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

I first made this edit [1] about the subject of the article, which mostly discusses a 2019 car crash in which the subject was almost killed, and suffered serious, near career-ending injuries. As the basis for this edit, I used a primary and a secondary source. The edit was reverted, and I was informed the edit needed better sources, as the secondary source was rated unreliable by the dedicated wrestling wikiproject. In this subsequent edit [2], I readded the information but with new, reliable secondary sources. I thought this would be fine, but instead, I was informed here that I was in serious breach of WP:BLP guidelines.

The subject of the article is Daniel Garcia. Garica appeared in an out-of-character podcast with his peer, Chris Jericho. In the podcast, they discuss the car crash. The objector to my edits objects to a number of statements from the podcast, a primary source, being used in the article, such as:

1. The statement by Garcia that he was asleep at the time of the crash
2. The statement by Garcia that the car he was travelling in was split in two during the crash
3. The statement by Garcia that he choose to complete a communications degree because he had heard Jericho had completed one and that it was beneficial to his career
4. The statement by Jericho that he had donated to a gofundme supporting Garcia and the others involved in the crash prior to having a working relationship with him.

I told the objector that I'm happy to reword the edit if needed, but that there is no issue with the underlining content, which I believe warrants inclusion and can be included as WP:Aboutself statements. I've already included secondary sources and am happy to include more, as it will improve the edit, but I believe that the primary source would be sufficient to include the above-contested statements. The statements are about WP:Aboutself statements, and in some cases, something only the person themselves could truly know.

The objector to the edits has suggested taking the discussion about the edits here. I'd appreciate your input into this. Can statement like those listed above be included under WP:Aboutself guidelines, or are they in breach of WP:RSPRIMARY?

Regards, CeltBrowne (talk) 11:29, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I've explained my view about NPOV being the most relevant policy in this instance to CeltBrowne. They've never responded with how their edit did not violate the policy. The depth of detail was improper, as it included more than what secondary sources publish. The quantity of text in dispute exceeded the secondary sources-supported text. The prominence of placement, established via the creation of a subsection, was improper. The juxtaposition of statements supported by the podcast with the existing material gives the impression that each neutral statement equally warrants inclusion.

The BLP aspect is that the material inappropriately puts a positive light on Chris Jericho (in addition to general coverage on another article other than Jericho's BLP) and gives sympathy to Garcia. CeltBrowne even said that the intent of one of the statements was to help readers not "mistakenly assume it was because of the relationship [Garcia and Jericho] would develop later chronologically". It sounds like an attempt to accentuate that relationship when sources have not done so. KyleJoan^talk 11:50, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see how ABOUTSELF applies when there were four people in the car and it sounds like he wasn't even the driver. And number 3 and 4 explicitly refer to a different person. Nil Einne (talk) 17:01, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

For 3, I'm arguing that Garcia is making an aboutself statement about his own motive for completing a communications degree.

For 4, I'm arguing that Jericho is making an aboutself statement about his own motive for donating to a cause. CeltBrowne (talk) 19:13, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

You're missing the point. ABOUTSELF doesn't say it's okay if it involves third parties if it refers to someone's own motive. It says it cannot involve claims about third parties point blank. By definition Garcia saying he heard Jericho did a communication degree is Garcia making a claim about a third party. Prefacing with "he heard" and it being an explanation for some motivation cannot be justification to allow it, otherwise someone could write "I heard that person A is a paedophile/rapist/murderer/'insert other extremely evil thing here', that's why I broke off contact with him/refused to work with him/whatever" on their blog and it's fine for us to include it. But that's so obviously against BLP, hopefully it doesn't even need to be said. (The exceptional claim bit is intended to cover exceptional claims someone makes about themselves not claims they make about other people since we're not supposed to include their claims about other people at all. But if you do want to argue that point, we can use less extreme examples where arguably the claim isn't really exceptional because it's minor enough and after all it's just what person A heard but it's clear we shouldn't be including it because of the possibility of harm to person A.) Similarly, Jericho is making explicit claims about when he met Garcia. Also by your logic, what on earth does this have to do with Garcia anyway? Aren't we discussing additions to the article on Garcia? If it has zilch to do with Garcia why on earth would we include what Jericho said in an article on Garcia? Nil Einne (talk) 22:54, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Okay, your example is a good one and makes me understand how the third party aspect could be abused, and I'll avoid doing so in future. Although, in this very specific case, in the same primary source where Garcia claims Jericho completed a communications degree, Jericho himself confirms that's true, so it's kind of a closed loop situation (It's a podcast where they're speaking directly to each other).

Just so I'm clear on all this; From your example, am I correct in thinking the following:

"John Smith stated in 2016 he donated to the election campaign of Bernie Sanders" would be allowed, as Smith is only making a claim about his own actions, and not about Sanders. However "John Smith stated in 2016 he donated to the election campaign of Bernie Sanders because he thought Sanders was anti-establishment" would be in breach, because now it includes a claim about Sanders. Is that correct or incorrect? Or is the guideline so strict that the mention of Sanders alone would disqualify it? CeltBrowne (talk) 00:13, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes mention of Sanders would disqualify it although not just because it involves a third party. IMO such a claim is also unduly self-serving. ABOUTSELF is intended to be used very little and only for including only very minor things. If someone says I have 3 cats maybe. (Although it will depend on the context.) If someone says I donated to X, no. Note also that ABOUTSELF is about self published sources. This is Jericho's podcast, so ABOUTSELF would only apply to Jericho. You earlier said that "in some cases, something only the person themselves could truly know" but that's irrelevant. The point of ABOUTSELF is that no reliable secondary source has evaluated the claim and decided it was suitable for publication and in what form. The claim may originate from someone, but this doesn't stop sources from republishing it. That's what our best article do, they summarise what people have said about themselves, what others have said about the, what is known about them, etc etc all as reported by reliable secondary sources often not relying on ABOUTSELF at all. (We may sometimes include original tweets etc as sources but only as additional sources based on RS mentions of these tweets.) Depending on the specific claim etc, this may include the noteworthiness of the claim but also if there are any questions over it's veracity. For example, if someone said something else in the past or part of what they said is in contradiction of available evidence, a good source should generally point this out but we do not expect a self published source to do so. Nil Einne (talk) 00:47, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

For clarity, I mean the mention of making a donation is likely unduly self-serving. It doesn't matter who it was made to. Nil Einne (talk) 14:53, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Hi editors, I'm Arturo and I work for bp. I noticed some changes that were made to the article about our CEO, Bernard Looney, back in February that I think are inaccurate and not representative of more current sourcing. I have made some edit requests related to that content and one inaccuracy has been corrected, but I still have concerns about the neutrality and relevance of the content present in the article.

The content in question was added as the events of the Russian invasion of Ukraine were just beginning and things were moving quickly. Much has since changed in bp's relationship with Russia. This added content focuses heavily on Rosneft and includes a large amount of information on Igor Sechin, which is not relevant to an article about Mr. Looney. I believe this violates the guideline on due weight. The way this information is included ties Mr. Looney to the Kremlin in a way that is inaccurate, and other information has since become outdated, as within days of the invasion, Mr. Looney resigned from the Rosneft board and bp was one of the first companies to announce it was cutting ties with Rosneft. Furthermore, this language was inserted in a way that I believe violates guidelines on impartial tone. My concerns were dismissed by the editor that reviewed my initial edit request, but I feel it is important to revisit this issue.

I have drafted potential replacement content that I believe significantly improves the neutrality of this content and provides needed additional context. I am hoping an editor here will provide additional feedback on that content and reassess its potential inclusion as a means to help this article improve the neutrality of its text and remain focused on Mr. Looney.

If this is not the right place to post such a request, please let me know and I will go to the appropriate place. Thank you in advance for reviewing this. Arturo at BP (talk) 17:07, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello Arturo. First, thank you very much for disclosing your conflict of interest and working to do this the right way. You've obviously done your research on policy, which is refreshing.

That said, here's the difficulty. This is all reliably sourced as far as I can tell. Now admittedly I didn't have time to read through all the sources, but the ones I did check had the subject as a central piece to the story and not just a passing mention. This is why Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. This often becomes a problem when an article is as short as this one, because what we have now is basically half of the sources all about this one event. In determining weight, what we do is "weigh" those sources against all of the other sources out there on this subject (not just the ones in the article, but all sources). Then we try to apportion everything in the article accordingly. If 50% of the sources are about this one thing, then 50% of the body of the article should cover it, as should about 50% of the lede. If it's only about 25%, or 10%, or even 1%, then we should also reflect that in how we apportion the article.

So, as you can see, judging due weight is a very challenging task. Not all sources give the same amount of coverage nor carry the same weight. A source that only mentions him in passing is not as good as one where he is central to the story, nor is a low quality source as good as a high quality source, for example. That's something that needs to be carefully worked out on the talk page. If you can find more sources about other things he's notable for, you can better argue that the weight is not right, but what this will likely end up doing is expanding the rest of the article rather than shrinking what is already there. That's not always a bad thing, because weight can be a bigger factor to the reader than content. That's something to work out on the talk page.

Now, about Mr. Sechin. That is also reliably sourced. You may have the makings of a good argument that much of it is irrelevant and may need toning down. I don't know. Maybe they just served on the same board together and were not BFFs, but whatever it was, that at least seems to deserve some mention, simply because the public likes to know when notable people have relationships with each other. That's something you'll have a hard time getting rid of entirely, but maybe you have the ingredients for a good argument that it is being given too much detail and weight within itself.

However. I do see other things that seem a bit of a problem. First is the misuse of the word "controversy". This is a particular pet-peeve of mine, because a controversy is a "widespread public debate". A controversy is not any old event that is viewed as negative. I see nothing about a public debate, and especially not a widespread one. The thing is, news rarely ever covers an actual controversy, because they create and partake in them instead. Thus, "controversy" sections should rarely be found on Wikipedia, but rather they should be given a more neutral title that reflects the actual event, or just worked into the timeline of the article. These sections often just become a dumping ground for anything negative, and the title itself can have undue negative connotations. Then there is the use of several sources interstitially dispersed throughout single sentences. If you need more than one or two sources to make a single sentence (and especially if those sources need to be interstitially dispersed between every clause), that raises a big, red flag for WP:SYNTHESIS. I'm not saying that it is, because I haven't gone through all the sources, but it always raises that flag. You shouldn't need to construct a sentence out of multiple sources like a preacher would a sermon. It just makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up.

