's the third time. Her commitment to PI is "a bad mistake from the past," says the pastor today. Its difficult to really dig into though, as I'm relying on machine translations, and I'm not familiar with most of the sources. I noticed that two different sources have the same header and navigation in different colors, although perhaps that's just the newspaper conglomerate's standard website for local papers? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:48, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

There's also significant machine translation copyvio. From the source, google machine translated:

"Spiegel" based on internal protocols of the PI operators. When the Norwegian neo-Nazi Anders Breivik killed 77 people on Utøya, Dietrich's concern was for the right-wing blogger Fjordmann, Breivik's spiritus rector and friend of Dietrich, as she stated: "I know Fjordman personally - he is NOT a killer. It's a disaster, for us and for Fjordman, of course. Poor fellow, he was my guest."

Our article: Der Spiegel published protocols from the PI operators. When the Norwegian neo-Nazi Anders Breivik murdered 77 people on Utøya, Dietrich's concern was with the fascist blogger Fjordman (alias Peder Are Nøstvold Jensen), Breivik's Spiritus Rector and friend of Dietrich. “I know Fjordman personally - he's NOT a killer. It's a disaster, for us and for Fjordman of course. Poor fellow, he was my guest. " she wrote. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:53, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Moneytrees who has blocked Outdoor-Bro for machine translations in the past. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:01, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish Yeah, that user had a lot of issues with not attributing translations from other wikis, and I reminded them to be careful about BLP, but I saw nothing about direct copyvio like that. They haven't edit since I blocked them- a CCI is probably needed... Moneytrees🏝️^{Talk/CCI guide} 04:02, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Ugh, indeed an issue there. So this is either she is not notable and article should be AfDed or the content should be cleaned up as honestly the blog is the only thing that makes her notable. She isn't mentioned in the Politically Incorrect article here and does not appear to have a German wikipedia page to compare any sources/content.Slywriter (talk) 19:08, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

This hostile news interview conducted years later gives a clearer picture of the controversy.[23] The fact that they still talk about her 8 years later suggest this goes beyond BLP1E territory. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:14, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article against me mainliy bases on what Swiss Journalist Benjamin Rosch and Markus Ritter from Elisabethenkirche wrote about me falsly suggesting there was a possible connection between Anders Breivik, wich was never ever existent. Both were found guilty for this defamation by Swiss authorities in Basel Stadt (penal orders VT.2019.24805 and VT.2020.19117). The public persecutor clearly noted, that I've distanced myself from PI-News over 10 years ogo. All allegations I'd still habe ties to this plattform are a simple lie (even if repeated over and over again) and unworthy an "encyclopedia". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chdi1 (talk • contribs) 16:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

I have a doubt on the age mentioned as 41.. Born 23 May 1980 (age 41 years).. I got this doubt cause when I search with Cast of Movie Bloodfight (1989), her name is emerging as actress acted in the move with name Milky McKenzie... if she is born on 1980 how could she be acting as an young female actress Milky McKenzie who appears to be in her 20's in the Movie.. A 9 year old girl acting as a young female actress who looks like an adult in the movie makes no sense is my opinion.. I have no other sources to show my point as valid..

I may be wrong if she is the same person acted in the Movie Bloodfight (1989, but in her Biography this move is not in the list of movies/TV shows which she has acted..

Please check this fact once.. Thanks22:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)22:52, 4 February 2022 (UTC)~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vinnakota Sharath (talk • contribs)

I'm sorry, but I don't understand what your question is. Our article doesn't give an age or a birthdate. You must be getting this info from some other site; possibly google if you're just looking at their little infobox on the right side of the screen. The get some of their stuff from us, which sometimes makes it seem like it all came from us, but then they also get some from wherever they can find it. If they can't find her birthdate, they might just use one from some mother in North Dakota who happens to have the same name. (The computer isn't smart enough to know the difference; another example of smart technology acting stupid.) Either way, the info is not coming from our article.

However, this article has some serious sourcing issues of its own. Zaereth (talk) 23:10, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

@Vinnakota Sharath: You're probably seeing this on the Google Knowledge Graph Infobox. Although they often take information from and link to us, we have no control over what they publish and this information doesn't seem to have come from us as per Zaereth. Please report any errors on the infobox to Google as there's nothing we can do about it. See also Wikipedia:Ahmadiyya Caliphate information. Nil Einne (talk) 14:19, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Was a bit tired when writing the above and didn't notice Zaereth had already mentioned Google so my comment is mostly redundant, still the links could be useful. Nil Einne (talk) 02:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Hey, first time filing one of these. I don't even know if this is the right noticeboard for such a thing, but I honestly don't know where to put it. This is the diff in question, making a seemingly outrageous claim that I thought was vandalism at first glance, but the source added (from the subject's seemingly real personal website) seems to back up its validity. I'm pretty sure this should be deleted per WP:REL in any case, but I am relatively new to editing Wikipedia and the sheer ridiculousness of the situation kinda has me confused. Should this be deleted? Revdel-ed? Maybe even kept? Seeking help here. 70.95.202.140 (talk) 05:03, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I see it's been removed. WP:PROPORTION seems as good a reason as any, just because there's a source doesn't mean it should be there. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:30, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Politico published an article asserting that a law clerk for Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson, who has been mentioned as a potential Supreme Court justice, has edited Wikipedia to promote Judge Jackson and disparage other candidates. Editors have alternately inserted and removed those assertions from Jackson's article. No sources have yet asserted that the judge herself participated in those actions. Given that this is a BLP, I do not believe the content belongs on Wikipedia unless her participation can be established, but I have not edited the article on that issue. Kablammo (talk) 22:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Add to this that Politico and other sources gives the alleged name + username of the law clerk, so WP:OUTING is an issue. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:34, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

I found a pretty big whopper of a mistake in this article, not about Franzese himself but one of his Colombo crime family compatriots. The article flatly states:

He took the oath alongside friend Jimmy Angelino, Joseph Peraino Jr., Salvatore Miciotta, Vito Guzzo Sr., and John Minerva — all of whom died violently over the next 20 years.

And it cites several newspaper articles. I just got watching an episode of the 2011 series Nothing Personal, which features an extensive interview with "Big Sal" Miciotta himself, very much alive. 2011 newspaper article on the episode. I have not seen anything about him dying since then, and at around 74 it's plausible he's still alive. And in any case he did not die violently between 1975 and 1995 as the article claims.

• Talk:Michael_Franzese#Error_-_Sal_Miciotta_did_not_die

Harizotoh9 (talk) 05:11, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Came across Andrew Maher - there's just three sources and a lot of material that is unsourced. Whats the correct way to deal with this? Remove all unsourced material? MaskedSinger (talk) 11:44, 4 February 2022 (UTC)

Ideally - source it. Second best - remove it. I don't see anything as controversial as demands immediate removal, but if you can't find sources, yes it should be removed. --GRuban (talk) 17:27, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! MaskedSinger (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

How should Wikipedia refer to mediums, or those who claim to have psychic, telepathic or clairvoyant powers? For example, it is appropriate to refer to someone as "a (medium/psychic)", if this is their profession (and the way they are described by most reliable sources), or should we refer to them as "a (claimed/purported/self-reported/alleged) (medium/psychic)"? There seems to be an inconsistency in articles in this area.

And even within articles – for instance, individuals are referred to as a "medium", not "claimed medium", in the article titles to differentiate themselves from others. This is not uncommon and is standard practice for titles, so I'm not raising an issue here. But then why does the text of Thomas John (medium) and Matt Fraser (psychic) refer to the two as Claimed psychic medium and Purported psychic medium respectively, whereas Allison DuBois is simply an American psychic (no qualifiers in the short description, but qualifiers in the lead section). I just the last two individuals at random; there are hundreds of discrepancies of this type. Additionally, a number of articles relied on snarky scare quotes either in the short description or in the article leads and prose, to cast doubt on the profession. This is totally unencyclopaedic, IMHO.

My opinion: "Medium" and "psychic" are terms for the job in question – even if the job has no proof behind it. We wouldn't be calling magicians "claimed" or "self-reported" magicians, because we don't think magic is real, and I think the same applies here. I also think the consistency on including "claimed", "reported", etc. is related to the ongoing skepticism and coordinated editing arbitration request; those articles with stronger words regarding the subject disproportionately include editors involved in the controversy, and are more likely to cite Susan Gerbic and Skeptical Inquirer than those who don't. This doesn't mean they're violating BLP or anything – but I think it needs to be pointed out.

Thank you. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:04, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I won't comment on the content of the thread as I am a party to the ongoing case, but AFreshStart I believe you should notify the relevant wikiprojects of this discussion as this is of great interest to them and the articles their projects cover. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:19, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you; I have notified the Skepticism WikiProject, as well as the Biography WikiProject, and placed a note on the Fringe Theories noticeboard. Though I am slightly concerned about how this will play out, as this w/r/t the concerns over co-ordinated editing on Wikipedia, alerting a WikiProject that was disproportionately involved in the dispute may affect the outcome of this discussion. So I would urge other editors to cast a sceptical eye over any comments here. —AFreshStart (talk) 14:36, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

So, by way of introduction, I'll just say I have no connection to any Wikipedia groups and speak only for myself. AFreshStart, I completely understand and sympathize with your point, but I am slightly hesitant, for what effectively boils down to linguistic reasons. In my idiolect, calling someone a "magician" might mean that you are asserting that they have supernatural powers, but it can also mean that you are saying they are a particular kind of entertainer. Thus, to me, saying "Penn and Teller are magicians" is a noncontroversial and completely mundane statement. The same is not true (again, for me) with the terms "medium" or "psychic". Those titles come with an inherent claim that there is some kind of paranormal power being brought to bear. A person who does self-consciously and openly fake cold readings, for instance, I would likely call a "magician" rather than a "medium" or the like. It's is entirely possible that this is a quirk of language only for me, and that the trends are against me. Still, I felt it worth sounding that slight note of caution. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, AFreshStart. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

We have many categories on spiritual mediums [24] and psychics [25], even telepaths [26]. These people are or were famous for being known as mediums, psychics or telepaths etc so we don't need to use the terms "claimed" or "purported" into their biographies when it comes to their profession. Rational folk are well aware that psychics, mediums and telepaths are frauds but they make a living out of it, it is a job at the end of the day. Doesn't make any sense to me to put claimed or purported in front of their profession. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:14, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I actually keep going back and forth on this. Although mediumship is defined on WP as the practice of purportedly mediating communications..., in many a reader's minds, the definition excludes the word purportedly and when they read "X is a medium", they understand that "X communicates/is a channel for communicating with the dead", which is something that I don't think should ever be stated in wikivoice. I don't know how to fix that without weasel-sounding words, but I would love if we were able to find a way. The way I see it, when we write that someone claims/is claimed to be a medium, we are being neutral and impartial - that is something objectivelly true and easy to verify -, and when we write that someone is a medium, we can be seen as supporting the credulous POV. For instance, whenever I talk about a "medium" in real life, I gesticulate finger quotes to be clear. Also, although I would love to be able to agree with what Psychologist Guy said above, that Rational folk are well aware that psychics, mediums and telepaths are frauds, things simply are not that simple. I can't see a way to divide people into "rational" vs "irrational", no one is always perfectly rational. And unless our test for rationality is "does the person believe in the supernatural", which would make the claim circular, there are all sorts of highly rational people that believe in weird things - supernatural or not. VdSV9•♫ 17:51, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is a practical way it can be fixed without weasel words because there are hundreds if not thousands of Wikipedia biographies for astrologers, diviners, dowsers, fortune tellers, mediums, psychics, spiritualists and telepaths and who knows what else. The point is if we start using these words like "claimed", are we going to change thousands of biographies? The more important question would be why? We have Wikipedia biographies for many mediums that have been on Wikipedia for decades, for example Leonora Piper. Or take for example the astrologer Nostradamus. We have never called them "alleged", "claimed" or "purported" mediums in their leads. The "claimed" astrologer Nostradamus sounds ridiculous. No historian would write like this.

Even skeptics who debunk such people refer to them as mediums or psychics in their articles and books, look at Harry Houdini for example. Mediums and psychics, telepaths is just their profession. I am not sure why an issue is being made about this, we are not saying they are genuine mediums or psychics. We are not saying they communicate with the dead or have genuine psychic abilities, we just say what they are known for. Based on what I am seeing here it is the skeptic group Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia who have been re-writing popular psychic biographies such as Sylvia Browne and Chip Coffey with such text as with "who claimed to be a medium with psychic abilities" and "self-proclaimed" in the lead. They have targeted high-traffic articles, but they are sadly selective here because there are hundreds of articles for mediums and psychics like Arthur Ford (psychic), Daniel Dunglas Home Helen Duncan, Mina Crandon at Wikipedia etc etc where the lead just cites these people as mediums and psychics, none of the "claimed" commentary. I would like to add that I support the Guerilla Skepticism group and they have done fantastic work at Wikipedia but they are wrong about this specific thing IMO. The self-proclaimed commentary reads as ridiculous in leads and info-boxes and is being selectively used. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

On the topic of GSoW, it might surprise you to know that I'm on the "other side" in the current arbcom case, and I generally support using a qualifier for mediums and psychics and the like. I actually reverted AFreshStart's bold change to a few articles, and advised they seek a broader consensus. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:01, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Psychologist Guy I don't think the number of pages that would be affected has any relevance to the discussion, nor for how long we have had pages that don't use qualifiers. I also don't think anyone interprets calling someone an astrologer as implying astrology works, it's like being a homeopath, and there is no need to qualify either of those. I don't understand why you say those examples are "selectively used". They weren't "selected", it's not like someone decided to use it on some pages and not on others. As people were writing and editing those individual pages, they didn't think it was right to simply write "medium" or whatever, and used those qualifiers. The fact that they then didn't go around changing every medium article doesn't make it "selective". Or maybe I just don't understand what you mean by the word. VdSV9•♫ 21:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This question goes back to at least 2008 [27] and has been hashed over many times. Not to say that a fresh RfC wouldn't do some good. - - LuckyLouie (talk) 19:32, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this up. Will check it out. VdSV9•♫ 20:02, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Ditto, thanks so much for bringing this to my attention! I assumed that something like this must have been discussed at one point – freethought, scepticism, rationalism and empiricism and Wikipedia go back a long, long way. And I'm rather surprised that "qualifier not needed" was the consensus opinion here (of course this can change). —AFreshStart (talk) 20:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

My thoughts are that a qualifier isn't needed, as they technically are mediums and/or psychics as we define those terms on their respective pages: they make money off of purporting to communicate with the dead and claiming to use ESP. If we write that someone "claims to be a psychic," then we are saying that they claim to claim to use ESP, which doesn't make any sense. I think most people understand that mediums don't actually communicate with the dead and psychics don't actually have ESP. I don't think there is any risk whatsoever that someone will read our article on Miss Cleo and come out of it thinking that Miss Cleo actually has supernatural powers. Mlb96 (talk) 22:57, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

This is basically a question on whether the qualifiers are WP:DUE. How are mainstream RS sources describing those individual subjects? Most sources I am aware of do not qualify these descriptions in writing about the person unless the person was notable as being a fraud or swindling people or for their fantastic claims. I think it is enough that the wikilinked medium, psychic, or clairvoyance articles discuss the underlying issues, especially if the RS about the person doesn't do it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:25, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

Completely disagree, here. The issue in these cases, just like with several other fringe topics, is that mainstream reliable sources too often write from a credulous perspective, which I think is inapropriate for an encyclopedia. VdSV9•♫ 01:09, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

You still have to comply with WP:BLP's demand of no WP:SYN and WP:NPOV if you do not have RS describing these specific people with these qualifiers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:24, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I disagree with that. A good source --and a big part of how you can tell its a good source-- is that they don't make judgments one way or another, especially on philosophical topics like these. "Can't prove they exist and, by the same token, can't prove they don't." May as well try to prove or disprove the existence of God ... or string theory. Those who believe will do so no matter what rationale you throw at them, and those who don't, won't. When you can't test it, it's no longer science and has gone into the realm of pure philosophy, and I think the average reader is smart enough to be able to decide for themselves their own philosophy. Otherwise, it just seems condescending. (By the way, I personally don't believe in psychics.) Whatever you believe in there is always, on some deep level, an element of faith involved. As Richard Feynman once said, "It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible." Zaereth (talk) 01:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

The condescension is one of my main worries with putting "claimed" on every psychic's page. How stupid do we think our readers are? Or rather, do we want to make it so obvious that we think our readers are stupid? Mlb96 (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

My big qualm with most of our skeptic-editing is the absolute lack of subtlety. I once had to remove the wording "false and debunked pseudoscience" from an article. There is no conceivable context where you would need that many redundant adjectives. Fundamentally, it is bad writing, and my belief is our articles should be well-written. We don't need every word qualified and every statement adjective-studded. Vaticidalprophet 09:08, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

By that reasoning, only WP:FALSEBALANCE sources are good sources. That is not how Wikipedia should work. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that using the same standard in all such articles is a good idea. Which standard that should be is secondary. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:37, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm leaning towards the magician argument. We wouldnt use qualifiers like that for many other professions that rely on misdirection/subterfuge. If we did, well all the notable chiropractors will also need an edit. Ooo and the pope. Speaks to God you know... Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:44, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between medium, psychic, and astrologer. An astrologer is someone who studies the movements and positions of the stars, and in general they actually do so. The fact that they then make predictions based on that is a separate step - after all, a metereologist studies the weather, even if they then are phenomenally bad at predicting the weather ... as many of them are, to be honest. Now a medium or a psychic claims to commune with spirits, and the claim here is that they don't. Straightforwardly don't, as in there aren't any spirits that can be communicated with. Unlike stars, which certainly exist, and which positions can absolutely be studied. So in general, I'd say "Jane is an astrologer" but "John is an alleged psychic." Note that a chiropractor actually does adjust your spine, whether or not that does good or bad for you, and that the pope, in general, does not claim to speak to God any more than anyone else does, the pope claims to direct the church, which he actually does. --GRuban (talk) 19:00, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with this -- I lean towards the inclusion of some sort of hedge, but I am also sympathetic to the (correct, in my mind) argument by Psychologist Guy and others that it would force some pretty awful syntax on the articles. I guess I am with Morbidthoughts insofar as we should defer to the RS descriptions. I did a quick check on Sylvia Browne, just to see, and noted that "self-proclaimed" was a pretty common description. Sorry I have neither vehemence nor certainty to add, but I think the discussion has been productive. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 19:10, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm struggling a lot with what I would view to be reasonable here. Issues with calling someone a medium (etc - I'm just going to use medium for simplicity) in wikivoice implies that the mediumship is real which is a huge problem. However, "claimed medium" (and similar) is atrocious language and goes against a bunch of other conventions we have. And mediumship is to some extent an entertainer, as mentioned by some people. So, rather than trying to reconcile these, I'm going to do my second move of sidestepping. If the contention is that they're actually entertainers, then we could call them entertainers whose genre (so to speak) is mediumship. If they're using their "abilities" to lend credence to their religious views that other people are following, then we call them a religious leader who happens to also use mediumship. In this system, Thomas John (medium)'s first sentence goes from Thomas John Flanagan, known professionally as Thomas John, is an American psychic medium becomes something ... is an American who performs as a psychic medium. If we're going to be adding "claimed" or whatever in front of the name, then we're throwing out using the "most commonly used terms" anyway. At least this way, we avoid horrific sentences and weasel-words.

To put it simply, we say their profession is the most basic version of what it actually is. --Xurizuri (talk) 05:30, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh wait actually, at that point the sentence construction allows for words like claim without making upsetting sentences: is an American performer who claims to be a psychic medium (in this case, "claims" is definitely demonstrated - Susan Gerbic and co.'s work is more than enough to support that word, even if consensus here ends up being against mass application of the word). --Xurizuri (talk) 05:40, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

What is the specific citation that demonstrates this qualifier for Thomas John and does it satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE? Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:42, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, it's not. By simply saying "medium" or "psychic" or "astrologer" or whatever, we're not in any way saying it's real or not real. It's like the flying saucers Feynman was discussing when he made the quote I used above (see full quote on wikiquotes or wherever). You can't prove they exist, and by the same measure, you can't prove they don't. We all know this. The reader knows this. Even a small child knows this. Unless we're talking about someone who is a known fraud, adding words like "claimed" is pointing out the obvious, and in common parlance pointing out the obvious is known as "talking down to". No matter what you believe, that just comes off as condescending. No need to point out the obvious or talk down to our readers.

For example, someone came to the moose article once, and said, "Uh, aren't you forgetting something? Why do you start by calling a moose a deer? A moose is an animal. It's not a plant or mineral." The answer is simple, starting off like that would be pointing out stuff that any child over the age of four should be expected to understand, and comes off as condescending to the average Earth-born reader. Now, if we were describing a moose to aliens from another galaxy, that level of detail would be necessary, but aliens are not our target audience. Any person on planet Earth over the age of kindergarten should already know a deer is an animal, and likewise know of mediums and psychics.

Now, people can believe whatever they like about things that cannot be proven one way or the other. We don't describe a Christian's belief in a "claimed" god, or the Buddist's belief in a "purported" tao. In any belief system there are those who are crooks and will use it to prey on people, but we need damn good sources to start connecting those dots on someone's bio. There are a lot of ways to trick people with magic and sleight of hand, whether a preacher, psychic, or politician. But that doesn't mean everyone who believes in it, or who truly believes they are one, is a crook, nor does it prove in any way that they are wrong. People can find faith in anything. They can even find faith in nothing, and when it comes to belief systems, our readers come from all of them. There may be certain cases where "claimed" or "purported" would be appropriate, but, as in all things, when dealing with belief systems and other unproveable things, it's important to really examine our own belief systems to understand how it may influence our own editing. Zaereth (talk) 20:07, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Any person over the age of kindergarten knows about mediums and psychics? Er - no. Speaking as a parent, those were not actually among the higher priority things to teach my six and seven year olds about, neither were they covered in school at that ag (for which I am quite grateful!). Even as a grown-up, professional mediums and psychics number exactly zero of my thousand closest acquaintances. I'm several orders of magnitude more familiar with fictional mediums and psychics than real ones - and most of those ones are usually "real" mediums and psychics. (Well, except for being fictional. I hope you know what I mean here.) This is different from religion, which we absolutely did cover with our children by that age, and we do have plenty of ... let's say professional religious people ... among our friends and acquaintances. In fact we can't walk ten blocks in any direction without hitting a house of worship, and they're quite prominent. But we'd have to go way out of our way to find a medium or psychic. So yes, it is worth one or two words to say "alleged" or "performs" or whatever. "Medium" and "psychic" are not nearly as common concepts as you seem to think. --GRuban (talk) 19:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm not really sure what to do here. An editor CHBDKGW keeps removing a well-referenced and notable sentence from this BLP. I can't do anything but revert it, but this is in vain and just results in an edit war. What do? — JThistle38 (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Frankly the whole thing seems to be WP:Coatracking since while the claim may be true, it doesn't seem to be of great relevance to Oskar Deutsch. People campaign to get significant figures to do stuff all the time. But in any case I removed some synthesis which perhaps will help reduce CHBDKGW's concerns. Nil Einne (talk) 18:29, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, a one-sentence mention in that cited article seems like an WP:UNDUE coatrack. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello! This article is for someone who is neither an active musician (his only album was released in 2014 and he has made no contributions since) or a notable figure. I've looked through all the sources and they're either written by himself, don't exist, or are copied from his own website and pasted onto other wikis. I tracked down the quotes listed on his website and they either didn't exist or didn't say what the quote says. In particular one was from a Berlin city newspaper on street musicians and wasn't written by an authority on music. I've included the article for reference be warned its in German [28]. This is a waste of Wikipedia's resources and should be removed. Thank you for your attention, this is my first time posting so I hope I got the netiquette right!

[29] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:D660:7940:4E8:49E6:767A:1723 (talk) 03:10, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I've tagged the page, but I'll let someone with more experience take a look to determine its deletion candidacy. Thank you. ~~Mattevt | Hit ^{me up} • edits 10:49, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I was unable to find any sources, so I nominated at AfD. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

A man was arrested after a brawl; ESPN, a local newspaper, and a celeb gossip site reported on it. I do not think that per WP:BLPCRIME this warrants inclusion--not until a conviction. I'd like the input of other editors; we routinely exclude arrests, and wait for convictions, unless there's some obvious national importance. There is no such importance here. The material I removed earlier was restored by Troutfarm27. Also courtesy pings to User:Mattevt and User:cheezejack. Drmies (talk) 16:51, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

is subject notable beyond the incident? yes. Is subject a public figure? Maybe(Do we define all athletes as public figures?). Is coverage widespread? well NYT has picked up on it. So think it hinges on public figure, which I do not believe they meet unless community consensus has already defined all athletes that way.Slywriter (talk) 17:01, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Professional athletes are generally considered to be public figures (I'm not actually aware of any exceptions but they may exist), it varies for semi-pro, and amateur athletes are generally assumed not to be public figures. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Kamara is definitely a public figure as a well-known football player. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Unless it impacts his career, this is gossip level of news that we should absolutely avoid including. Just out of common sense. --Masem (t) 17:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Kamara definitely falls onto the "public figures" category listed on WP:BLPCRIME. That, when combined with the amount of coverage the event has received (it has since been reported on CNN, SI, CBS Sports, and NFL's own website), I don't see why it shouldn't be included (as defined in WP:COVERAGE). What sets this particular instance apart would be its occurrence on the same weekend as the Pro Bowl, a major event Kamara participated in (also worth mentioning that his arrest came shortly after the game). The only issue I can see in retrospect would be the addition of the legal issues section header prior to a conviction, though that can be fixed at anytime. Troutfarm27 ^(Talk) 18:08, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Being widely covered as a public figure is one thing, but remember this is only an arrest, and not a conviction. We try to look at enduring aspects of a person's life and not what is flash in the pan type news bursts, as that is more the remit of gossip mags. It is far better to see if this has any enduring coverage before adding. --Masem (t) 22:05, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree with above. We should wait for a conviction before including. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:20, 7 February 2022 (UTC).