So, there's not much we can do from here, I don't think, from a BLP standpoint. I'd try gathering all the sources you can and take it back to the talk page, and discuss, discuss, discuss. If that fails, you can try WP:NPOVN to get further input, or even go through the dispute resolution process. Take it to WP:DRN, or open an WP:RFC. Those are the hoops you'll have to jump through. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 19:38, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh, and a bit of advice. Try tackling these issues one at a time. You'll have much better luck at getting each one its individual attention, and it will be less likely to break the discussions into a thousand little tangents. Zaereth (talk) 19:57, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Zaereth: Thank you for taking the time to write such a thoughtful and detailed reply to my query. You have provided me with a lot of good insight and offered concrete next steps that I can pursue for others to review the issues I have raised. I understand what you mean about weight and inclusion of reliably sourced material. I still do believe that the content on the Bernard Looney article contains neutrality issues and is not representative of more current sourcing; I will see what I can do to tackle these little by little through the processes you outlined above. This has been very helpful. Thank you. Arturo at BP (talk) 16:10, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

You're welcome, Arturo. And thanks again for doing this within policy. Yes, neutrality, weight and balance can be tricky things to work out. Some issues are pretty blatant, and that's what this board can help with, but others are more subtle and debatable, which is where it needs to be discussed with the people who are most familiar with the subject and have read all of the sources, which is why you should at least begin at the talk page. You have the beginnings of a discussion there, but, from an outsider's standpoint, there should be more discussion, so I can really see what the logic behind each side's argument is. That's very helpful to the next board you take this to (if it's not able to be resolved beforehand). Technically, this all falls within WP:NPOV. Just keep in mind, weight and balance can be a double-edged sword. People often come here with the idea of setting the story straight with more sources, and that should be done if we got something wrong or later sources have a better perspective, but that also adds more weight to that one thing. Just something to consider. Once again, thanks for adhering to policy, and I wish you the best of luck. Zaereth (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

James Lu entry has an IP address 80.58.155.14 that repeatedly inserts negative and non factual information. It cites articles on the website that is incomplete and also conflicting. Upon removal of this information, the user inserts it back again. It is causing vandalism of a living BLP — Preceding unsigned comment added by Madnessjames (talk • contribs) 00:53, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

I have semi-protected that article. Cullen328 (talk) 23:34, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

There's an individual that has been repeatedly inserting poorly sourced and potentially libellous information about a living person. Since your last semi-protection of the article, the person is back again. Please help. Madnessjames (talk) 07:31, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

William Timmons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Kimsguccis has persistently introduced unsourced or poorly sourced material into the article, despite reverts and warnings. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 00:08, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely pageblocked Kimsguccis from editing that article. Cullen328 (talk) 00:42, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Several accounts have recently attempted to rewrite this to a blatantly promotional version. If it continues I'll request page protection, but in the meantime, more eyes will be appreciated. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:3AA4 (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Damani Nkosi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) The user InglewoodTK has removed sourced content from the article and appears to be inserting content that is non-neutral. The way they talk makes me think that they could possibly have a COI related to the subject. I would appreciate any outside help as I am not well versed in dealing with disputes like this. Thank you. StartOkayStop (talk) 07:16, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted again and left them a note about edit warring on their Talk page, hopefully they'll respond to that. Neiltonks (talk) 09:19, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

I have pageblocked InglewoodTK from Damani Nkosi, although they are free to make edit requests on the article's talk page. Cullen328 (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Gloria Tesch Came across on NPP and I am little concerned with the negative tone about someone who seems to be borderline notable. Much of the notoriety stems from actions of her father while she was a minor. Short conversation on Talk page as well between PetSematary182 who created article and I. Please take a look. Slywriter (talk) 01:45, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Oh my god, this article is awful. I'd say much of this is OR, and the whole thing should probably be deleted. Without even getting into the the writing, the first sources is Conjugalfelicity.com. This is a blog site where their stated mission is to give "snarky critiques". What's worse is, this source is used 3 more times, and most of what is found in our article is not found anywhere in the source. The source consists of 3 short paragraphs, and says nothing about any fraud, which is a very serious accusation. Fraud is a crime, but puffery is not. Our article is making a lot of serious conclusions not found in the source. In fact, we are citing way more information than is found in the source.

Then we have source 2, IMDB (of course) which isn't reliable at all, and probably got that info from Wikipedia. Sources 3-5 are to the actual books the subject's father authored. Source 6 is an exposé, but it does mention the father and accuses him of having been convicted of fraud sometime before the subject was even born, with something related to a charity I guess, but the story doesn't say but only briefly implies it. He is not central to the story, but it only mentions him in passing, in a couple of sentences.

And that leads to the question, why is our article all about the father and not about the subject? We are going to huge levels of detail to call this man a fraud, and conflate some mysterious past-conviction with puffing up his daughters writing career --about a man who is not notable enough to have his own article! I mean, who is the subject of this article anyway? There are some huge BLP violations there, and I would say anything about the father should probably be removed immediately on those grounds. We're accusing this man of a felony on the shakiest of sources, and more often by misinterpreting the sources, and all of that needs to go.

Then there is the rest of the article. The Tampa Bay Informer looks marginally good, but the rest are crap. Youtube. Youtube. IMDB. Conjugal Felicity. And the list of lousy sources goes on from there.

And why is the Domestic Violence Registry being used as a source!?! That looks like a clear BLPPRIMARY violation.

I would say that, in the interest of BLP, this article should just be deleted. It's one, sole good-source isn't enough to show notability, and the problems are so numerous and BLP vios so great that it would probably be best to just delete it on the spot. If anything is a case of WP:Blow it up and start over, it's this. Zaereth (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Welp, I've "trimmed" the article, hoping there'd be something to keep—but there's not. If there aren't any reliable, secondary sources, it should just be deleted. Woodroar (talk) 03:26, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Woodroar. In my opinion, this and Bernard Looney up there are good examples of why Wikipedia needs much greater standards for notability. I'd like to see at least, at a minimum, 10 good sources on a subject before ever even considering an article for them. But, of course, it's not always that easy to quantify, because sources are not created equal. We should have enough info on a living person to create a decent article of C or B class, that is, if it shows potential for future expansion. Little, stubby articles are bad for living people, because they can become far too off-balance way, way too easily. A Wikipedia article is not a prize to be won. It's not something that anyone in their right mind should aspire to, one would think. At least when it comes to living people, I think we need to set the bar much higher, to help prevent many of these problems from occurring in the first place. Zaereth (talk) 04:03, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you all. Been a day of attack pages and misguided editors and wasn't sure if I was at the point of seeing bad everywhere. Though looking at Woodroar's edits, it wasn't even close and I missed some obvious sourcing issues. Also agree with Zareth that BLP standards are too lax and a few keywords can make it difficult to get rid of a poorly sourced article. Slywriter (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Accused non public figure Gershon Fuentes sexual assault case. I tagged for speedy. Per WP:SUSPECT. checking if I am right, because the editor (User:Jax 0677) removed the first PROD, and I clarified the BLP issue and tagged it for speedy. Bruxton (talk) 01:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Bruxton. I certainly agree that this is a crappy, poorly referenced article that ought to be deleted. But which specific WP:CSD criterion does it fall under? WP:SUSPECT is not a valid CSD criterion. An article about the crime may be appropriate, but this is not it, by a long shot. I suggest WP:AFD, hoping for a snow close. Cullen328 (talk) 01:22, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

You state that "An article about the crime may be appropriate". If that's the case, then would the correct action be a "delete" or a "re-name"? I'd think, the latter. Not the former. And, certainly, not a "Snow Delete". No? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:46, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the message. I shall. Bruxton (talk) 01:24, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

There is an NPOV dispute on this page Andy Slater, yet there is nothing to substantiate it on the Talk Page. Please take a look for removal of the notice. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueMoon87 (talk • contribs) 00:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what the dispute was, but I find no particular justification for an exhaustive list of different things Slater has reported. A handful of particularly notable incidents where Slater was verifiably part of the story may be relevant, but biographies should not devolve into indiscriminate lists, and many of the sources were marginal at best, or did not support the claim made that Slater was "first" or "exclusive" to report something. Whether it's encyclopedically relevant that Slater was "first" to report that, for example, a person is interested in buying a sports team, seems to me questionable at best. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 03:09, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm concerned about edits and talk page comments over the last few weeks by an IP editor at Angela Rayner.

Last month I reverted edits by 2a00:23c7:988:6601:19e0:4a92:5dcd:bb7b (various IPv4s, henceforward "2a00") relating to the rather silly affair in which the Mail on Sunday accused Rayner of attempting to distract Boris Johnson in the House Commons by crossing and uncrossing her legs. As my edit summary there explained, I think 2a00 added claims not supported by the sources they cited, and misrepresented on-background comments from a source ("A senior party source told the BBC this had found Ms Rayner herself had 'made the comments'") as fact ("an internal Conservative Party inquiry concluded that Rayner had in fact made the comments herself").

They reverted, characterising my edits as vandalism. I began a discussion at Talk:Angela Rayner#‎Mail report, requesting clarification. Bellowhead678 agreed with my reasoning and reverted 2a00 again. 2a00 restored the content with several lengthy edit summaries, and two long talk page comments.

As I've just said at the talk page, my sense is that we're dealing here with someone who's not here to build the encyclopaedia and who believes they're righting great wrongs. As such I haven't commented further on the content. More eyes, and any thoughts on whether I've taken the right approach or am overreacting, would be appreciated. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 10:58, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

@Arms & Hearts, I think you can probably safely revert. The IP hasn't edited in a week, definitely seems to be NOTHERE, and from a quick glance the disputed content doesn't pass the WP:TENYEARTEST. If they revert again, come back and ping me. valereee (talk) 19:01, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

@Valereee: I reverted shortly after posting this; they've reverted again today. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:57, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

I've partial blocked the /64 from the article. Black Kite (talk) 18:03, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Tate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has been the subject of recent controversy. A large number of accounts have been restoring a version of the page that includes a lot of unsourced or poorly sourced information. Despite request for adequate citations for the content, discussion on the talk page, and temporary full protection, the problems persist. FrederalBacon gave a good breakdown of the recent issues, but this discussion has been largely ignored by accounts attempting to restore the content. In the most recent diff the editor only justifies the restoration by declaring it more accurate.

The subject of the article has a website where he advertises courses that teach people how to use affiliate marketing, etc. to get rich, and based on requests like this I think there's some reason to believe he may be incentivizing or requesting that his students maintain a certain version of the page. Popoki35 (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You consider sourcing information from a full interview of Jim Chanos poorly sourced information? And the fact that I was taking direct quotes from his interview without any changes strengthens my case that you're just doing this because you're a hater. James5Knight (talk) 02:26, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

And you're attempting to defend the subject from said "hater"?

Not that I think Popoki is, but, I'm curious as to why their neutrality is immediately questioned. I have assumed that they were operating under good faith from the beginning of this, and they have consistently shown a desire to fix the BLP issues on this page. The version you keep restoring lists a romanian gossip site as the proof that the subject was innocent of the kidnapping charges, but they phrase it like this

"These are the proofs that the Tate brothers did not kidnap the American woman, especially since the two are surrounded daily by beautiful women, they are extremely rich and they own cars worth over 10 million euros."

So this is the source that you, and other, keep restoring, which is clearly not a reliable or neutral source. Most of the article you and others have restored is filled with self published sources, blogs, personal websites, etc. The removal is legitimate, and the attempts to revert it (which have been coming in since within hours of it being changed) are simply attempts to water down the subject's obvious controversy. FrederalBacon (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't read Romanian but I have to say assuming the translation is accurate any source which says something as dumb as that FrederalBacon highlighted is so clearly unreliable it should be thrown in the trash bin and never touched ever again. It's the sort of source which if it's used enough, frankly I think unlikely for a Romanian gossip site, needs to be deprecated. Nil Einne (talk) 09:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Akshata Murty I don't know what's happening at this article that I created in April this year. In the past few days, different IP addresses and I think mobile phone accounts have all done similar actions to remove small bits of cited content from the article about the subjects country of residence, family connections, parent's jobs etc. None appear to have edited anywhere else in the encyclopedia. It's strange, but also I don't know what to do. Is it a coincidence that various different people all decided to remove content, I doubt it. Should I ask for page protection? None of the edits alone could fairly be labeled vandalism. CT55555 (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

In my experience, such editing activity is broadly typical with high profile India BLPs. Lots of editors with little understanding of how Wikipedia works. Edwardx (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

In case people are unaware, it's likely she is receiving a lot of attention recently as her husband is currently frontrunner to be next prime minister of the UK. Nil Einne (talk) 09:20, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Name of the article: Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan

I believe that statement about Vagif Dargahly violates BLP policies for several reasons.