I agree with Masem, however I will also note that that is not how things usually play out. It is really more an undue weight element as opposed to a BLPCRIME issue. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:23, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

(User:Drmies),(User:Masem),(User:Xxanthippe) - I mean, plenty of athlete pages pay significant attention to accusations without convictions. Some subjects weren't even arrested--for example, Ben Roethlisberger (though action was taken by the league)--and some have entire separate articles about them (Kobe Bryant). For a less-noteworthy example: Jeff Reed once ripped a paper towel dispenser off a gas station bathroom wall. In another incident, he was a bit disorderly while a teammate was being cited for a separate issue. Both occurrences resulted in simple citations, yet each has a dedicated three-sentence paragraph in his article. Mr. Kamara was arrested, with LVMPD releasing an official statement. He is a star player for his organization and a significant figure in the NFL. I opine that the incident in question is noteworthy enough for inclusion. However, I also concede my "junior" status as a contributor and won't challenge the ultimate decision. ~~Mattevt | Hit ^{me up} • edits 22:44, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Mattevt, thanks for the ping and for looking around. But the thing is that we have lots of articles full of crap. If any of these are GAs or even FAs, then we can point to them and say, OK, here's precedent that's recognized by the community. But we probably don't have that for any of these. Roethlisberger--didn't he ride around without a helmet one time? Is that what you're pointing at? That really made national headlines, at least for a week or so. That ESPN reports on this story, well yeah, it's sports. If what's his name, that old guy on the NFL shows--Terry Bradshaw? if he farts on TV, ESPN will cover it. Now, here we also have the NYT saying something about it, so that makes it more notable, but again, it's only an arrest, not a conviction. It's a rather high bar that must be passed, and Masem's comment above makes a lot of sense; I'd only add that we err on the side of caution in BLPs. And that, by the way, is likely a valid reason to remove some of the things you saw in other articles. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

User:Drmies, Understood, and fair enough. Appreciate the consideration and insight. I will keep it in mind if I come across similar content in the future. Thanks! ~~Mattevt | Hit ^{me up} • edits 23:07, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm also of the opinion that this sort of stuff should stay out for now. I think it would be good if BLPCRIME included statements about keeping this sort of content out of public figures in most cases as well. Perhaps RECENT should apply here. In the short term we can't see how this will impact him. If no conviction happens and it all passes by I would say it was never DUE/encyclopedic enough to be here in the first place. If no conviction happens but some significant events in his life are triggered because of this (divorced, looses contract or endorsements etc) then hind sight will tell us to add it. We shouldn't add it primitively. Springee (talk) 15:44, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Talk:Buck Angel Sharouser (talk) 17:13, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Ben Garrison looks to have been edited by someone with a large bias. It seems libelous to me, though I'm no expert. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bethestaphales (talk • contribs) 17:58, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Was there something that is of particular concern? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:06, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Lede could probably be trimmed or rather content shifted to body for a shorter lede but other than that, I don't see any obvious issues with the article.Slywriter (talk) 18:15, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

The career section could probably be tightened into a paragraph rather than a list of times someone wrote an article about him, as well. The worst part is the section under "Personal life" where it discusses him and his wife having covid, which I just tidied a bit. It is quite possibly WP:UNDUE, but it doesn't appear to be an outright violation anymore. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:24, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

This page is repeatedly being edited to hide negative information (example: Special:Diff/1069136464) and as one can see, is additionally full of promotional material. Myself and a few others have made attempts to condense and/or undo repeated vandalism, and the issue has been brough up on the Talk page, but it still continues. I joined wikipedia when I first noticed this, and as such do not have much broader institutional knowledge to know how else to resolve this issue than reaching out here. Shrimpcoward (talk) 18:52, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

It does seem a bit WP:PROMO, doesn't it. I've reinserted the conviction for now, we'll see what happens. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:05, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

I am Shane Ortega and I request full removal of my Wikipedia. I never created one. Due to obsessive stalkers posting inflammatory information I request my page deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1004:B077:392B:1C7B:28D2:8534:6D51 (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I believe the right route is to go to Wikipedia:Volunteer Response Team so you can prove your identity, which makes it easier to delete the article, per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. I don't know if the article will be deleted however, since there is plenty of sourcing to show notability. [30][31][32][33]. That said, the article is pretty poorly written right now, and definitely needs some attention. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:22, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I've no knowledge of Columbian sports politics but the recent activity on Ramón Jesurún looks suspicious. It looks like there are editors out there bigging him up and others wanting to incriminate him in various scandals. As my Spanish is very poor I can't read the sources to tell is the events are being stated fairly or not. Nthep (talk) 20:53, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

See these edits [34], the only edits made by User:Salukitruth. Notifying the editor now. The accusations of a assault and battery conviction when he was a student may be true, but I can't find other sources for it suggesting it belongs in his article. Doug Weller talk 10:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I didn't find any secondary sources covering the plea, and the source given doesn't even show there was a plea. It shows guilty for a single misdemeanor. Per WP:BLPCRIME we shouldn't be including the allegations, as Reilly doesn't appear to be a public figure, although I'm not certain where exactly the line is drawn for that when someone has written books and taken part in a televised debate.

Generally though, I don't think a misdemeanor conviction from a decade ago not covered in reliable sources, and with no indication of lasting significance, belongs in any BLP article. I've reverted those edits. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

He pled guilty to the misdemeanor battery charge while the felony restraint charge was dismissed. This was most likely a plea bargain, but all of this falls under improper WP:BLPPRIMARY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:31, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Salukitruth restored this without discussion, and I've reverted again and opened a section on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:44, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Some parties are concerned whether or not Jonathan Wheatley#2021 Abu Dhabi last lap controversy belongs on Wikipedia. A review of the section to ensure there are no BLP violations would be appreciated. –Skywatcher68 (talk) 10:08, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

I looked at this when there was an open edit request. At the time, it seemed a bit over written, and now there's probably still an issue with balance, although there should be some mention of it in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:30, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Several subproposals have been added to the NSPORT RfC that would welcome input from the community.

Subproposal 1: "All athlete biographies must demonstrate GNG when notability is challenged at AfD". Potential exceptions/clarifications/amendments are also offered.

Subproposal 3: "Remove all simple or mere "participation" criteria in NSPORT, outside of ones related to Olympics and equivalent events. This would eliminate several sections on specific sports where this is the only type of criteria given (such as for NGRIDIRON), while merit-based ones, like several in NTRACK, would be left."

Subproposal 4: "Modify all provisions of NSPORTS that provide that participation in "one" game/match such that the minimum participation level is increased to "three" games/matches. This raises the threshold for the presumption of notability to kick in."

Subproposal 5: "All sports biographies and team/season articles must, from inception, include at least one example of actual SIGCOV from a reliable, independent source. Mere database entries would be insufficient for creation of a new biography article."

Subproposal 6: "Conditional on Subproposal 5 passing, should a prod-variant be created, applicable to the articles covered by Subproposal 5, that would require the addition of one reference containing significant coverage to challenge the notice?"

Subproposal 8: "Rewrite the introduction to clearly state that GNG is the applicable guideline, and articles may not be created or kept unless they meet GNG. Replace all instances of "presumed to be notable" with "significant coverage is likely to exist"."

Subproposal 9: "Rewrite the lead of WP:NSPORTS to ... cut the confusing sentence in the middle which is at odds with the rest of the guideline and which leaves itself open to lots of wiki-lawyering." JoelleJay (talk) 18:26, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Good evening all from the UK. Some material (a rumour which was not heard by the trial jury) about a living person who was first convicted and then acquitted on appeal was removed, and then restored here: [[35]]. Further material not put before the courts is at the section Murder_of_Billie-Jo_Jenkins#Controversy_over_evidence_not_admitted. The material has a variety of RS, but it has not been tested in the courts. How much of this material about an innocent man do we keep? My concern is that we may seem to be second guessing the courts or even reproducing defamatory material. Springnuts (talk) 22:18, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

In my view we should never be including negative rumors about BLPs. It's not hard to find sources that outline rumors. It's almost never a good idea to include them. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:35, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

There seems to be a WP:BLPBALANCE and WP:BLPSTYLE issue at Hajibala Abutalybov, with repeated re-additions of "Abutalybov told a visiting German delegation from Bavaria concerning Armenians and the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: “Our goal is the complete elimination of Armenians. You, Nazis, already eliminated the Jews in the 1930s and 40s, right? You should be able to understand us.” While the cited sources do confirm it, the discussion about their reliability was inconclusive. In my opinion, even if they are considered reliable, the sentence should be dropped anyway as an isolated incident lacking wider impact, thus being a cherry-picked BLPBALANCE violation. Brandmeister^talk 15:32, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that this article is reliably sourced for a BLP claim like that. I commented on each source at the talk of the article. Grandmaster 12:11, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Please check the date of your linked diff. It's not really a "repeated re-addition" when the addition you talk about was done in 16 October 2020. At this point, it is the stable version and I restored it, as I don't understand what part of this you claimed violates BLP.

Regarding the same quote of Hajibala Abutalybov being cited in Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan and your claim of it being an "isolated incident", I also don't think it is such. I already replied in talk but I'll reiterate here as well: It’s not isolated at all and is very consistent with the article. It would be isolated if it were a politician from a random country that Armenia has little relations with. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:STATUSQUO is not a reason to restore. You must obtain consensus to restore any material that is deleted on good faith BLP grounds. The sources that support its WP:DUE inclusion are poor. One is a US government document (See WP:BLPPRIMARY). Another is a commentary article written by a high school student! The last is a self-published paper which cannot be used to make assertions about a BLP per WP:BLPSPS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

There is no source for "history of abusing women..." and cannot be verified for Jose Gumbs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.200.127 (talk) 19:43, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted this, looks like run of the mill BLP vandalism. I've watchlisted it, in case it pops back up. If it becomes common, I'll request page protection. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:49, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

For full disclosure, I am a family member of Benedict Gross. My rough understanding is that trying to remove poorly sourced/inappropriate material from a BLP of a family member is not disallowed, but if so, apologies. In general, I appreciate any information folks can provide me as I try to learn more about what is/is not appropriate here.

I recently came across this article and was surprised to find that ~60% of the section on his career is devoted to a somewhat tangential link to Jeffery Epstein. I attempted to remove the information (original diff is here), but my removal was reverted due to lack of consensus.

My rough understanding is that this information should be removed due to running afoul of the BLP policy. I believe the most relevant issue is WP:NPF. Gross is a mathematician and his role in requesting funding while Chair is a VERY minor part of his career. There is one article (an op ed) in the Harvard Crimson that mentions this in passing. The diff linked above uses that article as the basis to cite a primary source, which I believe may cross the boundary into WP:OR.

Ultimately though, I am just not really sure what policy may/may not be relevant here. Regardless, it seems VERY strange to me that this article has such a focus on a tangential connection to Jeffery Epstein. Especially given that that connection does not seem to be particularly notable. I am not a frequent editor of Wikipedia, so am mostly just looking for more understanding of if this is considered to be a reasonable inclusion on this page, and if not, what a path to removal may look like.

Thank you for your attention and for any guidance you can provide me. 73.15.120.161 (talk) 20:14, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I have removed that undue content. Cullen328 (talk) 21:13, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Cullen328, really appreciate your attention on this. Unfortunately someone seems to have put back essentially the same content. This time they only cite a primary source, so not sure if that makes it more clearly WP:OR. Am I correct that WP:NPF applies here? Adding content about Gross' attempts to fund mathematics research that got essentially no news coverage doesn't seem appropriate in an article about a mathematician. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.15.120.161 (talk) 01:11, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I have removed it again due to this policy language: WP:BLP#Avoid misuse of primary sources. An editorial in a student newspaper is also not an acceptable source for contentious material like this, even if the university is prestigious. In the case of Martin A. Nowak, his involvement with Epstein was deeper and was covered by reliable secondary sources, and his career was badly damaged as a result, so discussing the Epstein connection is appropriate in that article. Cullen328 (talk) 01:40, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with your removal. I didn't see any secondary sources aside from the opinion piece during my search. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, We recently got notification of a undisclosed paid editing tag on Dr Catherine L. Ross' page and would really appreciate any suggestions on how to edit the page to get rid of that tag. Thank so much in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CQGRD (talk • contribs) 19:52, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi, CQGRD and welcome to Wikipedia. There's a note on the article's talk page—which if you are editing on a mobile device you might not be able to see, for your convenience—explaining that The article will need a thorough review ensuring notability, due weight, neutral language, and use of reliable sources before the tag is removed.

Who, by the way, is the "We" you refer to? And do you (plural) have a connection to Catherine L. Ross, her department or institution? (Do not provide any personal or self-identifying information though.) SN54129 19:59, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

It takes zero effort to add a ((undisclosed paid)) tag and compel other people do cleanup work. It takes actual effort to investigate and refute the claims. This is one reason Wikipedia is absolutely terrible for most biographies of living people. 63.155.109.204 (talk) 17:03, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm french so sorry for poor english : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evelin_Banev

This article looks to be written by people near Evelin Banev.

Wathever, note number 12 and other doesnt' looks to confirm information in the summary. For exemple : the bulgarian article in note 12 doesn't show any confirmation about a lie of bulgarian procuror to switz procuror.

On a other case : i dont seen confirmation about the fact that UE commission has publish not to say that bulgarian procuror act with excess of power.

I let you verify. Traductor, etc, could product mistake in my read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A01:E0A:5D9:EB60:154B:66EE:A6A4:F06 (talk) 17:34, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Salut. J'ai regardé cet article, et j'ai découvert il y a une version ancienne comme ça. Dans le plus mauvais cas, on pourrait y revenir. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:46, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Please correct Jimmy Bower's Personal Information to being in a relationship with Victoria VanDoren since 2019. The current information is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eyeh8gd (talk • contribs) 20:51, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Please provide reliable sources for the information you'd like to add or change. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:53, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the information. The original assertion was supported by a passing mention in a... what shall I say... website of questionable reliability for BLP content. Girth Summit _(blether) 20:57, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit okay, sorry about that. I should have examined the source more closely Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:01, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

No problem - I didn't mean to cast shade on you, unsourced changes are often problematic. Just in this case, a little bit of deeper digging made me think that the original content, while sourced, was not rock-solid. I'm actually looking for sources now, because I am not sure the artist is notable. I'll post here if I nominate at AfD. Cheers Girth Summit _(blether) 21:05, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

@Girth Summit okay, thanks for following up! (good admin) :) Philipnelson99 (talk) 21:08, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jimmy Bower, if interested. Girth Summit _(blether) 21:16, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Similar to my previous section, Friedrich Kunath's article has a massive unformatted list with no citations that was entirely added by a single source. The user is almost guaranteed to be a conflict of interest and the edits should be reverted and list should be formatted properly. Seabass715 (talk) 00:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)Seabass715

Batoul Soltani is a woman who, in an interview with The Guardian, said she was forced to have sex with Massoud Rajavi starting in 1999 (at this time he was the leader of the People's Mujahedin of Iran (MEK)).

Recently Bahar1397 quoted a source on the talk page saying "Lt. Col. Leo McCloskey who served as part of the US protection force at Camp Ashraf, revealed how Ms Soltani had been recruited by Iran". Based on this quote Bahar had added to the article "...Col. Leo McCloskey (former JIATF commander at Camp Ashraf) have denied these claims saying they are part of a misinformation campaign by the Iranian regime." Both Soltani and McCloskey can be presumed to be alive as I could find no RS that say they're dead.

The source Bahar provided is a report by a group that calls itself "International Committee In Search of Justice (ISJ)" lead by Alejo Vidal Quadras. Its not clear who authored the report, but Quadras wrote its introduction. Quadras has financial links to the MEK[36], and according to LobbyFacts, ISJ is a paid lobbying group[37]. Is this source reliable? If it is not, then I understand we'd need to remove this from mainspace. Should quotations of the source on talk pages (including what I wrote above) also be removed? Thanks, VR _talk 04:55, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that all these sources are unreliable and are trying to spin the matter one way or another. Wait until the situation is reported by a source with a solid reputation for fact-checking like the New York Times or similar. (The Guardian is probably reliable in reporting what was allegedly said). Xxanthippe (talk) 05:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC).

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

Anonymous user at User:24.184.26.105 appears to have an ongoing interest in adding WP:UNDUE critical material to this page, in violation of WP:BLP. Refuses to address the actual Wikipedia policies at issue on the talk page. Attempted to litigate the discussion elsewhere at Talk:Heinrich Schenker. I suggest either a temporary cool-off period, or semi-protection for the page. PianoDan (talk) 06:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I love Mary Dorcey's work, but I think there is an error in her information. Eva Gore-Booth, an early 20th century Irish poet, playwright, and essayist, was very outspoken on same sex unions and gender fluidity. I believe Gore-Booth was the first Irish poet to represent what we now call LGBTQIA+ rights under her own name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.221.219.108 (talk) 02:35, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Please provide sources for your claim. We must follow what reliable sources say before adding or modifying content to wikipedia. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 02:39, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

The BLP issue is whether Mary Dorcey is indeed the " first Irish woman to write and speak in support of gay rights in her own name in Ireland" or " first woman in Irish history (1974 to the present) to advocate for LGBTI rights, in person and print, throughout Ireland and internationally". The cited sources[38][39] do not directly support that, and my search of sources confirming this finds sources that mirror wikipedia. We may be dealing with some citogenesis puffery here. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:28, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

I am aware of off-wiki misinformation about Rodney Joffe and Michael Sussmann that some have attempted to insinuate here in a manner that raises BLP concerns.

The most recent example involves edits by 2075versant on the Joffe BLP, and on Neustar, his employer. 2075versant used two unreliable sources per RSP, The Daily Wire[40] and The Federalist.[41] When 2075versant's edits were removed for that reason, 2075versant then used Fox News,[42] which is an RSP yellow source for politics, with no corroborating source. This Fox News source states, without explicitly naming Sussmann, "a lawyer for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign," though this is an allegation John Durham has made rather than an established fact that Durham has proven in court, and which Sussmann denies. Sussmann allegedly representing the Clinton campaign is the linchpin of an emerging narrative (conspiracy theory, some might say) to connect Clinton to a scheme to spy on Trump. This linchpin was previously whispered about until Fox News explicitly fabricated it last Saturday.[43]

2075versant also asserted in the Joffe BLP lead that "Durham charged Sussmann in September 2021 with lying to the FBI about his investigation of Trump." In fact, Sussmann was not charged with that, but rather he was charged for allegedly lying about not representing a client when he spoke with an FBI official. Durham alleges Sussmann was actually representing the Clinton campaign, but again, this is not established fact and Sussmann denies it. Let's see what surfaces in court later this year.

This Fox News story was authored by the same individual who five days ago wrote a Fox News story that falsely asserted Durham had said the Clinton campaign, and/or lawyers for the Clinton campaign (read: Sussmann, Marc Elias), "paid" Joffe's company to "infiltrate" White House and Trump servers.[44] As explained here[45], Durham said no such things. He did not say the Clinton campaign was involved, or that any payments were made, or that Joffe's alleged activities were unlawful.

On this basis, I suggest the edits 2075versant made about an hour after registering an account be removed. I also think some page protection is appropriate at this time as this narrative continues to go viral off-wiki. There's a smear campaign afoot. We should be more attuned to this and not be complicit in it.

As an aside, I submit that the recent Fox News reporting should be evaluated at RSP for possible consideration to deprecate Fox News as a source for politics. Their reporting was the original source to fabricate yet another Hillary Clinton "scandal" now spreading like wildfire across right-wing media. soibangla (talk) 18:10, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Without consideration or opinion of larger issues, I have reverted as Fox news should not be used in a political BLP especially to paint someone in a negative light.Slywriter (talk) 18:18, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Hans Boersma

The Political Involvement section of this article is in violation of the biographies of living persons policy in that it references hacked materials. The link provided to back the claim is to a Vice article about the hacked material, but which does not mention the subject Hans Boersma by name in the article or describe him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshCan22 (talk • contribs)

I removed that, as the source did not mention the BLP subject. Any inclusion like this should have a reliable secondary source discussing it to establish WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:58, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

Pnade has restored this twice now, citing this blog post which does not mention the article subject, and merely links to a spreadsheet. Even if the article subject's name were on the spreadsheet, which I was unable find, we have no way of verifying that a googledocs spreadsheet is legitimate, or that any names on it are actually any particular person. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:47, 17 February 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Siegfried Zielinski A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

The page on Siegfried Zielinski reads like his LinkedIn page. The list of publications is overly long for what is supposed to be just a selection. Isn't too much weight being given to this one scholar? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Japkiw (talk • contribs) 10:45, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Japwik you can indicate that on articles using the template ((like resume)). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:23, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

A._C._Santacruz I added it, thank you! Japkiw (talk) 13:55, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Japkiw, fantastic! I've left a message in your talk page with a number of helpful links for other contributions you might want to make to Wikipedia. Category:Cleanup templates has a list of other templates similar to ((like resume)) that you might find useful as well. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:58, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

 Courtesy link: Sayani GuptaFor those interested. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:39, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

If you hover over the name on any other Wikipedia article it shows a death threat instead of the usual page preview — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:ADA7:8300:4542:DF36:5075:B4A2 (talk) 18:37, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

This is true, but I don't know what template is being used to do this. Short description is normal. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:41, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm assuming it has something to do with the recent vandalism. I didn't see anything on Wikidata, or in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish, yeah. I've also gone through page information but I'm at a loss. I've requested permanent page protection as this page has been vandalized for over a year. I've never seen a page so heavily revdel'd without having protection. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I made a quick CE edit, and it seems to have resolved the issue. Must have been some weird caching between the revert, or possibly because of the revdel? Who the hell knows. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems like most likely issue. I'll see if there's some place where I can report this bug, as it certainly is a very harmful issue. That's such a weird fix tho. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 18:51, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:16B8:ADA7:8300:4542:DF36:5075:B4A2 (talk) 18:53, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Anonymous user (possibly the subject of the article or someone working on her behalf) is trying to delete the "Early/Personal Life" section, likely because it contains unfavorable - yet accurate, newsworthy (inasmuch as the entire article is noteworthy), and sourced - information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:4850:2CD0:E109:BF9A:9BB2:FAF3 (talk) 21:57, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

You brought this to the scrutiny of the wrong noticeboard. What you consider as unfavorable but newsworthy is tabloid trash[46] failing several of our BLP policies (WP:BLPNAME, WP:WELLKNOWN or WP:NPF) with its inadequate sourcing. I also question the notability of this musician or playwright under WP:MUSICBIOWP:CREATIVE and have nominated it for deletion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:04, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Recently The Sun reported of a domestic abuse case by an unnamed Premier League footballer. The identity of the footballer cannot be revealed due to legal reasons. There have been rumours on social media that the footballer is Dean Henderson, and we may see this added to his article without reliable sources. The content has not been added yet, but hopefully active editors can watch for it and request for page protection if necessary. starship.paint (exalt) 10:23, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

• [47]. It’s started. starship.paint (exalt) 14:45, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  How many go arounds like that before we request semi for a bit? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

  @ScottishFinnishRadish: - I'm guessing three instances of BLP-violating content. I expected more, actually, but thankfully it has been limited to one instance so far, and hopefully this has blown over. starship.paint (exalt) 06:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Please take a look at the sources that have been added to this article on Bibo Bergeron: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bibo_Bergeron#cite_ref-:0_4-0

the articles are all linked back to one article that contains unverifiable content. any article that relys on "unidentified sources" is misleading. only accredited news sources should be used. the type of information news reporting that has been added only encourages Media_bias|biased or emotionally loaded impressions of events rather than Journalistic_objectivity|neutrality and may cause a Media_manipulation to the truth of a story.

I am new to Wikipedia, trying to figure out how to do this properly. please help? it is not ok for an entertainment magazine to be used as a news source when it is clearly based on selling entertainment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dragonnchild (talk • contribs) 17:01, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

@Dragonnchild: There is nothing we can do about the Spanish Wikipedia. Please take the discussion to Es:Talk:Bibo Bergeron or whatever dispute resolution boards they have, not here. Nil Einne (talk) 17:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello - Starting 20 Jan 2022, this entry was intentionally revised from neutral to argumentative and biased against the subject. (Please note that I am the subject of the entry.) Obviously it need not be flattering but several revisions are poorly sourced and argumentative. I'm not familiar with Wikipedia editing - those who edited this will simply change back edits I figure out how to make. Specific concerns below, any help appreciated: Opening paragraph: 1. "widely criticized for being 'overzealous, grandstanding, and politically motivated'": source does not support this - the comment is in regard to a single matter (involving charges against a local trial judge). 2. "anti-immigration rhetoric in discussions with right-wing pundits": sources do not support this - the subject matter was legal criticism of the sanctuary city movement, which is not "anti-immigration rhetoric," but a policy position on an important current legal issue; Adriana Cohen is a reporter, not a "right-wing pundit." 3. "his partisan criticism of Presidents Biden and Obama while still serving in the role of US Attorney": - source does not support this - article is about drug enforcement policy. There is nothing "partisan" about disagreeing with the anticipated approach of the incoming administration on a policy issue. 4. "and his inappropriate statements such as a call for drug dealers to be "buried." - quote ("buried") is correct, but editorializing ("inappropriate statements") is improper and demonstrates the editor's bias.

In final section ("Indictment of MIT Professor"): 1. "The Department of Justice later announced that, after further investigation, there was no evidence that Dr. Chen violated the law" - this is factually incorrect and unsourced. More accurate: "after further investigation, the government could no longer prove an element of the offense." [see the government's own statement: https://www.justice.gov/usao-ma/pr/statement-us-attorney-rachael-s-rollins-dismissal-gang-chen-case]

Thank you for whatever help you can provide on this. SMaturin99 (talk) 14:33, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

We do not rely government PR for statements about living persons (with the possible exception of very simple stuff like when Lelling resigned) noting that anything we say affects not only Lelling but Chen. Otherwise me might as well use Chen's lawyer

“came forward and told the government how badly they misunderstood the details surrounding scientific and academic collaboration,” saying that “without them this case would likely still be ongoing.”
Mr. Fisher, a partner at Nixon Peabody, said the scientist had “never lied to the government or anyone else.”
“Today is a great day,” he said. “The government finally acknowledged what we have said all along: Professor Gang Chen is an innocent man. Our defense was never based on any legal technicalities. Our defense was this: Gang did not commit any of the offenses he was charged with. Full stop.”