1. The statement is referencing the headline of the source; The content of the source does not state anything about threatening. Instead, the source clearly states that Dargyakhly said about the possibility of striking at the nuclear power plant, answering the question about the possibility of Armenia striking at the dam of the Mingachevir reservoir. The article implies that Vaqif Dargahli made a statement without reason, which is not true. The source clearly reflects that Vaqif Dargahli was commenting on the possibility of a strike in response i.e. striking Metsamor in response to Armenia striking Mingachevir hydro-power plant. Incomplete information can create misperceptions about the BLP and is useless for an encyclopedia.
2. There is no reliable source describing what Vagif Dargahly said as anti-Armenian sentiment. The source clearly states that Vagif Dargahly was just commenting on the possibility of a strike in response. Inducing the statement of Vaqif Dargahli into the Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan creates the wrong perception that Vagif Dargahly made an Armenophobic statement and may damage his reputation.--Abrvagl (talk) 21:38, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this is a BLP issue. The article implies that Vaqif Dargahli made a statement without reason, which is not true. The source clearly reflects that Vaqif Dargahli was commenting on the possibility of a strike in response - Article is correct, there was no reason, it was an idle imaginary threat claimed by Az government that Armenians didn't make, RFE source. Meanwhile, the Azeri missile strike on Armenian nuclear power plant was a real threat made by the Az defense minister Vagif Dargahli [3], [4]. See the discussion on the article talk page for more details Talk:Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#Missile_strike_on_the_nuclear_power_plant_in_Armenia. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 21:09, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the Armenians really threatened to strike an Azeri dam. What matters is what was actually said. If according to sources, Vaqif Dargahli threated to strike only if the Armenians attacked an Azeri dam then we need to make this clear in our articles. Anything else is indeed a BLP violation. We should also mention there was never any Armenian threat on Azeri dam if that's what RSes say although that's not a BLP issue so is less urgent. However the RFE source is fairly unclear on this point and I don't understand Russian so I can't modify the article. Note there is an important distinction here. If Vaqif Dargahli in responding to reports of an Armenian threat on an Azeri dam said we might strike their nuclear power plant but never said we'd only do so if they attack our dam or otherwise set a precondition for such a strike, that's a different thing. We probably should still report the context of the remark, but it's not a clear BLP violation either since Vaqif Dargahli did threat to strike their nuclear power plant without any clear preconditions. The fact it was in response to reports of threats against an Azeri dam doesn't change the nature of the threat. Nil Einne (talk) 07:59, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Nil, thanks for spending your time to response. I agree with you. Vagif said what he said, but there are no reliable sources claiming that his commentary had Armenophobic intentions. If one says that they going to hit you, and you reply that if they hit, you will hit in response, it does not mean that you are hateful against them. Yes, you receive threat and respond with threat, but neither of these are about sentiments. Abrvagl (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Nil Einne The actual defense minister quote doesn't mention threats at all: [5]

• “The Armenian side must not forget that our army's state-of-the-art missile systems allow us to strike the Metsamor nuclear plant with precision, which could lead to a great catastrophe for Armenia.”

And RFE attributes the fake threats to speculation:

• “There was speculation that the Armenian side had first hinted it might somehow strike a civilian target – such as the Mingachevir Dam -- but there was no evidence of any official making such a threat”. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Disengaging answer from the question does not make any sense. As Nil Einne mentioned above, it does not matter was there threat to hit dam or not, what matter is the question which defense minister was commenting, and it is crystal clear from the source that he was commenting on the question about possible threat from Armenia to hit the dam. More, there is still no RS describing it as anti-Armenian sentiment. Abrvagl (talk) 08:46, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It does matter and there isn't "disengaging" here. Defense minister quote didn't include anything about threats, and imagined threats are WP:UNDUE here, especially when even WP:RS describe them as speculation, which they are. Nil Einne I'll wait for your response to my points and what do you think. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:53, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

It was not a speculation, here is the source: Karabakh Army Chief Warns Of Missile Strikes On Azerbaijan (azatutyun.am), you can find both threat to hit the dam, and response of Vagif. Still it does not matter, because you can not just cut the response of the Vagif out of the context even if he was commenting on the speculation. Abrvagl (talk) 09:49, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

You don't seem to understand that I'm making a WP:UNDUE argument here since it's a complete threat speculation stated even by WP:RS, RFE source ZaniGiovanni (talk) 10:08, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Also this is a BLP noticeboard, disagreement is a natural course here in case you didn't know. Just because an editor said something here doesn't mean it's an indisputable fact, consensus is reached through back and forth discussion. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 08:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

The website above portrays the picture of TikTok's CSO, not the hockey player.

google link — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.216.52.127 (talk) 19:10, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Google and Wikipedia are not the same entity. We have no image of Cloutier, so this is a google problem, not a Wikipedia problem. PRAXIDICAE🌈 19:12, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

IP Addresses 77.28.50.29 and 37.25.87.44 have continuously been attempting to change Aca Lukas' nationality from Serbia to Bulgaria without consensus. Many sources, both reliable and unreliable currently agree that Lukas is a Serbian singer.^{[1] [2][3]}

Report article at WP:RFPP if issue is pure disruption without sourcing or discussion. Slywriter (talk)

@Slywriter: Will do. Thanks! InvadingInvader (talk) 21:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

no problem. No need to play whack-a-mole when others are not editing in good-faith. Slywriter (talk) 21:30, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Several editors (mostly IPs, so may only really be two) are edit warring about whether Tzipi Hotovely should include "Hotovely rejects Palestine's right to exist" OR "Hotovely rejected Palestinian statehood aspiration". I try to avoid anything Israel/Palestine myself, so am not going to get involved. Edwardx (talk) 22:00, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

More editors with BLP experience would be helpful here to keep this article and other related topics under control and properly sourced. ((u|Gtoffoletto))  ^talk 17:42, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

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

An IP has removed a cited block of content from this article, stating "There is an active lawsuit and Wikipedia will be on the hook for libelous material. "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." The content wrote about certain accusations that were in the news, in the voice of the multiple cited refs rather than in WP's own voice and seemed careful to avoid implying any of it was true. Ordinarily, I would simply start a talk-page discussion about it, but the IP has also removed that discussion from August 2021 on the same basis. Therefore, I'm coming here for others' input on whether the talk-page discussion, and beyond that the article content, should be kept.

Pinging Jbbdude who wrote the original article content after commenting in the talkpage and Sunshineisles2 who recently overhauled it. DMacks (talk) 06:20, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

There was actually one cited ref, but it included quotes/info from several others. DMacks (talk) 08:18, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

Are there better sources about this than the WP:DAILYBEAST to satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE? Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:53, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

There are The Independent [6] and the Metro [7] in the UK. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

per WP:RSP, the Independent is considered a reliable source while the Metro isn't. Sunshineisles2 (talk) 15:19, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

There appears to be exactly one original source, an "exclusive" by WP:DAILYBEAST, and other tabloids/news outlets duly parroting what Daily Beast reported for a few days, and then radio silence. The gossip column Page Six printed an "exclusive" of their own, with Ripley again denying the allegations. After almost a year there appears to be no subsequent coverage of the allegations or further developments in reliable sources, and very little reason to include this blip in a BLP. --Animalparty! (talk) 08:35, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

It looks like TMZ broke the unified story first (reporting on multiple others' previous social-media posts, and Ripley responded). To be clear, the content isn't "Ripley did this", but instead "there's a lot of social media about Ripley doing this, and Ripley has responded to it". So I think it's at a minimum reasonable for the talk-page discussion to stand and now with link to this BLPN thread, even if a non-credulous discussion concludes (as Animalparty says) that it wound up being just a blip. I also don't see any substantially more recent coverage in the news about it. I did turn up a Rolling Stone story using the Ripley situation as the starting-point for a more wide-ranging discussion of various related topics, the month after the TMZ story. Not sure that's enough to cross the threshold of "highlighted as an example/secondary-source providing context". DMacks (talk) 09:15, 5 July 2022 (UTC)

This user has publicly declared that they have a conflict of interest regarding the Wikipedia article Alice Ripley.

I am a friend who will not be editing Alice Ripley's article. I quoted Wikipedia guidelines here only because no one else mentioned them. Please check that the guidelines are relevant and that my comments are neutral. Thank you. JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2022 (UTC)JunoSpriteRocket

Per WP:RSP, The Daily Beast does not have the icon denoting "generally reliable," rather it has the icon denoting "no consensus" on the reliability of The Daily Beast and reads "Most editors consider The Daily Beast a biased or opinionated source. Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons." The Daily Beast's own editor from 2018-2021 called it a "high-end tabloid." This is the second sentence in the article. JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 18:37, 9 July 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPRS, "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion. [...] The material should not be added to an article when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism." The Daily Beast is a self-identified tabloid, a tabloid is a poor source, thus the contentious material should not be added to the article. (If A=B and B=C, then A=C.) JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 02:48, 10 July 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:BLP, "Biographies of living persons ('BLPs') must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. [...] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 22:20, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. I'm not particularly invested in this situation, generally, aside from wanting Wikipedia to be as complete and accurate as possible (which I hope motivates all... OK, most editors). I edited the page one time a year ago, which I did after I encountered a conversation among theater people which casually referenced some allegation. I found nothing about it on Wikipedia despite multiple notable sources reporting on the controversy.

It seems pretty obvious (to me) that a) the deletion from the talk page was straight-up vandalism (I wouldn't have named the section "vile acts", but I didn't start the talk page section) and b) there should be some mention of this incident in the article given the multiple notable sources reporting on the controversy. The fact that the story hasn't advanced much seems more a function of the limited world of theater reporting than a statement on the notability of the claims. Again, this situation was reported on by multiple reliable outlets over time, with one particularly extensive exposé. To me, it seemed like a case of the second example in WP:PUBLICFIGURE.

As a separate issue... This feels like a WP:COI situation. I say this purely as speculation (again... feels), with no knowledge other than 1) the edits, 2) them coming from an IP user (an IP which has only edited these two articles) (an IP in a block assigned to Charter in Queens, NY; Ms. Ripley lives and works in NYC, and a quick Google search suggests Ms. Ripley may live or have lived in Long Island City or Ridgewood, and at some time maintained a fanmail PO Box in LIC), and 3) the discussion of ongoing, and threat of potential further, defamation litigation (something that I haven't seen reported publicly; another quick Google search brings up a GoFundMe supposedly from Alice Ripley herself, but no news coverage of a lawsuit or that GoFundMe; curiously, the user posting as Ms. Ripley suggests in that GoFundMe that these allegations have ended her notable and extensive career, yet the editor of the article implied through removal of the info that the allegations were not notable). (Obviously... that's a whole lot of original research and none of it would belong in an article, but the info seems relevant in this context) These are pretty standard indicators in such cases, with lawyers or PR folks or subjects themselves editing, no? Regardless, though, that's speculation (though I wouldn't call it wild or unfounded). More significantly, the edits clearly did not come from an NPOV perspective.

As far as the law goes, IANAL but a) NYT v Sullivan lays out a pretty high bar for public figures, and b) I wrote my edit to report on the reporting without taking a stance on truth or falsity of the allegations. The editor cited the need to remove contentious material that was poorly sourced; the existence of the allegations and the controversy was not at all poorly sourced, and was not at all libelous. It's true that those things were reported. If there is a lawsuit, and some decision is made about something, that, too, would likely be notable, would be reported on by notable outlets, and would then warrant inclusion in the article. If there's news coverage of such a lawsuit now, it should probably be in the article now. All of this is to say, Wikipedia's policies are the way they are because the laws are the way they are, as well as to protect living persons from unfounded allegations without substantiation or without any credible sourcing. Here, there's credible sourcing. No malice, no recklessness or reckless disregard, a clear belief that there is a public interest in knowing this information and that the information presented was accurate, reliance upon reputable sources for the information.

I am unaware of any requirement for ongoing coverage of a controversy or the presence of new updates/information to justify the inclusion of such a controversy in an article. I don't see anything about it in the BLP guideline pages. I would genuinely appreciate information on such a standard, if it exists, to improve my editing in the future.

If the issue is sourcing, there are many reliable sources commenting on the allegations, at least on their existence if not the truth of them. Again, Ms. Ripley herself seems to (can't verify who's running a GoFundMe) claim that it's a notable enough situation that it's impacted her career. Also again, keep in mind that the article's subject is known for theater, not film or TV or whatever megastardom results in constant breathless national coverage of scandals. This subject was reported on in national, regional, and industry publications, but it hasn't resulted in an ongoing series of investigative pieces on the front page of the New York Times or a Ronan Farrow New Yorker deep dive. I'm not sure how any of that means it's not notable information.

I'm curious to see how this discussion shakes out. At a bare minimum, I will restore the talk page content, which is an entirely separate issue from the removal of the article content.

To paraphrase a quote variously and likely apocryphally attributed to Pascal and Twain, apologies for the long comment. I did not have time to write a shorter one. Or one with fewer parentheticals. Jbbdude (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2022 (UTC)

I was hoping someone would respond, but it's been over a week, so you're stuck with me.