I've reworded the sentence to better match what the NYT says [48] which makes it clear that the prosecution fell apart because the Department of Energy themselves said they didn't think the connnections need to be declared, and they would not have made any difference to their funding decision. Even the U.S. Attorney said "said the decision to withdraw the case had been made after prosecutors obtained new information indicating that the Chinese affiliations at the center of the case were not of material importance to the funding agency" so whatever the DoJ may have said in their PR, it's clear that further investigation meant their case fell apart. Nil Einne (talk) 16:30, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

That said, on further examination I removed the Chen thing. The secondary sources (two NYT articles) make it clear the prosecution was controversial and as I said that it fell apart, but don't significantly link this controversy to Lelling. I also removed the entirety of the Biden and buried thing. You're right that while the source does mention Lelling making these statement, they don't say they were controversial let alone mention the partisan or inappropriate. I also removed the earlier part about anti-immigrant rheoteric since again you're right, the source doesn't mention any criticism. I left in the overzealous thing for now since it is mentioned in the source but removed the widely bit. Note that sources are what matter here. If we had sufficient sources saying he was criticised for his partisan statements or his inappropriate statements our article will reflect this no matter any editor's personal belief that his statements were not partisan or inappropriate. Nil Einne (talk) 17:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your quick and thoughtful reply - all makes sense. SMaturin99 (talk) 19:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Hello, full disclosure I am affiliated with the center run by Dr. Catherine L. Ross. Her Wikipedia has received an undisclosed paid editing tag 'requiring a thorough review ensuring notability, due weight, neutral language, and use of reliable sources before the tag is removed'. How would I go about getting that review on the way to get that tag removed? Thanks so much in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by CQGRD (talk • contribs) 19:37, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Since your name presumably stands for "Center for Quality Growth and Regional Development" you should read WP:ISU and WP:NOSHARING. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 20:13, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Also see this thread from ^^^ SN54129 20:34, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

@CQGRD, I suggest you might get a more sympathetic hearing for an article about a female professor by asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. They are working to increase Wikipedia's coverage of notable women. We are a volunteer organization that is inundated with paid PR people writing glowingly non-encyclopedic articles about topics which often don't meet our standards for inclusion. Lots of volunteer time is spent in cleanup. Catherine L. Ross is an article written by a now blocked user that had to be cleaned of copyright violation. There is little incentive for further help with such articles. StarryGrandma (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

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

Persistent attempts to add an unreferenced date of birth, now culminating in an Instagram post saying "TWENTY SIX FEELS PRETTY GOOD" supposedly referencing a date of birth. FDW777 (talk) 17:15, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Looking into this, the Instagram does include a photo suggesting a celebration which although it's very ORy at least reduces my concerns that the specific comment could be something someone says weeks or even months later. However the account is unverified and I still have no idea why people always assume someone only ever celebrates their birthday on the exact date. (And while OR suggest it's unlikely in this case, why people assume someone's post is from something that happened on that exact date.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:00, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

This is one of those cases where there are lots of bad sources (Instagram, Companies House, Daily Mail) which tell a consistent story, which is also consistent with known dates when she achieved certain things. Personally I don't have the slightest doubt that that date being argued over is correct, but that doesn't mean that we can use it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 06:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Respected Team! I think this bio was started in 2013 and in 2022 (14 years later), the page shows a warning that it has been written like an advertisement. I got interested in the page owing to the latest news flowing about Indian NSE fraud case. Naturally, I wanted to read the lady's Wikipedia. Is that a right page I am looking at? How do I know I am not being presented a wrong page and that the page I am looking at is at its best? I mean any indicator that says this page is 99% accurate or 30% accurate? I am knew to Wikipedia editing. Sorry if this is a repeat question. Thanks. Anastasius Hartmann — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnastasiusHartmann (talk • contribs) 12:52, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

@AnastasiusHartmann Wikipedia:General disclaimer and Reliability of Wikipedia may have something helpful. IMO, if you're looking for any reason above personal curiosity, then you should not put your trust in WP-article text, but in the sources provided (if any), if you think they deserve it. WP has a lot of good stuff, a lot of crap, and quality can be very uneven even within a specific article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:21, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

As members of this noticeboard know, under WP:BLPBALANCE because of the potential impact on biography subjects' lives, biographies must be fair to their subjects at all times. There are two statements in the article about David Copperfield (illusionist) that fail this test. I have a personal connection to Copperfield, so should not edit the page directly but I have researched the appropriate sources and policies.

1. In the section David Copperfield (illusionist)#Career and business interests, the following two sentences from the end of the sixteenth and final paragraph of the section should be removed:

“This approach, despite its obvious popularity with audiences, has its share of detractors within the profession. One magician has described Copperfield's stage presentations as ‘resembling entertainment the way Velveeta resembles cheese’.”[1]

Here is the actual relevant excerpt of The New Yorker article used as the citation:

And, with that, David Copperfield—a man who owned neither a home nor an automobile but was reported to be looking for a warehouse; a man whose stage presentations were once described to me as “resembling entertainment the way Velveeta resembles cheese”—had bought the Mulholland Library for two million two hundred thousand dollars.

The Wikipedia statement is a WP:WEASEL creating a broad generalization about “some” magicians” (plural) that is based on a quote about one person, said to be a “friend of [rival magician Ricky] Jay’s.” The person is not even identified in the source as being a magician. Under MOS:QUOTEPOV, while direct quotes with emotive opinions can sometimes be used if relevant to the article, (e.g. from a professional critic), but only with an attribution. The attribution given here is false – there is no “magician” being quoted, merely a remembrance of off-hand snark from a person whose profession or relationship to the author isn’t even identified. There isn’t enough specificity in The New Yorker article to even come up with an attribution, which is perhaps why the editor falsified a weak one. Nor can this quote be paraphrased within policy (with or without an attribution) since it does not present a neutral fact, just an unattributed, anonymous malicious attack. See WP:BLPSTYLE for prohibitions against “contentious labels, loaded language…” and WP:BLPBALANCE for prohibitions against “biased, malicious… content.” The quote also arguably violates WP:BLPGOSSIP since it is a snarky anonymous quote. As a whole, this statement is a WP: NPOV violation manufactured to disparage a living person.

2. In the section David Copperfield (illusionist)#International Museum and Library of the Conjuring Arts, the third and fourth sentences of the first paragraph, should be removed

“Copperfield's 1991 Mulholland purchase, which formed the core of his collection, engendered criticism from some magicians. One told a reporter, ‘David Copperfield buying the Mulholland Library is like an Elvis impersonator winding up with Graceland.’^[1]”

Here is the actual relevant excerpt of The New Yorker article used as the citation:

A friend of Jay’s who also knew Copperfield said to me later, “David Copperfield buying the Mulholland Library is like an Elvis impersonator winding up with Graceland.”

This is a WP:WEASEL creating a broad generalization about “some magicians” (plural) that is based on a quote about one person, said to be a “friend of [rival magician Ricky] Jay’s.” The person is not identified in the source as being a magician. This could be anyone from the rival entertainer’s publicist to an insult comedian to his lawyer. Again, under MOS:QUOTEPOV direct quotes with emotive opinions can sometimes be used if relevant to the article, (e.g. from a professional critic), but only with an attribution. The author does not say that a “magician” is being quoted, He only says he is quoting an anonymous friend of a rival magician, Ricky Jay. The author pointedly does not say the person is a magician. Indeed, there isn’t enough specificity in The New Yorker article to even come up with a Wikipedia-acceptable non-anonymous attribution, which is perhaps why the editor falsified a weak one. Nor can this quote be paraphrased within policy (with or without an attribution) since it does not present a neutral fact or relevant opinion, just an unattributed, anonymous malicious attack. See WP:BLPSTYLE for prohibitions against “contentious labels, loaded language…” and WP:BLPBALANCE for prohibitions against “biased, malicious… content.” The quote also arguably violates WP:BLPGOSSIP since it is a snarky anonymous quote. As a whole, this statement is a WP: NPOV violation manufactured to disparage a living person.

Thank you for your consideration. MagicTech1902 (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

A user is repeatedly adding false conspiracy theory information to this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.3.23.184 (talk) 02:41, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The article is protected, and the person that originally added the information has been warned. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:48, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

My apologies for my reverting of the removal of the content. I was doing recent changes patrolling and when I looked at the changes made, it looked like content blanking. On closer inspection, the information seems untrustworthy and likely a BLP violation. Ithinkiplaygames (talk) 04:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Article:

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

Editors:

• Mplsnirvana (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• MPLSpolitico (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Mplssouthside (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Could someone take a look at the recent editing at this article. Cunningham is a Minneapolis politician who gained fame for becoming one of the first transgender politicians of color to be elected to public office. He has also held controversial views regarding the defunding the police movement. The editors involved appear to be in an edit war involving whitewashing the article vs over-emphasis of controversy. Some or all of the editors may have a conflict of interest in the matter. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:37, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

WikiDan61 please notify the editors of this discussion. Advocacy editing seems clear in this case. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 12:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Done. The directions for this noticeboard only required placing a notice of the discussion on the article talkpage, so that is what I did. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 13:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Much appreciated, WikiDan61. Since this thread has a similar tone to WP:COIN threads I forgot we weren't discussing the issue there. I do think it's good to notify editors in their talk pages of all relevant discussions, though, but I see how that is not required in this noticeboard. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 13:29, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Hi User:WikiDan61, thank you for your diligence. Can you please clarify from your perspective what the difference is between whitewashing and neutralizing language? I initially came to Cunningham's page because as a constituent, I was really proud of all the work he did and was quite devastated when he lost. I thought it was pretty unfair to have his page littered with overly negative and controversial content. I guess I'm just wondering how balance is created without neutralizing editorialized language and, furthermore, how to address those edits that are very clearly made in bad faith, i.e. the 'powderhorn 9' content Mplssouthside/Mplsnirvana added. Cunningham did so much work, can you please explain why adding it to the page is considered whitewashing? I left the negative/controversial content that the other use actually properly sources - and neutralized their editorial language. I've been monitoring this page at this point purely because that person appears to be trolling. Thanks again for your guidance and all of your effort to maintain wikipedia data integrity. MPLSpolitico (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 13:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

MPLSpolitico please be aware that your political affiliation is highly likely to skew what you see as neutral. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:34, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Checking back in about this - Mplssouthside/Mplsnirvana (same person; see their contribs and history, including the content in the edit summaries they are leaving which there are two summaries with identical language between the two accounts) continues to revert to bad faith and inaccurate/editorialized edits. At this point, I have to wonder if they are a troll or actually getting financial benefit. Any help is greatly appreciated. MPLSpolitico (talk) 14:21, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

If you believe they are the same person, please report this at the Sockpuppet investigations page, MPLSpolitico. In fact, I would encourage you to do so in this case. A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 14:35, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Replying to MPLSpolitico re whitewashing: if you remove sourced information because you feel it paints the subject in a negative light, that is whitewashing. If you disagree with the source, you should discuss the matter at the article's talk page, indicating why you think the source is incorrect, providing alternative sources that provide a different perspective. Then editors can collaborate to find a proper neutral article. But that is not what you did.