1. The comment has the word "notable/notability" nine times, but only once is it used correctly. Per WP:N, sources must be reliable, not notable. Information must be verifiable, not notable. This isn't just semantics; this is about following Wikipedia guidelines to make one's point.

• "Notability is a test used by editors to decide whether a given topic warrants its own article". Alice Ripley is notable, thus she has an article.
• Information added to an article must be verifiable. To call the allegations/claims/situation notable is to say that they merit their own article, and no one is proposing that.
• Verifiable means coming from a reliable source, of which there is none, so saying "multiple reliable sources" is also inaccurate. (See earlier comments.)

2. The deletions do not appear to be vandalism. They appear to be per WP:RS: "Contentious material about living persons [...] 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" and "do not move it to the talk page [emphases mine]. This applies to any material related to living persons on any page in any namespace, not just article space".

3. I disagree that "The fact that the story hasn't advanced much seems more a function of the limited world of theater reporting than a statement on the notability of the claims". What it seems is that the claims are false. What it seems is that there was insufficient verifiable proof for a reliable source to publish the story. The accusers, by their own admission, never called for an investigation, not by Actors' Equity nor by the police, even though the original accuser said that "one of [Ripley's] insane fans tried to kill me". What did happen was a "trial" by mob conducted on social media (TikTok, Twitter, YouTube). When caught in a lie, an accuser publicly admitted it, yet refused to take their tweet down.

4. I'm posting in three parts to make it easier to respond. JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 22:54, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

5. The editor put what they felt was Ripley's IP address locations. This is disconcerting because it disregards the likelihood that Ripley received death threats because of the allegations.

6. Fortunately, the fact that the IP address of the user is in Queens, NY means that it is not Ripley, as she is currently in Barcelona, Spain, per Variety and Broadway.com.

7. The editor wrote that the GoFundMe page says "these allegations have ended her notable and extensive career, yet the editor of the article implied through removal of the info that the allegations were not notable". It's not curious; it's that the first use of 'notable' is correct, while the second use is not per WP:N, so they're not comparable. It was the false allegations that got Ripley canceled, and the info was removed because the allegations were not verifiable.

8. Editor: "the existence of the allegations and the controversy was not at all poorly sourced..." Yes, it was: The Daily Beast is not a reliable source per WP:RSP. "...and was not at all libelous". The information is libelous and Ripley's lengthy official statement is available. JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 22:55, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

9. Editor: "This subject was reported on in national, regional, and industry publications..." I haven't seen this. Please correct me if I'm wrong. For one thing, the main industry publications did not cover the story: Playbill.com, Broadway.com, and BroadwayWorld.com.

10. Editor: "...but it hasn't resulted in an ongoing series of investigative pieces on the front page of the New York Times or a Ronan Farrow New Yorker deep dive". It hasn't resulted in a single word on any page of The New York Times, nor even a shallow dive in The New Yorker.

11. I agree with one thing: "Wikipedia's policies are the way they are because the laws are the way they are, as well as to protect living persons from unfounded allegations without substantiation or without any credible sourcing". Ripley is not being protected. That the addition of unfounded, unsubstantiated allegations was done with "no malice, no recklessness or reckless disregard" is not clear. What is clear, as seen on Ripley's View History page, is that much of it met Wikipedia's standards for vandalism and was repeatedly, properly removed. Let's continue to keep Ripley's article and talk page accurate. (See the May 1st removal as one example; I'm not referring to what Sunshineisles2 added on Mar. 19.)

12. To that end, I am requesting deletion of the first line in section #6 on Ripley's talk page, as well as a re-naming of the section title because both are contentious and unsourced per WP:RS. I will use the proper template, if necessary. JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 22:56, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I have renamed the Talk Page as no one owns the title and it was unnecessarily harsh, though likely not policy violating. Same for the discussion itself as it is a sourced discussion, not musings of editors.

On the content itself, BLP policies lean strongly against including accusations that do not have sustained coverage. Given the lack of media followup, I do not think it should be included. Though the IP is wrong that the alleged defamation lawsuit plays any part in why the content should not be included. Slywriter (talk) 23:18, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the renaming and for this, which I did not know: "BLP policies lean strongly against including accusations that do not have sustained coverage". JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

JunoSpriteRocket, you have crossed the WP:AGF line in your #11. The allegations might be undfounded, or even an intentional and malicious whisper campaign, but all that WP had done was report on the reports. It's a neutral fact that the accusations were made, were reported in public media, and she responded. It's an unfounded accusation by you that they were added to WP with malicious intent, and given they do have cited refs (and by extended discussion here involving multiple editors in good standing), are not in the realm of vandalism. As you can read earlier in this thread, there is a legitmate debate about the reliability of the sources, some of which are reliable on their face in general even if with a deeper dive they might all derive from a source with questionable or poor reliability in this specific instance. DMacks (talk) 04:08, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

I did not cross the WP:AGF line in #11 because the vandalism I was referring to was when you see that word on the View History page (on May 1st, for example), not about what Sunshineisles2 added on Mar. 19. The cases of vandalism that were removed did not mention reports or have cited refs.

I'm not sure I'm understanding... it's acceptable for editors, for Ripley's article, to cite a source that is "reliable on their face in general"? I thought sources had to adhere to Wikipedia guidelines. WP:RSP, WP:BLPRS, WP:BLP were the ones I mentioned (July 9 to 11) and I sought feedback about whether they were relevant, but no one responded. JunoSpriteRocket (talk) 14:59, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

• Remove the poorly-sourced, contentious allegations based on the WP:DAILYBEAST from the article. I think we should follow the caution noted in the WP:RSP entry: Some editors advise particular caution when using this source for controversial statements of fact related to living persons. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. I also think the contentious and unsourced allegation made on the Talk page by an editor with one edit in their edit history should also be removed, per WP:BLP. Beccaynr (talk) 23:09, 19 July 2022 (UTC) - fixed 'not a tabloid' link, although WP:NOTGOSSIP also applies. Beccaynr (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

  Update: I removed the contentious and unsourced allegation made on the Talk page by an SPA, after reviewing the article history and noting similar activity by SPAs had also been removed from the article, and noting the page protection that followed revdelled content that includes visible edit summaries referencing the Daily Beast. Beccaynr (talk) 23:54, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

I am william benton, a poet and novelist. I was put on wikipedia years ago by David Murray, a librarian, who has since died. I'm 82 years old and don't belong to any social media, but I have tried to keep my wikipedia page up to date, at least as far as books published. Obviously I'm not doing things right. Can someone advise me about this? My books are published by reputable publishers -- I'm not a self-published writer. My work has appeared The New Yorker, The Paris Review, and many other publications. Articles and reviews have been written about me and my books in national and international publications.

I recently saw the notices on my page, about a stronger opening and more citations, and had begun to address this. (I also tried to add a photo.) But I must be doing things wrong, since it provoked the same notices, and a newer one that now questions my "notability."

I value having the wikipedia page. I'd greatly appreciate a response.

William — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lafcadio4 (talk • contribs) 02:48, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lafcadio4 Hello and welcome to Wikipedia! Assuming the article is William Benton (writer). A little background. The article was created in 2013, and WP:s rules on sourcing etc has got stricter over time, but since we're all volunteers/hobbyists, "updates" only happens when someone notice/feels like doing something about it.

What the article needs first is sources that demonstrate it meets WP:s criteria for "should have an article", WP:GNG. These are sources that are at the same time, reliably published, independent of you and about you in some detail. What is wanted is a for example a The New Yorker article about you, not by you. I will take a look and see what I can find. Some may already be listed in the article, I haven't checked, but if so they are not used correctly. @Theroadislong, pinging you if you're interested.

Per the WP-rule WP:COI (conflict of interest), please don't edit the article directly, but you are welcome to suggest sources and changes at Talk:William Benton (writer), the article talkpage. You should also "disclose your COI": click the redlinked "Lafcadio4" in your signature just above, type something like "I am the the poet William Benton and interested in improving the WP-article about myself, William Benton (writer)." and publish.

We can discuss adding a picture at Talk:William Benton (writer), there are some strict rules to follow. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:36, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, and thank you so much for responding. It's nice to hear a pleasant and human voice. As you can probably see from my page, I had only recently begun to address it (wrongly, I now know). I was starting to track down and add exactly the kinds of articles you mentioned (not by, but about, me). I tried to add a second article from The New Yorker, and two or three reviews of my novel MADLY. That novel, by the way, was published in 2005, and has never gone out of print. Counterpoint Press (previously known as Shoemaker & Hoard) is one of the most prestigious literary publishers in America. Blurbs for MADLY were written by James Salter, Ann Beattie, and Philip Lopate. I had also tried to address the opening of the article, which one of the notices flagged as insufficient. (I was brought up in an age where self-effacement was valued.) Anyway, I tried to add more about myself. Besides being a poet and a novelist, I write other things. A play of mine (listed on my page, OUT OF THE BLUE) was produced Off-Broadway in 1999, a musical for which I wrote music, lyrics, and book. There are reviews from that. Another play of mine, called ILSA, was previewed at the Austin Film Festival in 2019, and starred Kate O'Toole. There are articles about that. We were, in fact, scheduled to go on tour, but covid cancelled everything. I also write about art, viz. My books about Elizabeth Bishop, Joan Brown, Ted, Waltz, and the essay collection EYE CONTACT. Anyway, I was attempting to add more of this kind of thing to my page, but tripping over my own feet in the process. How shall I sign this -- Lafcadio4 or William?

Lafcadio4 Lafcadio4 (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

@Lafcadio4 And it seems you have had a career as an art-forger. Signing is automatic if you use the [ reply ] link. Further discussion fits better at Talk:William Benton (writer). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:22, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian describes Benton as an art curator. I have found no sources suggesting he is in any way connected to art forgery. Beccaynr (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

@Beccaynr I didn't see this before I posted at the article talk. Art forger was a joke of mine, but based on [8]. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:17, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Ha ha -- yes, let me know if you'd like an inferior Diebenkorn. I hope I'm writing this in the right place. Here are a few links about -- not by -- me, in this case my book EXCHANGING HATS. There are articles, some more important, about this book that are oddly not on line. I remember a piece in Vogue, written by Susan Minot, and a piece in the Times Literary Supplement, with a lot of color reproductions, but I can't find them. I'll also search for other links re other books, plus OUT OF THE BLUE (the times critic hated it. I more or less agreed, it was a terrible production). I'm very grateful to you for your help.

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/08/books/art.html

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/02/books/elegant-gift-books-to-admire-and-even-read.html

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/05/15/the-many-arts-of-elizabeth-bishop/

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1996/08/19/easel-2

https://www.theguardian.com/books/gallery/2011/nov/03/elizabeth-bishop-exchanging-hats-in-pictures

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1996-12-08-9612080176-story.html

https://newcriterion.com/issues/1997/3/not-so-innocent-eyes

https://www.missourireview.com/elizabeth-bishop-and-the-art-of-the-tablecloth/

https://elizabethbishopsociety.org/bulletin/2012-2/tibor-de-nagy-exhibition/

https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2012/01/17/pronoun-trouble/

I am William Benton (writer), trying to learn how to do necessary maintenance on my page. Lafcadio4 (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Lafcadio4, posting links like these on the article Talk page would be very helpful. Click on the New Section tab at the top, add a title to the section, explain what you are offering, and then sign your post. Thank you, Beccaynr (talk) 03:12, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help, advice, and joke. If I become a professional art forger, I'll up my contribution to Wikipedia. 65.65.159.176 (talk) 03:32, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Also, more information about signing posts is here, and logging in to your account will also be helpful for conversations. Thank you very much for your help with this article - I think it is developing nicely now, and please feel free to ask questions and let us know if you have any concerns. Thanks again, Beccaynr (talk) 04:03, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm getting close to edit warring with one editor over the "Controversies" section. The issue is sourcing:

• Independent Australia - a political opinion blog
• Honi Soit - a student publication
• Farrago - a student publication
• Crikey - an online political comment site

I am not disputing the material, just the sources. This seems like a pretty cut and dried matter to me. Content critical of the subject must have solid sourcing. If it isn't covered by a reliable source, just how notable is the material?

Could I have some more eyes on this, please? --Pete (talk) 21:33, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi Pete,

Independent Australia is an electronic newpaper and not a 'political opinion' blog. Similarly, Crikey is an electronic newpaper and not a purely 'political commentary site'.

Buzzfeed is also a cited source.

Cheers,

Baba El-Baba (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

Aside from "Crtiicism" sections often being poorly structured and imbalanced cruft magnets (note "Controversies" implies plural, but this section only discusses one), it is somewhat concerning that the majority of sources in that paragraph (including juicy quotes like "ruthless hardball") are from student newspapers (Farrago Magazine and Honi Soit; the "Independent Australia" citations are merely repackaged Farrago Magazine content). WP:STRUCTURE and WP:BLPBALANCE argue this 'controversy' shouldn't be highlighted by its own devoted subheading, even if it rises to the level of enduring notability (c.f. WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTEVERYTHING and WP:RECENTISM). See WP:RSSM for considerations about using student newspapers. Addendum: and as pointed out on on the Talk page, the author of the Crikey piece and the Farrago piece may be directly involved in the controversy. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:24, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the disputed section.[9] I saw some UNDUE quotes in the first sentence and detail that was not directly verified by the source. Pete, both of you are at 3RR, but your removals seem to fall under the BLP exemption. This issue should be resolved by discussion and consensus at the article talk page before re-adding the section. Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:07, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I pointed this out on the talk page, but it seems to have been missed: the authors of the articles in the four sources listed by Skyring were personally prominently involved in the campaign to oust the leadership of the Co-Op Bookshop and the subject in particular, so were not just publishing in questionable sources but had a massive conflict of interest. I believe past discussions have sensibly held that Independent Australia is not a reliable source - it's a political blog with minimal journalistic editorial control. Crikey is a hit-and-miss source that I don't think should have a hard-and-fast rule either way (due to the amount of freelance content they publish) - but should absolutely not be considered in this due to the authors' conflict of interest. The only legitimate source here is the Buzzfeed News article (dating from the period when they had a professional news bureau in Australia, and written by a then-and-now professional journalist), which could only be used to source a much more limited paragraph about the subject. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

I forgot to mention Buzzfeed. I was overwhelmed by appall that a "criticism" section was so thinly sourced. IA has some low standards - think Breitbart or Infowars - and shouldn't be used as a source for anything let alone the sensitive bits of a bloke's biography. Thanks, DW, for uncovering the COI aspect, and on that note I should really disclose that I'm a part owner of the enterprise as well. I have a Uni Co-op card somewhere, unused for many years. --Pete (talk) 05:53, 20 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the valuable input!

With regard to 'controversies', it was titled in that fashion because the allegations and reported happenings - albeit related to the one institution - were multiple in number. El-Baba (talk) 05:34, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

These are articles and reviews about the book Exchanging Hats, the paintings of Elizabeth Bishop, edited with and introduction and afterword by William Benton. I would like for them to be posted on the William Benton (writer) page. Lafcadio4

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/08/books/art.html

https://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/02/books/elegant-gift-books-to-admire-and-even-read.html

https://www.nybooks.com/articles/1997/05/15/the-many-arts-of-elizabeth-bishop/

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1996/08/19/easel-2

https://www.theguardian.com/books/gallery/2011/nov/03/elizabeth-bishop-exchanging-hats-in-pictures

https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-xpm-1996-12-08-9612080176-story.html

https://newcriterion.com/issues/1997/3/not-so-innocent-eyes

https://www.missourireview.com/elizabeth-bishop-and-the-art-of-the-tablecloth/

https://elizabethbishopsociety.org/bulletin/2012-2/tibor-de-nagy-exhibition/

https://www.theparisreview.org/blog/2012/01/17/pronoun-trouble/ 65.65.159.176 (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I might be wrong, but you might want to make an edit request on the talk page if you want to propose an edit for an article. weeklyd3 (block | talk | contributions) 03:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Like I said above, Talk:William Benton (writer) is the right place for this. And remember to log in. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Atakan Karazor isn't in custody anymore according to this source: [10] So the article should be changed. --Geduldiger Leser (talk) 13:57, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Jessica Matten Reasons for violation: Harassment, Racism and false information. Inaccurate identity claims constantly being changed on this person's page due to alot of lateral violence within Native communities of mixed Native and asian heritage. The persons' correct racial heritage is listed on her official website: www.jessicamatten.com but harassers keep changing it with incorrect information about both her Indigenous and mixed asian descent. Requesting for this to be stopped with the inaccurate information and to maintain the quality of accurate information held on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 7forward (talk • contribs) 15:37, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Ooh, yeah. The page is in something of a sorry state at the moment. And I just watched Dark Winds, which I quite liked. Will see what I can do, but more eyes would be welcome. Cheers, all. Dumuzid (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Would some others mind taking a look at Rick Day#Sexual Assault Allegations? The section was added earlier today by what appears to be a SPA account (only edit made so far was to add this section). The sections in just a few sentences long and it is supported by some citations, but I'm not sure how strong they are for a claim such as this. -- Marchjuly (talk) 12:01, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Marchjuly, removed per WP:BLPCRIME. There's only one source, the Advocate, as the other two are not reliable sources and are parroting Advocate anyway. More importantly, there appears to be no follow up, so no justification for inclusion. Slywriter (talk) 14:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for taking a look at this Slywriter. The first time something was added about this, it was just an unsourced blurb added to the lead; so, I removed it. This last time it was a bit more developed with some "sources" cited in support. I imagine that there will be another attempt made to add it again sometime in the not too distant future. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:30, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Recent decisions by Tony Keeling and his subordinates have led to great deal of frustration amongst youngters who have already used the wiipedia page as an outlet - it would be best to lock the article for a short period to allow the heat to die down. Examples of two instances today: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Keeling&type=revision&diff=1100011830&oldid=1100011421 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Keeling&type=revision&diff=1100011830&oldid=1100010050 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davix (talk • contribs) 20:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

He does not appear to be notable enough for his own article and I have nominated it for deletion.[11] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

In the first sentence of this article,it states that Turner-Webster "opposes animal welfare". Surely this is an error. She is an advocate of animal welfare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pure gallus (talk • contribs) 01:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yup. I've removed it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Hello, so I recently started removing second names from Mixed martial artists that only had primary sources to back it up. It was my understanding that secondary sources are needed for personal details like date of birth, full names, etc. Editors at WP:MMA have raised a discussion here about my removal of full names, given I'm not the best when it comes to BLP, I thought I'd come here to see if I'm just misunderstanding or not. Thanks. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 11:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

BLP commentators will probably have a view, but in my opinion it's not so much a matter for BLP, and more to do with WP:V. The reference burden is generally on those wanting to restore content. If it can't be referenced then it may as well be fabricated. It seems to me that many of the articles listed aren't referenced at all. Arguing about unreferenced content is moot. When it comes to using primary sources, it all depends. A birth certificate, or many other public records, may not clearly indicate that it relates to the same person, and it may not include all the facts. I'd pull one example from the list of articles that I looked at: Dustin Poirier. Before looking into that document too much, I would accept an official-looking fight record as proof of a full 'fighting name'. It is not a record of a birth name. Thus, it's not referenced. I'm a big fan of WP:V, which is one of our most fundamental policies. Let it remain your guiding light. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:BLPPRIMARY:

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

AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

In the context of full names, most mixed martial artists have their full names sourced by public documents from the athletic commission for whichever state/country they competed it. It's pretty rare to see secondary sources for full names in MMA articles. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 13:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Correct, per BLPPRIVACY, we include full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public . BLPPRIMARY says that public documents aren't enough. Woodroar (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

As others have said, you're right and those challenging you are wrong. Whatever the supposed importance of these names to MMA fighters, if reliable secondary sources don't care about such details then there's no reason we should. It's inappropriate to use primary sources to source such details. Also, as always it's fairly ironic to claim some detail is super important but then be unable to find a reliable secondary source that mentions it. Either the person isn't notable or the detail isn't actually so important. Nil Einne (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC) 13:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed an issue with UK youtubers where people will cite the UK company directory in order to get their legal full name, this is currently the case for Wilbur Soot. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yup, I've seen the same thing. In my opinion it is a violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY policy. And frequently involves an element of WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with the above, but as a reminder that we do allow when the person themselves stated the information via an WP:SPS (eg on social media, as long as we know the account is verified). But that doesn't sound like the type of sourcing that had been used in these cases, so removal is appropriate. --Masem (t) 14:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

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

Could one or more editors please take a look at Debbie Hayton and Talk:Debbie Hayton#Removal of content. Three days ago I removed a lot of content from the article, listing my exact reasons at the linked talk page discussion. In short I believe there to be issues relating to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:COATRACK, WP:SYNTH, and several WP:UNDUE and unverifiable claims. An editor has now twice restored this (first restore, second restore), which I believe goes against WP:BLPRESTORE as the content removal was justified by several policies. I asked the editor to self-revert per BLPRESTORE however they have refused pending discussion from other editors. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Removal is appropriate until discussion comes to a consensus. If there is no consensus, the disputed items should not be reinstated per WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:ONUS, let alone WP:BURDEN if there is original research. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. That was and is my understanding of those policy points. I've asked the editor who restored it what their understanding of BLPRESTORE is, however I have yet to receive a response. I didn't want to edit war over it, nor try to invoke WP:3RRNO#7. So I commented here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Since both of you are now alerted that this article falls under WP:GENSEX, you both or others can request arbitration enforcement if the edit warring continues slowly. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Heh, going down the WP:AE route seemed like overkill as it's not quite at a conduct problem yet, and guidance elsewhere is to ask here first. Hopefully next time Dskjt is online we can get some dialogue going on the content though. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

There are two unsourced allegations accusing American journalist Philip Weiss of of ferocious antisemitism. The Wikipedia biography of Weiss cites accusations from two different articles written by pro-Zionist political adversaries of Weiss: one written by Elliot Kaufman; the other written by David Bernstein. Both of the articles referenced make outrageous claims, citing no sources to verify the truth of their claims and demonstrating their political hostility towards Weiss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodger Kroell (talk • contribs) 04:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

No comment on the specifics of the issue, but I would note that Wikipedia does not stipulate that sources we cite in turn cite sources for their content - that would lead to absurdities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

You're better off writing letters to The Stanford Review and Washington Post about this issue. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Little good that would do. Both sources are very obviously op/ed columns, and the news outlets will (rightfully so) argue First-Amendment to the death on such issues of their rights to print their opinions. Normally, an op/ed wouldn't be a reliable source, even if it comes from a reliable publisher. But they are reliable for the author's opinion. A good example of this is, say, a book review, movie review, restaurant critique, etc. This case is more along the lines of something like that. There may be a good argument about why we're singling out these opinions, as in, why is their opinions of any importance to the reader? I don't know. But that should be hashed out on the talk page. However, this is one case where we're using the op/ed in the correct manner, citing only the authors' opinions and attributing them correctly.