Also, I received this message on my user talk page that is relevant to this discussion:

Thank you for the messages. I don't know if you are an admin or not but yes, there is an edit war going on with the Phillipe Cunningham page that doesn't need to be. This page was 95% in its original form for YEARS then about a week ago Phillipe Cunningham went on Twitter and asked his supporters to engage in a campaign to scrub his resume. The link for that is here. https://twitter.com/CunninghamMPLS/status/1494825591710916613 . Shortly after, this person mplspolitico COMPLETELY rewrote the wiki page on Cunningham. This person is either Phillipe Cunningham himself or his husband based on the things said. I went back and merged the two hoping it would resolve the issue and once again, mplspolitico took out 95% of what was originally posted. This chain of events is CLEARLY a campaign to make Cunningham look good as he is a politician. I hope the admins fix this as soon as possible. I never wanted to get into this back and forth and I am trying to meet this person in the middle but they seem bent on minimizing any controversy with Cunningham. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mplssouthside (talk • contribs) 14:20, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

While I can't confirm that MPLSpolitico is either Phillipe Cunningham or his husband, as alleged, I do recognize that this user has an undue interest in cleaning up this biography. I also recognize that other users appear to be interested in giving undue weight to any controversy about Cunningham. I believe a middle ground needs to be reached, but that may not be possible as long as the two extreme factions are involved in editing the page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:01, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

A._C._Santacruz WikiDan61 I respectfully suggest that the way the other user has been writing is in an editorial format - not just providing information, but using opinionated language. I welcome feedback about where I have done so in my updates. I was initially drawn to this page via google because I follow his twitter and saw the post referenced by the other user. That's when I saw all the negative content on his page. That's when I created this account to update content to the page I found on Cunningham's website and google. It has been my intention to use neutral language, and thoroughly cite sources. I would be interested in knowing what middle ground can look like. Thanks again for your attention and guidance. I will report the account to sockpuppet as suggested by A._C._Santacruz. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MPLSpolitico (talk • contribs)

@MPLSpolitico: I agree that Mplssouthside has edited in a non-neutral fashion, but no more so than you yourself. Both sides of this edit war apparently have feelings on the topic that are too strong in one direction or the other to edit neutrally. I suggest all of the MPLS... editors take a break from this and allow other editors to sort out the details. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 15:53, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Firefangledfeathers has undertaken a cleanup of the article. (Thanks!!!) I recommend we await the conclusion of their work. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 16:05, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I could use some support from experienced BLP editors. A set of my edits were reverted, and I'd appreciate a third opinion rather than re-revert. There's also a lot of content sourced to Cunninham's website and LinkedIn page and I'm thinking through what's reasonable from a WP:ABOUTSELF lens. Firefangledfeathers (talk | contribs) 16:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

I've removed the bulk of the political positions that were cited to his campaign site as being WP:UNDUE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:57, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I am definitely willing to wait and cease editing. Thank you for your efforts Firefangledfeathers MPLSpolitico (talk) 16:16, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

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

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

Krystal Ball and Kyle Kulinski are the co-hosts on a political podcast. On Valentine's Day, Kulinski tweeted out this photo of them, which Ball retweeted. Trouble is, as far as the reliable sources know, Ball is legally married to someone else. The extent of the new sourcing is this and this, and I've reverted its addition on both pages per WP:BLPGOSSIP. In fact, I just put Ball on extended confirmed protection since autocomfirmed editors were still adding it while I had semi-protected it. Kulinski is permanently semi-protected with arbitration enforcement by El C. Thoughts and input are welcome. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:38, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify the reverted edit would have read as follows:

On February 14, 2022, Ball publicly confirmed she was in a relationship with co-host Kulinski in a photo of them embracing via Twitter. Author Marianne Williamson verified the post remarking, "The perfect Valentine's Day". There was no other information regarding the status of Ball's marriage at the time.[49] [50]

--NoMagicSpells^talk 06:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

(Involved). Initially I was against the revert since we have secondary sources, but after investigating, the secondary sources are based on a Twitter post, and that Twitter post is pretty meh. It doesn't actually say "we are in a relationship" or "we are dating". The viewer is left to synthesize that on their own by looking at a photo and some emojis. At this point I think it likely they are in a relationship, but to make sure we get it correct, I think it is reasonable to wait for better sources. –Novem Linguae (talk) 06:53, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

The previously cited secondary sources aren't exactly high quality RS either in speculating about their relationship. No better than TMZ. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:01, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with all the analysis so far. Saying they're in a relationship at this point strikes me, at best, as WP:SYNTH of sources, and not terribly high-quality sources. For me, this falls into the vast canyon of things that are almost certainly true but not appropriate for Wikipedia. Reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:17, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

It can't be a SYNTH because information is taken directly from the sources. None of the editors on this thread have proven the sources are unreliable with the information. In the meantime, the Wikipedia article can't say the individual is married or not when the current evidence clearly suggests there is no information to state either. POV remarks aside, is the information provided reliable and factually correct or not? --NoMagicSpells^talk 04:16, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, you should read WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:BURDEN, and WP:ONUS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:25, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. The focus appears to be about "gossip" and not on getting the article right. The editors on this thread are aware the Wikipedia section for the BLP is incorrect. Do you want the wording in the article to remain inaccurate or provide a solution? If editors want to leave section in its current form then it fails any integrity. --NoMagicSpells^talk 02:35, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

Which section is "inaccurate" again? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:22, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

We could just wait for one of them to make a clearer statement, then revisit this at that time. –Novem Linguae (talk) 20:29, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

The article is correct. Gossip and guesses about a tweet with two people hugging is not fit for inclusion in an encyclopedia, and certainly not worded as you had written it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:31, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

There were no guesses and the sources reported the information correctly and factually. It's not the sources fault that the individuals (who ironically tout their journalistic integrity) didn't make a clearer statement regarding their relationship. At the very least this edit here which was reverted needs to be reverted back. Otherwise Wikipedia will be fuelling that gossip based on older info. The current wording for the opening sentence remains incorrect when editors on this thread know the situation to be different. --NoMagicSpells^talk 05:40, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

There has been little discussion of these sources at RSN, so I cannot say whether they are reliable. However, their conclusion that the two are dating is an analysis of the picture and therefore is not reliable per News organizations. Anyone who thinks that being photographed with a man kissing a woman on the cheek means they are in a relationship obviously doesn't know much about relationships. TFD (talk) 06:08, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

The entire sentence about her family has been removed because there are no adequate sources that satisfy WP:BLPNAME without synthesis. Same with the name of her ex-husband in the infobox. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm content with this edit. Thanks. --NoMagicSpells^talk 03:55, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Violet-Anne Wynne (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ureferenced full date of birth (that's contradicted by the previously referenced year of birth) and WP:UNDUE coverage over a rent arrears incident restored without consensus here. Due to a 1RR restriction per WP:TROUBLES I'm unwilling to take any further action on the article myself. FDW777 (talk) 12:18, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The date of birth is referenced.

The rent arrears section has existed almost as long as the article but you never had an issue with it until I added further information to it.

--ObtuseAngles (talk) 13:01, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

The issue is the current coverage of the incident is WP:UNDUE, whereas the previous coverage wasn't. This isn't a difficult concept to understand. FDW777 (talk) 13:09, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

No, the issue is that would don't like people disagreeing with you so you run around to as many pages as you can making as many reports as you can in the hope you can a. shut people up and b. get your own way.

The issue Wynne came to national media was over the rent arrears. This attracted the most reporting on her. Of course this is going to be a significant section. Honestly, your tactics kind of work because I am not sure I can put my efforts into editing wikipedia if gatekeepers like you keep acting like this. It is bizarre. --ObtuseAngles (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

It seems like overkill given that the news about the rent arrears popped up only three times in the first five pages of a Google News search.[51] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Have to agree it seems undue, especially since the additions don't really seem to add anything useful to the story. Nil Einne (talk) 13:37, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

What should be done about the above article? Secondary coverage I can't seem to find anywhere. A fresh appeal has changed matters considerably and contradicts other older material;

• "11 of these were overturned on appeal." This number has increased substantially.
• "Lee was imprisoned for life" the primary source indicates he received a hospital order rather than a custodial sentence.
• The individual's name. The judgement refers to him merely as T, but does not clarify the reasons for this anonymity. It does note Bruce Lee as a name used previously; a BBC article cited once in the article suggests the name should be Peter Tredget. A piece this month from a law firm connected to the case also states Peter Tredget as the appropriate name.
• "arguing due to his physical disabilities he could not have committed the crimes and falsely confessed" is a somewhat misleadingly simplistic summary of the grounds of appeal, albeit an attractively succinct one. This is a complicated appeal heavy with, and revolving around, detailed analysis of a range of concepts and points.

The article also contains a lot of citation needed tags, many of which can be addressed by the primary source. Am I correct in thinking that the source is considered largely unuseable, though, without secondary coverage?

Judgement is here and it's lengthy. I spent much of yesterday and today reading it. Law firm article is here. The BAILII version of the judgement is here. It is the same document, but listed as between R and Tredget rather than simply T.

Any thoughts/advice? 79.71.44.32 (talk) 18:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

You are correct. Details that can only be sourced to WP:BLPPRIMARY should be removed. If reliable secondary sources do not bother to report on the detail, we shouldn't either. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:58, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

While we sometimes have problems with appeals being given minimal coverage when the hype has died down, given the extremely high profile nature of this case and accused crimes, I'd be surprised if the key details aren't covered in secondary sources. A quick search shows that these article seems to do an okay job of summarising the result of the most recent appeal and also the various claims made in it [52] [53] [54] although I haven't compared them to the judgment. At least one of them does mention he's been detained in a secure mental hospital since 1981. The earlier stuff is probably in the contemporary sources and maybe in general overviews of the case which may exist. I suspect some of the existing sources cover these details and the problem is partly a lack of inline cites although admittedly I see Daily Mail and Daily Mirror as sources, as well as a book by the detective in charge and Tru TV none of which seems to be great sources. (Well not totally sure about Tru TV but, I'm wary of true crime TV documentaries as sources especially when it affects living persons.) Nil Einne (talk) 11:45, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

A minor note, perhaps, but the Daily Mail of Hull is distinct from the Daily Mail 'of London'. Those new sources, I haven't read them yet (will shortly), but they could hopefully solve the problem. 79.71.44.32 (talk) 13:47, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

You're right, the ref is Daily Mail of Hull not the deprecated Daily Mail of London so may be fine. I also see that the Tru TV is actually some sort of true crime story on their website rather than a documentary. I still don't think it's a great source, indeed on of the reasons I got confused is it mentioned chapter which I assumed referred to parts of a documentary but it's actually referring to very short chapters in their story. I don't have much experience with that sort of writing but fear like true crime documentaries there may be a great focus on the story telling and entertainment aspect. However it may not be bad enough to require immediate replacement which I feel does apply to Daily Mirror. Nil Einne (talk) 17:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

It's really odd to me the the Mirror isn't deprecated like the Mail and Sun. Maybe it should be? 79.71.44.32 (talk) 14:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

There is a sentence saying Poilievre supports defunding the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). Two editors have supported its insertion. Two editors have supported its removal. Further input welcome here or on the talk page]. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:12, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Update: Up to four editors supported removal, with some accompanying remarks that (as I interpret) it could go back if better sourcing appears and/or Mr Poilievre makes clear statements in future. It's once again removed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Content focusing on this individual's association with right-wing and fringe race-and-intelligence research has apparently accrued over recent years, sourced especially to three secondary sources: this article in The New Statesman, this one in Review of General Psychology and this one in the American Journal of Biological Anthropology. Recently Grayfell added a summary statement noting Woodley's fellowship with the far-right Unz Foundation to the lead: [55]. This was reverted by Ferahgo the Assassin, who cited a user-generated website to argue that Woodnely was no longer an Unz Foundation fellow: [56]. I restored the sentence, changing it to the past tense and providing the date when Woodley was last known to have been an Unz fellow: [57] (subsequently updated: [58]). I also performed some pretty straightforward copy edits to the section in the main body referring to this same set of facts: [59]. These have been my only edits to the BLP.

I was therefore very surprised to receive the following message from DGG on my talk page: " Please stop your disruptive editing. If you continue to add defamatory content to Wikipedia, as you did at Michael Woodley, you may be blocked from editing. More exact, restoration of material having a negative implication to a BLP"

How on earth could this be a BLP violation when the statement is so well sourced, and my restoration took pains to change the affiliation from present to past tense (with a reliably sourced "as-of" date)? My understanding is that it is standard practice to mention people's affiliations, including with far-right groups, when these are well sourced to reliable secondary refs, and indeed to include them in the lead if those affiliations constitute a major source of notability for the individual, as is clearly the case here. Given this context, I do not understand why DGG would think to leave such a dire warning on my user talk page.

I should also note that, in their series of edits to the BLP which accompanied this warning, DGG didn't even remove or alter the statement on Woodley's affiliation with the Unz Foundation which was the whole point of the warning: [60]. They simply messed up the formatting of one of the references and cut another sentence in the main body which I had not edited at all. What is going on here? Generalrelative (talk) 11:47, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Update: DGG has removed the warning with my express permission and at the urging of Bishonen. See User talk:DGG#Please don't misuse warning templates. Generalrelative (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I've also edited the article, fixing two broken references and replacing text which DGG deleted, " a covert invitation-only conference which has discussed eugenics and purported racial differences in intelligence" with the edit summary "Removeeditorializing. We don't use inneundo by asociation in bLPs" with "a secret invitation only conference for research on controversial aspects of human intelligence, including race and intelligence and eugenics." which is from the lead of the conference article. My edit summary was "this needs context and it is completely factual, plus we mention his formal response". See also Talk:Michael Woodley#Guilt by association. Doug Weller talk 13:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

The connection between Woodley and the London Conference on Intelligence is not well-sourced. Of the three sources that Generalrelative listed above, two—the papers in Review of General Psychology and in American Journal of Biological Anthropology—do not say anything about Woodley's connection to the London Conference on Intelligence. (The Review of General Psychology paper discusses Woodley and also mentions the LCI, but it does not mention a connection between Woodley and the conference.) The only source that actually makes a connection between Woodley and the conference is the New Statesman source, which mentions Woodley in a single sentence as part of a list of several people who attended it.