Oh, and sources aren't required to provide sources for their opinions. They are the primary sources. Zaereth (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

A fair question is that while we do not allow SPS on BLP, we should be a bit careful on op-eds. Now, I don't think would apply to the WaPost which probably reviews op eds to make sure they are not grossly insulting, but I do wonder about the Stanford Review, which is a student-run newspaper. And if these are the only sources that are making claims about Weiss and antisemitism, that also may fall into UNDUE. --Masem (t) 00:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I didn't dig that deep. But that again begs the question, why are these people's opinions of any value? I mean, are they some kinds of experts? For example, I would put some value on Dr. Ruth's opinions of sexual topics. Not so much for Dr. Dre, or even Dr. Phil. I highly doubt a student-run paper has much if any value behind their opinions. Washington Post, maybe, but is the author someone whose opinion we should print? Most valued opinions come from people with some kind of credentials, be it a book critic, food critic, or whatever. Anyhow, without digging too deep, that's where the best argument for removal would be. Zaereth (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

To answer your question, David Bernstein (law professor) is the author of the The Volokh Conspiracy column that was published by the Washington Post so there may be political bias there. Also, The Atlantic comments Mondoweiss "often gives the appearance of an anti-Semitic enterprise" and gives multiple Weiss examples of why.[12] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Accordig to his Stanford Review profile, at the time of writing Elliot Kaufman is "a sophomore from Canada who loves America. In addition to his role as News Editor of the Review, he is the President of the Alexander Hamilton Society and the VP of Cardinal for Israel. To sponsor him for US citizenship, please offer him a job". Call me crazy, but I think the bar for inclusion for an opinion in a so-called encyclopedia should be higher than "some undergrad wrote something on the internet once that agreed with a Wikipedian's opinion". Weiss get's mentioned only twice in Kaufman piece, amid a broader and tangential criticism of Mondoweiss. Rather than bending over backwards to attribute and qualify Kaufman's view as "According to Canadian Stanford undergraduate student newspaper editor Elliot Kaufman....", and presenting his view as having equal weight as David Bernstein's (actually more weight, as it comes first), the prudent thing to do would probably omit it. It's also amusing (and smacks of POV pushing) that the article devotes an entire subheading to allegations of antisemitism, and cherry-picks funding from the Unz Foundation, yet doesn't even summarize a single review of Weiss's books (reviewer's include Peter Godwin). I'm not defending Weiss's views, and realize he is controversial, but it appears strongly that Wikipedians want allegations of antisemitism to be emphasized as much as possible. The Tablet profile offers a commendable model I think for describing controversies while remaining impartial in tone and structure. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree about the student piece. I removed it. I think the “Allegations of antisemitism” section needs to go. If this were a well developed and NPOV article, perhaps this would be a criticism section. Thriley (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

If there is really only the Bernstein op-ed on that (and I'm not questioning his credentials), that's probably a good reason to not include at all, per UNDUE and given the weight of BLP. Multiple quality op-eds would be needed to include a section on that. Masem (t) 04:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I have been reading Mondoweiss for many years. I cannot imagine Philip Weiss writing the offensive antisemitic statements attributed to him by David Bernstein. Mondoweiss is controversial because it features articles highly critical of Israel. This angers pro-Zionist intellectuals like David Bernstein to no end. False charges of antisemitism -- and unsourced quotations attributed to critics of Israel -- issued by pro-Zionists like Bernstein are a common feature of 21st century American society. This is something Wikipedia editors need to be conscious of.Rodger Kroell (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's the deal. I'll start with saying that I agree with Masem, that this is most probably undue and should be removed. Where we have an opinion we also need to make an effort to find opposing viewpoints, and if one is all we got, then NPOV can't be measured or satisfied. But here's where your argument falls apart: how do you define antisemitism? Is that the same as how others define it? It's a subjective term that is based solely on the opinion of the beholder. Some people are easily offended, and others may go out looking for it and invariably will find it everywhere. Others may be more resilient and aware of other possibilities. In some cases you get instances where most people's opinions agree. But there is no such thing as a false opinion, because opinions are not facts, thus that argument fails to persuade. The argument of undue weight, on the other hand, has persuaded me. Zaereth (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

So there's a lot of unsourced content between the two articles. They're serial killers and the main reason I care is because I grew up in Niagara Falls and St. Catharines. I heard a lot about them growing up, especially in my high school law classes. I tried to fix some of the content and I'd thought I'd be okay because I already knew the horrible details to some extent... but I'm not sure it's nessecarily the best course of action. I've had some nightmares since and that's typically a really bad sign that I should not be doing whatever I've been doing lately for the sake of my own mental health.

Anyways, the sourcing really isn't ideal. These articles have collectively recieved ~120,000 pageviews in the past 30 days so ideally something should be done. They're serial killers and I really don't want their crimes to be whitewashed, but at the same there's some potential WP:BLP violations that should be dealt with. Clovermoss (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Going to have a look, but it would be helpful if you could be a bit more specific as to where you think the problems are. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Well one potential issue is the Scarborough Rapist cases subsection in the Paul Bernardo article, which includes a list of rapes that's almost entirely unsourced. The main thing that I think is not ideal from a BLP violations perspective is that there's a lot of unsourced content about their crimes between the two articles. I will say that nothing really quite stands out to me as glaringly untrue, but still. Clovermoss (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

There's been tons of stuff written about them and their crimes. Books, magazines, newspapers, TV shows, documentaries, the internet, etc., etc., etc. Not to mention, court transcripts, appeals, legal documents, etc. So, I suspect that sourcing will not be a problem. If the statement offered in the article is indeed true, I am sure there are many sources out there. But, yes, I agree that unsourced material should be sourced ... but, it should not be removed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: Yes. My point was more that I can't go through it all right now because of the nightmares. I tried to improve the articles and things did not go well for me even though I thought I would likely be fine... but I've also experienced trauma so it makes sense. I'm very aware that they did awful things, I don't want their crimes to be whitewashed. I just wanted to bring attention to it on here because there really shouldn't be the amount of content that's unsourced in the article (even if sources exist) for stuff describing rape, kidnapping, murder, etc. Clovermoss (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I understand your point. Thanks for bringing it to our collective attention. And thanks for your efforts. Best, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Hi everyone. This seems a pretty serious BLP violation: [13] Should the revision be deleted? Robby.is.on (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• I suppose, and I just did. But it's so stupid that I don't know if it's a serious violation. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• Joe Brown (judge) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More eyes on this one, please. Persistent addition of problematic WP:BLP content with a dose of WP:OR in the narratives. Perhaps some of it stays, if well sourced and tersely stated. Right now it looks agenda-driven. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have reverted Itsaboutheritage's edits. I agree that it's all way too chatty, way too much tabloid journalism. Wikipedia isn't here to report on or reflect the views of the subjects of articles. Note also the post on the talk page, where the editor argues that they think it's noteworthy even without secondary sourcing to include the subject's appearance on some talk shot--that's not how it works. Pinging User:Sdrqaz. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Drmies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Hey, It's fine that you reverted. I did mention this on the talk page. I'm learning Wikipedia. If these are the rules, they're the rules. Itsaboutheritage (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Drmies. Sorry I didn't reply in time, Itsaboutheritage, but I think that approach you stated is probably best. One of the limitations of Wikipedia is that as a tertiary source, it cannot be the quickest to report something – we need to be patient. If it's worth mentioning, a secondary source will eventually do so. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

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

The opening sentence links Javier Milei with a political doctrine usually related to things like neonazism and racial supremacism, but the references are not valid: two are opinion pieces (and conspiracy theory opinion pieces, at that), and the third is an interview. Opinion pieces are not valid references for statements of facts per WP:RSEDITORIAL, and neither are interviews: they may be useful for "X says Y", but not for plain Y.

I explained this at the talk page, but the user that keeps restoring this material says that opinion pieces are not opinion pieces unless the newspaper places them inside an "opinion" subsection. There's more at the talk page, but this is the main point of dispute. Cambalachero (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done, it turned out that the user was abusing sock puppets and got blocked. Cambalachero (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

• Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#Statements_by_President_Ilham_Aliyev

The entire paragraph was synthesized and written in a biased tone. The information was cherry-picked from primary sources and a few secondary ones. Sources cited are either primary, not-RS, or unrelated secondary sources.

• ANTI-ARMENIAN XENOPHOBIA AND RACISM IN AZERBAIJAN is a highly partisan source which represents the side of the conflict. thus it is not reliable for Azerbaijan-Armenia-related articles, especially if we are speaking of BLP. The entire report's sole purpose is to demonstrate xenophobia and racism in Azerbaijan; therefore, the authors who are unknown were biased and seemingly cherry-picked information to prove their point. The transparency.am who published the report on their webpage is not third-party, reputable, or academic.
• Oxu.az - again, the entire content and implications of the article are ignored, and only a few words are cherry-picked from the article.
• www.aljazeera.com does not state much but is used to support long statement synthesized from several primary sources.
• ARMENOPHOBIA IN AZERBAIJAN this is the partisan and self-published report written by the authors who hold the side of the conflict. Academia.edu is a place where almost any can publish their paper.
• All other sources I have not listed are primary sources (twitts / transcripts) whose context was neglected, and the material was cherry-picked from them.

I believe the mentioned paragraph violates the BLP policy because, in Wikipedia, particularly in the case of BLP, we must reference peer-reviewed reputable academic sources and be neutral. All of this must be reported by independent RS; otherwise, it is considered original research and should not be included in Wikipedia.--Abrvagl (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Does anyone here have a view on the inclusion in the "Beergate" article of this sentence: "The footage was taken by conservative journalist [fully named]'s son who at the time was a student at..."? This effectively reveals the identity of a non-notable person who witnessed the event, and I think may unfairly prompt readers to speculate that there was a possible political alliance and motif for his actions. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have a view, and I removed that irrelevant and BLP-violating factoid. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Drmies There are multiple reliable sources (including one in the article) identifying the person who took the footage, since he admitted it when it came to light in the media. Black Kite (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Black Kite, sure, perhaps--but we are not the media. Is it relevant to the actual event? If so, that should be made explicit, not left as a suggestion. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Proxima Centauri, if you believe the son is like the father, and there is a "strong family connection" or something like that, that needs to be made explicit. Is it explicit in the sources? If not, what's it matter? Did the father have a role in shooting the video or publicizing it? Etc. Innuendo is for the tabloids, not for us. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Drmies Actually, the son does not appear to be like the father, according to Guido Fawkes (which as a Tory-supporting site had no axe to grind here [14]). Any claim that the father distributed to video to Lawrence Fox and co, whilst totally logical (and claimed as such by one of the recipients on social media), would clearly be SYNTH without reliable sources though. Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
        • If he was anybody else, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt instantly, but his father's involvement in promoting the art of the fake sting makes me a bit wary; indeed, the reason why it was covered in RSes is precisely because of that. Sceptre (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
• The identity of the son has been covered in reliable local, national and international media. It is covered in The Guardian, The Northern Echo and again, Stern (Germany) and the Novinky (Czechia). That seems to me to satisfy WP:BLPNAME. If those reliable sources consider the son's identity and his father's identity to be relevant, then we should follow what reliable sources say. (This is not tabloid innuendo, because these are not tabloids.) Bondegezou (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The gist of BLPNAME is "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event.", and it's still a single event, even if a motley few sources cover it. BLPNAME also says "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context", I don't see a wide dissemination, and what context would be lost without naming this guy or mentioning who his father is? And I don't see WP:DUEWEIGHT there either, is that the only UK source covering it, and is that the sum total of all sources you could find? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Caution should be applied doesn’t mean “don’t do it”: it means, think about. We are thinking about it. We can identify individuals discussed primarily in terms of a single event if there’s wide dissemination and RS coverage. International media coverage in the UK, Germany and Czechia seems to me to satisfy widely disseminated. WP:DUEWEIGHT, likewise, seems to me to be met by Guardian, Stern and Northern Echo. That’s 2 UK sources (3 articles), by the way. Those are the main sources I found that seem to meet RS. There is other coverage that doesn’t seem to meet RS, like Guido. Bondegezou (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Sure, it doesn't say you must not add it, but neither does it say that you have to add it. The other question which is unanswered, is what context does it add that would otherwise be missing?
        Claiming that appearing in 3 or 4 likely reliable sources worldwide qualifies as "widely disseminated", is, at best, wishful thinking, in my opinion. I'd say that if it was widely disseminated, it would, at least, be covered in all the mainstream national UK media, especially BBC News, The Times, The Telegraph, and The Independent, and not just the one mentioned. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see any policy support for your interpretation of widely disseminated. I don’t see why coverage by a major German magazine matters less than more UK coverage. I would’ve thought that international coverage is better evidence of wide dissemination.