By attacking Woodley for his having attended this conference, the Wikipedia article is making an accusation that is not made in reliable sources. You can call this guilt by association or you can call it original synthesis, but the bottom line is that it isn't appropriate for a BLP article. -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 21:49, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what your objection here is. Are you saying that he didn't actually attend the conference? He's listed in the program. MrOllie (talk) 22:32, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

(ec) First off, I did not edit anything having to do with Woodley’s connection with the London Conference on Intelligence, so pointing out that the references I cited do not connect Woodley to this conferences is entirely beside the point. My use of these sources was to show Woodley’s connection with the far-right, antisemitic Unz Foundation. Or rather, I was simply presenting the sources that were already used in the article.

Incidentally, and contrary to Ferahgo’s claim, the American Journal of Biological Anthropology ref does explicitly make the connection between Woodley and the London Conference on Intelligence in footnote 23, where it mentions: “For a rejoinder from conference participants see Woodley of Meine et al. (2018)” But again, this is entirely beside the point.

As to Ferahgo's claim that the article as currently written is “attacking Woodley”, I’ll quote what Bishonen wrote earlier today on DGG’s talk page (with apologies): “Well-sourced negative content added in a neutral tone is not defamatory.” [61] I do not see how any impartial observer might think that what is written there is either “guilt by association” or original synthesis. It seems to me to be simply reporting on what both primary and secondary sources say. But perhaps others who are less involved in long-running race-and-intelligence content would like to judge for themselves. Generalrelative (talk) 22:37, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

In this edit, you restored text that says, "In January 2018, Woodley was criticized for his involvement with the London Conference on Intelligence, a covert invitation-only conference which has discussed eugenics and purported racial differences in intelligence." The sources for this material are a primary source (a program from the conference itself), and a single mention of Woodley on a list of conference attendees in the New Statesman article. Do you feel that these sources are adequate for the inclusion of this material in a BLP article? -Ferahgo the Assassin (talk) 23:11, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

That single mention being Rindermann, James Thompson, Michael Woodley of Menie and Aurelio Figueredo, all heavily implicated in the London Conference on Intelligence - given that we consider the New Statesman to be reliable, seems adequately sourced. Of course including (or not) anything is a matter of editorial judgment, but this clearly isn't a BLP violation. MrOllie (talk) 23:20, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

It is a BLP violation if the sources do not directly verify what is asserted per WP:OR and WP:V. Further, the details cited only to the conference program is WP:UNDUE per WP:NPF. I will remove the paragraph and it should not be reinstated until consensus is gained under WP:BLPUNDEL. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:43, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

Aha, looks like I missed that bit when reverting you. Taking your edit summary (which focused on Woodley's Unz affiliation) at face value, it looks like I didn't scroll all the way to the bottom, or else didn't recall doing so. I apologize for the oversight. But in any case, yes, I am in accord with MrOllie and Doug Weller on this. And we can always add the American Journal of Biological Anthropology ref as well. Generalrelative (talk) 23:29, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

For those without institutional access, this long quote from the American Journal of Biological Anthropology article may be informative:

Not only does this text tie Woodley to the conference explicitly in the footnote, but it also sets out the broad argument the authors are making about how events like the London Conference manufacture a veneer of respectability around fringe academics and pseudo-academics, and then presents Woodley and his co-authors as a prime examples of how this works. Generalrelative (talk) 00:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Seems due and reasonable to me. XOR'easter (talk) 03:07, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

WP is an encyclopedia, not a place for investigative reporting. It is not obvious that everyone who has published who publishes in a journal that X edits shares the views of X. Similarly for appearing at a conference , or receiving a fellowship. For example, as a graduate student I worked in the same department as an exceptionally harmful AIDS denialist; my post-doc fellowship was funded by a government at the time engaged in racist genocidal warfare, as was the case for almost all US scientists of my generation; I worked for most of my career at a university whose most famouse President was a notorious racist and anti-semite. The place to characterize a funding organization is the article on an organization, and people will follow the link. The place to discuss the nature of a conference is the article on the conference; it can then be linked to, and people will follow the link. But being invited to speak does not necessarily mean you are invited to supportthe views of the organizer: in the period when I was advocating for open access, I spoke by invitation at a conference run by a publisher's association; they apparently wanted to confront a person who was trying to destroy commercial journal publishing. On the other hand, that someone has co-authored papers with X does imply that they share or did share some of X's views, but stating the co-authorship is sufficient (which is why I think the article could be improved by a list of journal publications). We state the facts, we do not draw the conclusions--that would be OR. We shouldn't attempt to demonstrate a hypothesized conspiracy. There may indeed be one--I wouldn't rule it out--certainly I mistrust some of the individuals involved, and I even think the far right in the US does engage in conspiracies against science, medicine, justice, the Constitution, and the public interest. But WP is not the place to do it, and especially not in the bio of one of the living persons peripherally involved--he is considerably notable, but not the leading figure in the debate.

However, I apologize for the version I edited last night--I did it too rapidly. Generalrelative pointed out some of my errors. I keep saying people should go slowly, and carefully re-examine major changes, and wait until the next day to post them, but I'm as much subject to the temptation to post immmdiately as anyone else. And my warning was indeed an over-reaction. I keep saying people should be very cautious in assigning blame and posting formal notices, but, again, I'm subject to the same temptations. DGG ( talk ) 10:40, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

That is very circumspect, DGG. I appreciate it. Generalrelative (talk) 14:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

As an independent editor that was first brought to this article through this noticeboard, I saw specific liberties[62][63] taken with the BLP policies in thinking that citations to reputable RS were enough when no one thought to look at what the cited articles actually said and whether there was WP:OR actually going on. I have seen this issue repeated with editors thinking that WP:BLP only means the obvious WP:V. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:04, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

So you are saying that despite the fact of the bit above in extended content about OpenPsych and the fact that he organised the defense of the London Conference, BLP prevents us from mentioning the London Conference? Because I see you removed all mention, which could be seen as white washing although I know you see it as enforcing BLP. Then there's the fact that he co-authored a book by Edward Dutton (author). I presume you would say that we can't describe Dutton either, because that would what? Misinform our readers? And of course he also wrote an article with Emil Kirkegaard. He obviously shares their views. But we can't make it too obvious? Doug Weller talk 12:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

And if it survives deletion, we should be able to use this critique of Woodley's work by one of the sources we use in Race and intelligence.[64] Doug Weller talk 14:19, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Doug, I don't see that source cited in Race and intelligence, which makes sense because of the elevated sourcing requirement there. But in any case a very similar critique of Woodley's collaboration with Noah Carl is presented in the Review of General Psychology article discussed above: [65]. I hope that's helpful, Generalrelative (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Generalrelative: the author, John P. Jackson, not the source. We use two works by him in the R&I article so the critique by him, an expert, should be an RS. Doug Weller talk 17:48, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Aha, thanks for clarifying. Generalrelative (talk) 17:53, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Why would a blog be acceptable under WP:BLPSPS or WP:NPF? Are you arguing to bypass strict adherence to WP:OR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV to set the record straight? Are there BLP exemptions for bad characters that I am not aware of? Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:01, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Of course not. Looks like you're right. He's an expert so his review should qualify as a reliable source for anything else, but I hadn't thought of the BLP aspect. I don't see how any of the other policies are that relevant here. No original research, verifiable, and I have no idea why you think NPOV would be relevant. Doug Weller talk 18:56, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Let me clarify the policies behind the specific removal.[66] I take the text and its citations as they are given in the article and not review what other citations could be out there because of WP:BURDEN and WP:ONUS. With the first sentence, the cited New Statesman article briefly mentions him as a participant and does not verify that he was specifically criticised. Then, the second sentence that he coauthored a conference paper is WP:UNDUE (part of NPOV) detail only cited to the conference program since the New Statesman does not mention that. The last sentence, his defense of the conference, becomes UNDUE without a citation to an independent RS and does not fall under the denial exception under WP:WELLKNOWN since Woodley is not well known. Since WP:NPF applies instead, the whole paragraph is UNDUE without better citations that directly verify what is trying to be said rather than synthing RS and primary material together. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:25, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: all that I know and when you made the edit I checked the sources and realised that your deletion was correct. But I was asking about the blog by John P Jackson and I repeat, "I don't see how any of the other policies are that relevant here. No original research, verifiable, and I have no idea why you think NPOV would be relevant." Doug Weller talk 13:58, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I was responding to both of this [67][68] Probably should have done it in a more lineal format rather than LIFO. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:53, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

AfD

Please note that I have decided to nominate the page for deletion: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Woodley (2nd nomination). Any and all input would be welcome. jps (talk) 13:16, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

The subject of this article (Pat King (activist)) is a leader of the trucker convoy in Ottawa who currently is being held without bail and facing lengthy imprisonment if convicted. Despite his unpopularity, I think it is important that statements about him accurately reflect sources.

The following text is not supported:

• He has led the Wexit movement advocating for secession from Canada of Alberta and other western provinces, led the United We Roll movement, and acted as a regional organizer for the Canada convoy protest.
• King served on the board of directors of Wexit Alberta, and as a primary organizer of the Wexit movement that advocated for Canada's prairie provinces to secede.
• King was a co-organizer, and a driver for the United We Roll yellow vest protest in 2019.

Wexit is the Canadian Western separatist movement and Wexit Alberta was a party dedicated to Wexit. In fact, King was the co-creator of the hashtag #Wexit. Sources do not call King a leader of the Wexit movement, but a contributor to wexitmovement.com.

Although King drove a truck during the United We Roll campaign and was listed as a contact for North Alberta, the sources do not say what his exact role was.

I withdrew an AfD which I had drawn up for persons notable for one event, in this case the trucker convoy. because I thought the claims made in the article made it appear he had achieved notability. In fact, before the convoy, there were no articles about him, although he was mentioned in several articles about right-wing activism.

TFD (talk) 04:41, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

In the AfD discussion it was noted that there were articles about him (at least nine from Reuters, AP News, CBC, etc.). They didn't just mention him, they were articles whose subject was specifically his activity in various activist causes, and the nine I checked were all published prior to the convoy. At worst, where he was not the sole person focussed upon, he was referred to as "co-founder", "co-campaigner", or one of a "duo". Otherwise, he was the one being reported on. After all the sourcing laid out, I can't imagine what "before the convoy, there were no articles about him" could possibly mean. _signed, Willondon (talk) 05:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Everything in BLPs must be sourced. It is not helpful if the sources used to support information in the article do not support it, to say that other unspecified sources do. WP:BLP says, "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." TFD (talk) 05:57, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi, this is my first time on a notice board like this, I'm not sure on process, so forgive any missteps please. I created Pat King (activist) and I added the three statements that TFD has said are unsourced. I've copied and pasted the statements below and added my soure for them under each

• He has led the Wexit movement advocating for secession from Canada of Alberta and other western provinces, led the United We Roll movement, and acted as a regional organizer for the Canada convoy protest.

"Two main organizers behind #Wexit, the campaign calling for Canada’s prairie provinces to secede, have a prolific history of pushing far-right and anti-Muslim conspiracy theories." https://www.vice.com/en/article/59na9q/wexit-founders-are-far-right-conspiracy-theorists

"Pat King, who was listed as one of the regional organizers" https://www.cnn.com/2022/02/09/politics/fact-check-canadian-convoy-protest-ottawa/index.html

"Patrick King, one of the organizers of the event." https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/convoy-pipeline-immigration-1.5024863

• King served on the board of directors of Wexit Alberta, and as a primary organizer of the Wexit movement that advocated for Canada's prairie provinces to secede.

"King is one of Downing’s main #Wexit co-campaigners and a member of the #Wexit Alberta board of directors." https://www.vice.com/en/article/59na9q/wexit-founders-are-far-right-conspiracy-theorists

"Their secessionist campaign is represented by the #Wexit hashtag, which trended on Twitter last week after the Liberals won a minority government in the federal election. #Wexit stands for Western Canada Exit, a movement calling for Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, and even B.C. to leave the rest of Canada to become separate nation-states. https://www.vice.com/en/article/59na9q/wexit-founders-are-far-right-conspiracy-theorists

• King was a co-organizer, and a driver for the United We Roll yellow vest protest in 2019.

"Patrick King, who co-organized the United We Roll pro-pipeline convoy" https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/liberal-ndp-ridings-target-1.5283650

"Patrick King, one of the convoy drivers, was among a few yellow vesters perched on a platform on the street, speaking to the counter protesters with a bullhorn" https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2019/02/19/protesters-greet-alberta-organized-convoy-on-parliament-hill.html

I have already said all of this on the talk page Talk:Pat_King_(activist) but the conversation between us has not gone well and has left me confused about how TFD consider it unsourced, in the context of these sources. My best guess is that TFD sees a subtle difference between the content in the sources and what I have written and if TFD or anyone wants to suggest edits that make improvements, that seems like a good solution here.

The statement that "before the convoy, there were no articles about him" is difficult to address because that seemed to be unanimously clarified in the recent AfD that TFD started and then closed Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pat King (activist).