Lots of editors at Beergate support the inclusion having also considered the relevant policies. We’ve discussed the matter at some length. You started a discussion here without even notifying the article’s Talk page, which looks a bit like forum shopping to me. Bondegezou (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• • • • Bondegezou, the gist of the BLP is really clear here: we should be sparing in giving detail, and do so only if it matters one way or another. Your argument seems to be "it happened to be this way and a few sources wrote it up". That's just not enough. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

It’s a basic Wikipedia principle that what’s due is determined by RS coverage. There is RS coverage. It’s in a number of different publications and has gone international. If you feel that’s just not enough, can you expand on precedent or guidelines as to what is or is not considered enough? Because in the opinion of several editors, this is enough. Bondegezou (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The principle of due is that it's determined by a preponderance of RSs, but that is only a small part of policy. But that aside, all this wikilawyering seems to be evading the most pressing question, which is: what value does this name add to the article? We shouldn't include something just because we can. An encyclopedia is a reference source, which means we don't need all the boring details found in the newspapers and textbooks. What we do is summarize the sources, and that means cutting out all of the boring details, and whittling out anything that is not absolutely essential to the story. All we need for any article is the gist of it. The nitty-gritty. Now, as a reader and an outsider who knows nothing about this, I don't see a difference between the two sentences, except one is longer and gives me unnecessary details which leave me wondering, "So? who cares what the videographer's name is, or who his father is? What does any of that have to do with the price of rice in China?"

Now, the entire article reads like that. It's written like a newspaper would write it, filled with tons of details and unnecessary information that is basically just filler as far as I can tell. Contrary to popular belief, for the reader, it's always best to get the point across in the fewest words possible. Longer is not always better, and there are a ton of these boring details that can easily be cut.

So, the real question that should be answered is, why is this information necessary for the reader to understand the subject? I don't need that answer, but the reader really does, and it should be evident just from context why that information is important. Maybe it is incredibly vital, but if so then some key piece of information is missing, because it reads just the same without it. So, what is the logic behind keeping it? Zaereth (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the article as a whole is written in an overly newspaper-ish way. It has been a heavily edited article, with a lot of to-ing and fro-ing over issues like that. But that’s tangential to the point under discussion here.

Why is the identity of the student important? Beergate is not just about Starmer being at a gathering and there being questions as to whether that broke COVID regulations. The wider context to Beergate is Partygate, the breach of COVID regulations by Johnson et al., which ultimately played a large part in Johnson’s resignation. Much of the furore around Beergate was about Conservatives and supporters using the allegation (subsequently proved to be false) that Starmer had also breached regulations to distract from Johnson’s woes. In that context, some RS consider it notable that the source of the video is someone with links to Johnson, and someone whose dad has very strong links to Johnson. The father was one of many Conservative-supporting commentators who were critical of Starmer, yet he did so without mentioning his own connection to events.[15] That could be better explained in the text, yes. Bondegezou (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the talk page some time ago, there is a balance to be made here. There is, of course, the possibility that I.D. was simply on an innocent errand when he took the picture of Starmer. But there is a possibility that I.D. was being economical with the truth about what exactly he was up to that evening. This is seriously being discussed in reliable sources (i.e. Johnson is, or was, a family friend of I.D.; I.D.'s father is a notorious fake news peddler; and Johnson has spent most of 2022 either throwing dead cats on tables or wagging some dog to distract from Partygate).

My reading of BLPNAME is that naming I.D. is okay, as long as the encyclopaedic voice doesn't cast those aspersions towards him: nobody is suggesting any sort of criminality occurred, so BLPCRIME doesn't apply; I.D.'s name hasn't been deliberately suppressed; and there is a possibility that significant context may be lost, as I.D. being the one to take the picture is central to the argument that the whole affair was deliberately manufactured. Sceptre (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

There's an obvious contradiction here. If we aren't casting those aspersions towards him because there is insufficient evidence and coverage, then there is no reason to mention the name. It can't be "central" to an argument if there is no argument. Arguments covered in other places but which we don't mention at all are not of much relevance to us.

Also while BLPCRIME may only apply to criminality, the wider issue of not covering non criminal allegations if they are insufficiently sourced, not of great relevance and especially when the person is not a public figure, remain. The same as we would treat an extramarital affair (which if involving consenting adults in most cases in the Western world is not a crime) or claims of plagiarism (which in some cases could be a crime but often won't be) or cheating on a test (ditto).

I'd add that any source which thinks someone journalist's random son recorded something happening in mid 2021 which even the Daily Mail didn't give a fuck about, so it could be used by Johnson in 2022 when the shit hit the fan is so obviously silly that any source suggesting as such is probably not a reliable source.

Note that from what I've read which I admit isn't much, it seems incredibly unlikely that this whole thing was deliberately manufactured as this would suggest someone in Labour involved in the decision making was working with outside parties which is such an extreme claim to make that it seems to me to be approaching Pizzagate level of wackiness. The only other scenario I can think of is if the 1 hour takeaway delay someone contributed to the situation seeming worse on video, but that still suggest way too much conspiracy, work and ifs and buts for something which let's remember even the Daily Mail didn't give a fuck about.

Note that this is distinct from the possibility that the videographer didn't just happen upon the scene. There are other ways that could occur e.g. they were following the campaign or someone involved for a long time trying to observe something of interest. Or perhaps they somehow found out about the takeaway deliveries either from someone at the restaurant or delivery service or someone in the campaign. Which could even be without any sort of conspiracy if the person was e.g. simply careless with what they shared on social media. Whatever people may think about such things, it clearly doesn't make the recording something that was deliberately manufactured as what was recorded such as it didn't only come about because someone had set it up (i.e. deliberately manufactured or engineered the situation). Instead it was something that happened "naturally" or without mal-intent, no matter how the recording and release were engineered and used.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

One could argue (and indeed it has been argued) that the reason the Mail didn't give a fuck about it in 2021 is because it wasn't worth running when there was clearly no contravention of the rules; but then when Johnson got fined in 2022 the Tory party tried to spin it into something it wasn't, and the Mail gave it their best shot. But, of course, there's no reliable source for that, because those involved are hardly going to trumpet what they're doing. Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

But that's precisely the point though. This was basically a non-story. It's therefore ridiculous to suggest the video was deliberately manufactured. It was simply a video of something which might look mildly bad that was recorded and was used as such at the time. There was no major conspiracy with recording the video which SpectreSceptre reports some sources mention, sources IMO we should probably not use for anything. The fact Daily Mail and others tried to manufacture a controversy using the video doesn't mean the video was manufactured. Whether the videographer was being entirely truthful with the context surrounding recording the video also doesn't affect that it was something which even the Daily Mail recognised was mundane. So the videographer's identity isn't of any real relevance since it was a mundane video that others, some with a connection to the videographer perhaps, later tried to blow up the video when the situation arose where they felt it might work. Nil Einne (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any need to be getting into conspiracy theories. I don't see any need to make comparisons to an extramarital affair (which if involving consenting adults in most cases in the Western world is not a crime) or claims of plagiarism (which in some cases could be a crime but often won't be) or cheating on a test (ditto). The son is not being accused of wrongdoing. That means that we should be somewhat more relaxed about naming him as no accusation of immorality is being made. It's like talking about Abraham Zapruder when discussing the Kennedy assassination. (Obviously, that's a limited comparison given the differing magnitude of events!) If random person Joe Bloggs had filmed the video, we probably would have named him and left it at that. But reliable sources have chosen to note the connection between the son, his father and Johnson for context. It seems to me that we should take our lead from RSs and do the same. Bondegezou (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

If there was a preponderance possibly, but as there's less than a handful, no. The question remains though, what value does naming him add? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

What DeFacto said. If the videographer's identity was discussed as widely as Abraham Zapruder then yes we would include it. Since it's not we don't and yes we should do the same for random person Joe Bloggs. Also again, you can't say there's no accusation of immorality then say sources are noting there's a connection between the son, his father and Johnson. Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd also note that putting aside controversy over the recording, User:SpectreUser:Sceptre on the talk page said

To be honest, if people get the impression that Delingpole was trespassing just from reading the Wikipedia article (which I doubt would be the case; any speculation of Delingpole's physical position and whether he had a legal right to be there would, without reliable sources, constitute original research), then that's his own fault. If he was trespassing, nobody forced him to do so, and nobody forced him to go public with the video either.

While this was over different text, it seems to call into question even more the claim that there is no impropriety implied. Nil Einne (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorru for spelling Sceptre's name wrong twice. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, Starmer's visit was public knowledge (there was, after all, a by-election on), so I.D. most likely found out that way. What is being said in RSes isn't that the curry was being forced into Starmer's mouth; what is being said is that there is a definite air that the Daily Mail (et al) deliberately over-egged the pudding in order to vindicate their man in the eyes of the public. And the videographer's identity is part of this argument, given his father's involvement in the fake news industry for the past ten years, and said father's promotion of the video as if some random concerned citizen sent it through a tips line. Sceptre (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure Starmer's visit was public knowledge, but that is largely irrelevant to the issue. While perhaps someone could guess Starmer might eat during the evening, this would still require recording him for a long time or specific information leaking that he was about to eat. (Recording rivals in part with the hope you'd catch something that will be useful apparently isn't uncommon in the US at least pre-COVID19 going by George Allen (American politician)#2006 where the person the racist insult was used against was one such tracker who went around recording a rival to the person they supported hoping we can assume to catch something which would be useful to the candidate they supported. And semi-ironically did when the rival use a racist insult against them.)

Also more importantly, you said above some sources said "the whole affair was deliberately manufactured". My point was this is clearly so unlikely that any sources suggesting it should be ignored. Whether or not the video was later misused, doesn't mean the whole affair was deliberately manufactured. As I think you now agree, Starmer eating takeaways was clearly not manufactured. Daily Mail was not overegging the video at the time of the recording, it was something that only happened a fairly long while later.

If the father's involvement is significant enough as reflected in RS to mention in the article, then it may be fine to mention in the article, but you earlier claimed it was not. I suspect this is unlikely since realistically, even if the father was aware of the events that became Partygate before the controversy blew up, and was afraid they might blow up, and so was trying to catch something similar they could use as ammo if it was ever needed, someone with such experience as you suggest would surely be smarter to use someone other than their son to record it, a son who would complain about how it was being used.

So again, the far more likely explanation is mundane, this wasn't some major conspiracy trying to catch something that could be use to defend Boris Johnson. Instead, either it happened to be recorded when someone saw something which they didn't like or perhaps it was simply one of the probably many things intentionally recorded that rivals of Starmer were hoping might reflect negatively on him. Either way even Daily Mail realised at the time it wasn't very interesting.

It was only later after Partygate blew up that supporters of Johnson/opponents of Starmer thought it would be useful and tried to use it. There was no planning to make that video so it could be later used in that way, and the takeaways and beer weren't part of some plan to harm Starmer/help Johnson. In other words, while the controversy may have been manufactured, most of the affair including the video was not. And so the videographer is basically irrelevant, in fact as indicated earlier, I suspect the Daily Mail and others wish to was someone else who recorded it.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I realised I confused the Daily Mail with the Sun, the Sun were the who we know didn't think it was anything interesting at the time since they put it on page they use for boring stories. However, although we may not have a specific indication how the Daily Mail felt about the video time as I thought we did, I don't feel this significantly changes what I said above. Realistically, it's likely someone at the Daily Mail who's job it was to find interesting stories must have seen it and also thought it wasn't interesting. They and the rest of the Johnson supporting media or Starmer opposing media some of who must also have seen it didn't think it was interesting until the situation arose where it was useful. Nil Einne (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• All that is needed is that a key player was the journalist's son, and nothing more, not his name or anything else, per BLP. Just because that name is out there doesn't mean we are required to include, and as BLP is about minimizing harm particularly to people that were not notable before or not public figures, we shouldn't repeat the name, only the relationship. --Masem (t) 19:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Masem: note that the disputed text does not specifically name the son but does name the journalist. [16] However the journalist is only named in the context of it being his son who recorded the video. His involvement is not discussed in any other way. Nil Einne (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  As a journalist, he falls within PUBLICFIGURE, so there's less of an issue with his naming, but if its the case that all we're saying is that this journalist's son captured photos/video, and neither the father or son play into the events beyond that, then I completely agree removing both names are fine. Masem (t) 21:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• The identity of the journalist is central to why it's notable; and he's a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, so it's reasonable for him to be named. I don't agree with the interpretation that doing so effectively names his son - by that logic we could never say anything about anyone because someone could figure out who it was. You could just as easily say eg. "we cannot say anything at all, because someone could click the sources and find out who it is." --Aquillion (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Aquillion: if the identity of the journalist is central, then why isn't he discussed in any way in the article? As I mentioned to Masem, the disputed text simply mentioned the it was recorded by a journalist's son, the journalist is not mentioned or discussed in any other way. As far as I can tell from a cursory check of the history, this isn't because it was removed, it was simply never there. Likewise a cursory check of the talk page suggests to me there hasn't been any real discussion about this either. Instead, there was initial discussion about naming the videographer specifically, and this was then changed to simply saying he was the son or said journalist. There is some brief mention above about the role of the journalist, but if I understand correctly while those arguing say he had some role in promoting the story, from the sourcing available it seems to be fairly minor compared to the role of the Daily Mail and perhaps others such that they're not actually arguing to expand the section and discuss the role of the journalist in the story.