I am certain that TFD has good faith intentions here and I'm sad that we're not understanding each other, and hope that an intervention from a 3rd party here might help us reach consensus, which I have tried to reach on the talk page already. CT55555 (talk) 14:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

As I said above, Wexit and #Wexit on twitter are not the same thing, just as Wikipedia and #Wikipedia on twitter are not the same thing. The person who started #Wikipedia on twitter for example is not the same person who founded Wikipedia the website we are using. Also, the issue at BLPN is not whether the article should exist, but whether there are sources in the article that support the information there. If you have the sources, add them to the article and we can discuss. TFD (talk) 17:32, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, this is the first time I have understood your objection. It's that I've said they lead the campaign and you think the source says the organized a hashtag? If your analysis is correct, do you think Vice would have said "Their secessionist campaign is represented by the #Wexit hashtag"? because that implied what they did was more than tweet. Also this source also confirms he's a Wexit organizer https://www.vice.com/en/article/akvwep/conspiracy-black-lake-pat-king I quote: "King has for years been involved in right-wing organizing in Western Canada. He was one of the main Yellow Vest organizers in Alberta and a co-founder of the Wexit (Alberta separation) movement." I'm going to add that as a citation now. CT55555 (talk) 17:51, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Please see the policy WP:BLP: " All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source." You need to ensure that each statement you add to the article is referenced to a source that makes that statement. We can then examine whether they do so. Saying that sources exist but are not added as footnotes is against policy.

Bear in mind that Wikipedia is one of the first places people look for information about individuals. That was my concern about creating an article, that we lacked high quality sources to create a neutral article. But since the article exists, we need to ensure that it complies with BLP.

King is facing trial and substantial imprisonment if convicted. We don't want to influence the outcome in any way.

TFD (talk) 18:07, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I think everything was sourced, and I think in the past few minutes that fact is now doubly sourced. Are you satisfied now? CT55555 (talk) 18:18, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Are there sources beyond the doubly cited Vice?[69] Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:47, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

There is overwhelming volume of content that he is part of Wexit. The article currently cites two Vice sources.

Other sources that I've found since you asked:

https://www.antihate.ca/wexit_co_founder_pat_king_threatens_demonstrators

https://ici.radio-canada.ca/nouvelle/1860092/pat-king-manifestation-camionneurs-ottawa mentioned him as an organizer

https://www.thestar.com/edmonton/2019/11/10/visionary-or-villain-hes-the-pied-piper-of-albertas-wexit-but-is-the-movement-heading-in-a-dangerous-direction.html Previous reports have identified King as an organizer within Wexit and as a member of their board of directors."

I could find more if you'd like? CT55555 (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Naw. Use them, specifically RC and the Toronto Star, and put weight on what they say over Vice. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:17, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Part of the reason I clarified on why I cautioned upon relying on Vice. From the Star, "Previous reports have identified King as an organizer within Wexit and as a member of their board of directors... Downing says he’s seen some 'really good citizen journalism' from King, but said that while he may be a member, King doesn’t have an official role within Wexit... 'We have an advisory board of directors. He’s not on that board, he’s not on our executive,' Downing said." Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:23, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I've updated it and just called him an organizer. CT55555 (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

After reviewing and cleaning up the sources in the article, I'm surprised there is no mention about his arrest. WP:BLPCRIME should not apply to him. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:44, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I predicted that this article would be deeply scrutinized and deliberately avoided the reporting of his arrest and bail. If you are confident it is fair to write about them, I will add. One other editor did also suggest that in the AfD. CT55555 (talk) 21:02, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

He is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE in the same manner as Jake Angeli. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:22, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Kindly make corrections on this page. I have added sufficient citations but wikipedia is asking for more citations. I thinks these citations are more enough.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Absar Uddin (talk • contribs) 07:35, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

In my opinion, it reads like a resume. the Clarivate Highly Cited Researcher "award" included in the awards section and in the lead is a list of more than 6600 people. The article should be neutralized, eliminate lists like the Media Coverage section and focus more on what the independent reliable sources say about the subject. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 21:22, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

An editor by the name ElisaShupe has indicated the information on the article subject's gender and transition is incorrect and outdated. She has provided an SPS source to back this claim (link). How should we go about dealing with this? I'm assuming good faith, but it is perfectly possible the editor is not actually the article's subject. Resolving this is hard, as news sources might not have much incentive to actually cover someone re-transitioning after detransitioning (as the editor indicated in this comment). A. C. Santacruz ⁂ Please ping me! 21:22, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe they can identify via WP:OTRS so we can verify the source is them, then it would be acceptable to use per WP:BLPSPS. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:26, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I just deleted a comment made by an IP address account that called for the killing of a well known politician. It technically also was a breach of WP:BLPCRIME although that part was probably in good faith. I know I should let that person know that I'm talking about them here, but for safety reasons I would rather not. I don't want to over react, I think it's a throw away comment that idiots make about politicians, but I also felt like I should alert admins and not let this go unnoticed. CT55555 (talk) 12:51, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I've deleted the edits and blocked the IP. Beyond that I'd agree with your analysis and don't think it merits any further escalation. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 13:08, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

The following sentence has been added to the lead of pianist Valentina Lisitsa’s bio: "In April, 2015, The Ukrainian Weekly described her social media postings featuring anti-Ukrainian remarks - alongside the use of Holocaust imagery portraying Ukranians as Nazis - as hate speech".[70] It is sourced to an article in The Ukraine Weekly which does not mention "anti-Ukrainian remarks" or "the use of Holocaust imagery portraying Ukranians as Nazis". The article does say "Hate speech is not free speech" in referring to Valentina’s social media posts. I removed the phrases "anti-Ukrainian remarks" and "the use of Holocaust imagery portraying Ukranians as Nazis"[71] but they have been re-added to the article.[72] It seems like a serious breach of BLP policy. Thoughts? I don't want to waste time by continually removing the phrases so have placed a "failed verification" tag against the sentence for the moment. Not an ideal solution though.

Btw, when the offending phrases were re-added, a description of Valentina as a "Russian pianist" was added without a source. While this may not be as flagrant a breach of BLP policies, it is careless. The sources used in the lead describe Valentina as a "Ukrainian-American pianist" and "born in Kiev, she is now a U.S. citizen who makes her home in New Bern, North Carolina".

Burrobert (talk) 04:55, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

I removed the assertion cited to The Ukraine Weekly from the lead and replaced it with language that describes the controversy more neutrally, citing it to the Guardian. I also reinstated that she is Ukrainian-American according to the Globe & Mail and Toronto Star. I would invite other editors to review the political views section and gauge whether that much depth is WP:DUE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:54, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

It is alleged on the talk page that this controversy ended her North American career which would potentially make the length of the section DUE. However no sources have been provided supporting this and indeed recent sources like [73] only mention the TSO cancellation and specifically mention that other appearances in Canada went ahead as planned. (It does mention that the executive directory of Toronto’s Royal Conservatory of Music probably wouldn't book her today, but this is after she went on to play there after the controversy.) Nil Einne (talk) 08:09, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Another reason why she probably doesn't play in North America is because she lives in Europe now.[74] Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:20, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for responding to these concerns Morbidthoughts. Your edits have improved the lead and are backed up by references. I believe Nil Einne is correct in saying that Valentina has played in Toronto since 2015. This source says she played at the The Royal Conservatory of Music's Koerner Hall in April 2016 and, possibly pointedly, played an all-Russian programme.^[1] Burrobert (talk) 10:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, musicians routinely play in venues around the world, and she was formerly located in the USA. Her lack of North America bookings is more likely the cause, not the effect, of the relocation to Rome and Russia. But we have no sourcing on that factor and it's not under consideration for article content. Unfortunately, with relatively little-known, relatively insignificant public figures, there is scant mainstream coverage to draw upon. Sources do tie the TSO decision to cancel to Ukrainian opposition, and the orchestra appears initially to have avoided taking a stand in its own voice. The tweets are available in copies to various websites for those who are interested. They appear to be authentic copies. The Ukraine Weekly publication appears to be RS as to fact and it provides summary information. I removed the "anti-Ukraine" modifier from "hate speech" in the lead because, as has been pointed out, the publication does not use the phrase that was formerly in the article, "anti-Ukraine hate speech". SPECIFICO talk 15:19, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

No. The Ukraine Weekly article you cited to[75] is an editorial and cannot be used to assert facts. This is basic according to WP:RSEDITORIAL Further, it is clear that "anti-ukraine" hate speech quote comes from another UW article written by conductor Adrian Bryttan that was cited in the Globe and Mail article.[76] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

What uanattributed UW content do you oppose? SPECIFICO talk 15:07, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The one I had removed with the edit summary explicitly describing the rejection.[77] Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:37, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The middle name is Ekwueme and not Ekwere — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adejumod2001 (talk • contribs) 18:42, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Adejumod2001, all the sources in the article refer to her as Priscilla Ekwere Eleje and the image of her signature on the money is Priscilla Ekwere Eleje. Are you thinking of someone else? StarryGrandma (talk) 19:49, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted the name change, which included changing the titles of the sources. StarryGrandma (talk) 19:52, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I was speaking with Chris Bascombe on twitter and he would like his article to be deleted. He is not happy with some of the content on it and would rather his article to be removed from wikipedia. I am not sure, but was there an email that that I need to pass on to him, a wikipedia page with details on how he can proceed to remove his article? Govvy (talk) 11:40, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Hi Govvy. I answered this a bit at the Teahouse, but you may as well have an answer here too. With a few exceptions, such as speedy deletion and legal stuff, articles are deleted by the community under usual deletion procedures. There are several pages to help article subjects navigate these procedures and Wikipedia in general, including WP:BLPSELF and Wikipedia:Contact us/Article subjects but these are really just guides to how Wikipedia works. Sometimes you will see suggestions that the subject email WP:VRT. This can be useful when there is private or non-public information involved, but it will usually eventually circulate back to AfD with any private details filtered out. However when you have a subject who can find their AfD, and present their case well on wiki, this won't usually be necessary. Now if they become dissatisfied with the response by the community (or they don't know what they're doing), then this page or VRT might be useful for the subject to find someone to work with or explain things. My impression of this particular situation is that they're currently doing OK. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 01:18, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

@Zzuuzz: Sorry about that I may have posted in too many locations. Thanks for the info, looks like the AfD should be a deleted. I will text Chris when that happens. Govvy (talk) 11:23, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

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

A number of users keeping editing this entry changing the factual and cited claim that the person makes a claim, to the not proven and not cited claim that the person has a certain belief. They keep claiming that the factual wording is "weasel words", but it is not, and there is no mention of using this precise wording in the weasel words article. Can someone please assist? Rebroad (talk) 13:46, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

It looks like you're edit warring against multiple other editors. You should probably stop that before bringing attention to the situation at a noticeboard. Also, if someone says something about their own beliefs, no "claims" qualifier is necessary. If I were to say "I enjoy drinking bourbon," you wouldn't need to say "ScottishFinnishRadish claims they enjoy drinking bourbon." ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

So, how would you word it? Rebroad (talk) 14:16, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

They either clearly said it, in which case no qualifiers are needed or someone claims they said it, which would require attribution of who makes the claim. In sum, either the line is undue and should be removed or its what he said. There's no wiggle room or need for "claims".Slywriter (talk) 14:21, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Take the discussion to talk page, I actually think there is a good argument the line should not be there at all based on current sourcing. In reading a translation of the interview, it appears to be a throwaway line in an interview being given undue weight.Slywriter (talk) 13:58, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't actually have a real horse in this race (I only ended up seeing this due to an ANI thread), but I think a line about a vaccine creator saying they shouldn't be mandatory, if it's sourced, isn't undue and is relevant. Canterbury Tail talk 14:27, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I've just read through the Business Insider interview and I'm having serious doubts it supports the text. He appears to be saying the vaccination will be voluntary when it happens, which doesn't necessarily support saying he is against mandatory vaccination. However someone with better German skills should probably have a look at it. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 14:35, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

(ec)I'd normally agree but in the context of this particular interview, it does not appear to be some critical statement they are making and no other source has been shown to cover the view, so not sure the proper weight is being given here. Either way, adding "claims" is not the answer. It belongs or it doesn't.Slywriter (talk) 14:37, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

No agree adding claims is nonsense. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 14:38, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

• Comment I've replaced the reference with this one in which he definitely states his opposition. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 16:34, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I have added a section in the talk page of this article, hopefully better explaining why the claim that keeps being made does not belong in the article. It's because the source provided is a PRIMARY source and therefore is original research, and not verifyable inforamtion. The entire sentence ought to be deleted, according to Jimmy Wales, but because I am an inclusionist, I preferred to keep it in but attribute it to who made the claim. It certainly should not be stated as fact though - it should be attributed to who said it as a bare minimum. Rebroad (talk) 18:27, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

The reference I added was not published by Uğur Şahin, it is a description of his words by a third party. So I doubt I see that argument going very far. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 18:52, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

which argument? I don't think you understood my argument given it is not dependent on whether it was said by a third party of not. I am simply saying that the article needs to cite who said it. Rebroad (talk) 21:32, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

You're misunderstanding the meaning of primary as used on Wikipedia. You interpretation of the meaning is wrong in regard to it's use here.

The current wording is "Şahin opposes compulsory vaccination" this can be considered true, as we have a reference stating that he has said that. Saying "Şahin says he opposes compulsory vaccination", is just linguistically redundant and seems to imply he is lying. LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmission∆ °co-ords° 21:41, 9 March 2022 (UTC)