  I'd further note that while the journalist may have failed to mention it was his son when promoting it, that doesn't seem to have caught on as a major controversy perhaps because it's a minor thing compared to the great concern that the video was being blown up into showing something it didn't. It's possible the controversy about his failure to disclose is significant enough to mention in the subject's article, even if we do so, it doesn't mean we need to mention it in the Beergate article if it's too much of a minor point.

  As I said earlier, if the sourcing is there to suggest the role of said journalist is significant enough to mention, then it will probably be okay to mention that it was his son. Since I haven't checked the sourcing that well, I'm not saying the sourcing isn't there, but so far no one has specifically our description of the role of the journalist. If editors want to do that, I suggest they try perhaps initially excluding any mention of it being his son that recorded it to reduce disagreement. Once consensus is reached on suitable text discussing the journalist, it would likely be far easier to get consensus for mentioning it was his son who recorded it. But unless someone is willing to make the effort, I would remain oppose to simply mentioning it was some journalist's son who recorded.

  One hypothetical which recently occurred to me which tallies well with my comments above. Let's say it wasn't said journalist's son who recorded it but someone else, in particular a supporter of Starmer or perhaps even a someone involved in the campaign at the time. This seems a fairly plausible scenario since the evidence involved no one involved thought it was anything significant or that they had to hide. And so for the same reason, it seems likely that the person recording would not have been careful to ensure they recorded stuff which may make it more obvious that there was nothing wrong, it could be simply some random video they recorded. And so how much difference would this scenario make to what happened?

  The answer seems to be very little. Okay the person who recorded it did say they felt it was something wrong, but my impression is no one really cares about that, it was a very minor thing at the time. It was only later that it blew up as well discussed above and this doesn't seem to be because of anything the videographer said or did. Okay maybe the fact it was already sent as something negative, as a possible breach initially made it easier to find, but it seems perfectly plausible that even if it was simply uploaded at the time somewhere as a random innocuous video of something in the campaign, perhaps to some volunteer or staffers personal social media, it would have been eventually found by someone who was angered by it since they too felt there was something wrong. And it would have similarly made the rounds and then be re-found when it was useful and we'd be in a very similar situation. In fact, if Starmer's child or relative was a volunteer and had recorded the video, I suspect that Daily Mail etc would be making a big deal over this, and there would be argument over whether to include this which I'd likely oppose. IMO all these except the relative/child, which I use more to make the point, are perfectly plausible given all that we know. And they reflect why the videographer is so irrelevant to the story. Anyway having said all that, I think I've already said my fill so likely won't be commenting further.

  Nil Einne (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

At the top of the Wikipedia page on Mel Alexenberg, there are three requested changes made in 2021. All three requested changes have been made in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Please remove the three requests from the top of the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malexen (talk • contribs) 06:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

One of them still stands in that this wikipedia page looks like an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

An IP has been repeatedly adding a claim that this individual has died recently. I haven't been able to find a source confirming that. Is anyone able to track down confirmation either way? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I cannot find any reliable source that verifies his death. I have semi-protected the article for one week. Cullen328 (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I've come across a problem that I've never seen before and therefore have no idea how to correct it. I'll cut to the chase: Buddy Hart and Buddy Joe Hooker are the same person. I made a couple edits to the Hart article, then immediately discovered after some quick Google research that they're definitely the same person. If you read both the Hart and Hooker articles on Wikipedia, you'll see that their info is the same. The Hooker article even includes content about his use of "Buddy Hart" as a stage name early in his career. Also, if you search for Buddy Hart on IMDb, it redirects to Hooker's listing, whose description says "aka 'Buddy Hart". Hart/Hooker started his TV career as "Chester Anderson" on Leave It to Beaver from 1957 to 1960, then as an adult became a stuntman. He was credited as Buddy Hart as a minor, then as Joe Hooker, Buddy Jo Hooker, and finally Buddy Joe Hooker. I found this article which gives a great summary of the name confusion. In any case, can someone with expertise on this type of problem please fix it? I assume you would either merge the two articles, or redirect the Hart article to Hooker? Thanks. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've redirected Hart to Hooker as the former article was completely unsourced anyway. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, BK. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Pat Corrales' Wikipedia page lists a date of death, but he is not deceased. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Corrales — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.63.80.219 (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Rolled back. —C.Fred (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Plagiarism accusations have been added yet again, after being ruled a BLP violation many times in the past leading to the article being semi-protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oryu~enwiki (talk • contribs) 00:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Why is it a BLP violation? Seems reliable sources have picked up on the drama: [17][18][19]. Endwise (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

If you look back thru history it has all been previously arbitrated. There is already coverage of the Kenyon lawsuit higher on the page. Oryu~enwiki (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

From a scroll through the talk page, the last time the plagiarism stuff was substantively discussed was in 2013, about 9 years ago, and before the 2016 lawsuit. So I'm not convinced we can just say that this has been previously dealt with. I didn't see that it was duplicative of the (shorter) bit in the personal life section though, you're right about that. Endwise (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

A little googling leads to Cassandra Clare's version, which states the plagerism claim was dropped from lawsuit and copyright claims were settled. Though can't find a source to verify. Do think this is a problem that needs to be addressed, as we can not hide behind reliable sources said when they fail to do the neccessary follow-up. At a minimum, her statements should be included as a rebuttal or the section should be removed as Wikipedia can not verify the current status of the claims. Slywriter (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

• Georgina Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kirby Ann Basken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mutya ng Pilipinas 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of Mutya ng Pilipinas titleholders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I tried to correct this article with real facts, but they keep changing it back. It was not Georgina Wilson who competed in Mutya ng Pilipinas 2006 and won the title of Mutya ng Pilipinas Asia Pacific International 2006. It was Kirby Ann Basken. I should know because I'm Kirby's mom and I was there when she won the title. Would appreciate it if this can be removed from her biography, thanks.

<https://www.facebook.com/opmb.live/photos/mutya-ng-pilipinas-memorable-momentsthe-theme-of-this-years-search-is-beauty-tou/190673464354028/?_rdr>

https://archive.ph/mmhuR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtvasquez827 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It appears that on April 4, 2022, two related articles were vandalized by IP editor 103.89.236.160 to remove Kirby Ann Basken's name, which had been there for many years, and replace it with Georgina Wilson. The first disruptive edit in each of the two articles are here in Mutya ng Pilipinas 2006, and here in List of Mutya ng Pilipinas titleholders. Then, on April 5, these changes were made editor Faytatrenjoshua in Georgina Wilson. Faytatrenjoshua was then blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet on April 10. Please wait for a response from editors who are far more experienced in cleaning up messes like this. Also, please note that Kirby Ann Basken has some serious problems with sources; there aren't any. I removed the lone reference, which was clearly unacceptable, as well as all the external links, which violate WP:ELNO. I would also suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:BLP, WP:OR, and WP:COI. Good luck. Stoarm (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• On the one hand, looking at the sources in Mutya ng Pilipinas 2006, the claim that Basken won is corroborated by the cited source.[20] On the other hand, the cited source is a forum and not reliable. I'd like to find a reliable published source to verify this and put the matter to bed—and photographs on a Facebook profile do not qualify. —C.Fred (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if you came across this ref. Stoarm (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stoarm: That's exactly the kind of source I was looking for. Thank you! —C.Fred (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Stoarm (talk) 03:32, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

This individual is the target of an organization in South Africa known casually as "The Stellenbosch Boys" with links into NASPERS and various other media brands IOL and News 24. This "post apartheid" organization is aimed at preventing various black businessmen from gaining traction in South Africa. The articles used as links in this article violate the Biographies of living persons since they are "Attack Pages". I recommend that this article be scrapped and that the user that originally created this be banned i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730

I will be submitting a variety of article updates over Mandla Lamba over the next few days and hope that this defamatory and libelous article not snuff the ideals on which Wikipedia is establish i.e. Collaborative and Neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GettingBaked1983 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• GettingBaked1983, you will need to do a lot more groundwork to make this stick, particularly with the allegation that every one of these sources is somehow corrupt. That requires very specific proof. Having said that, the article is problematic, with at least somewhat sensationalist language and various other things. For instance, the images of Motsepe and Ramaphosa are not appropriate, certainly not in the DYK nom. User:BuySomeApples, I do not think this should be on the front page just yet. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
  • That makes sense, the nomination should be on hold until the tone of the article can be worked on. That said, I'm a little skeptical that Independent Online (South Africa) and News24 are both compromised by an anti-black businessperson agenda. The only source that seemed unreliable to me was WP:FORBESCON. What kind of sources are you going to use to improve the page @GettingBaked1983:? You also probably shouldn't remove the existing sources until reaching consensus on the talk page, just in case. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

    Thank you for your responses. I am working on better content and will support with appropriate sources and keep the talks going as I aim to improve the accuracy of this page.

    GettingBaked1983 (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

    After this attempt to replace the article with a promotional, barely-sourced, and suspiciously technically competent puff piece, I've blocked GettingBaked as obviously either a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gingie11 or someone in their employ. (One of their mercs accidentally said the quiet part loud recently.) It does seem like there's legitimate things to discuss here, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, looks like a lot happened while I was away. I will comment on three things:

1. Paid editors. Tamzin has already touched on the Gingie11 sockfarm involved with this article and the recent inadvertent admission of UPE. I'd like to also point out that there was another earlier round of articles on Simple English 123, so this isn't an isolated incident; there's a history of UPE hired for self-promotion and it looks like they haven't given up. This doesn't mean there aren't legitimate issues to be addressed, but it does mean we must remain cognizant that there may be bad faith actors attempting to abuse the process.

2. Sources. There are other sources besides IOL and News24 that reported on the subject. I ended up using primarily these two because a South Africa-focused editor offered them in the article AfD discussion as reliable sources that supported notability of the subject, and a quick check (1,2) indicates their size and market share as the online presence of a significant number of hardcopy newspapers as corroboration thereof. The secondary reason is that the sourcing seemed "enough" with a reasonable number of inline citations, so I wanted to avoid excessive ref-bombing with myriad sources.

One example of other sources that also had coverage is The Sowetan^{[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]} which I am given to understand comes from an anti-apartheid historic background. Also worth noting, the investigative journalist who was lead writer on the initial expose is no longer credited on the news article, but a bit of digging^[10][11] (not included in article due to OR) reveals it was Jacques Pauw, who "was a founding member and assistant editor of the anti-apartheid Afrikaans newspaper Vrye Weekblad".

Really compelling evidence would be needed to support the allegation that all these sources are somehow compromised; on the other hand it certainly wouldn't be the first time the subject of the article has blamed some kind of elaborate conspiracy against him.

The FORBESCON source mentioned by BuySomeApples was a miss on my part and as already indicated elsewhere, I'm willing to substitute other sources for it and remove any remaining unsupported and unverifiable content.

3. The article. My work may be imperfect, but trying to portray it as malicious to the point of warranting a ban is pretty far-fetched. I put in signficant effort to ensure that everything is supported by inline citations -- we report what sources say. In the last section, I sought to give balanced coverage to both allegations and the responses from Lamba and affiliates, including liberal use of direct quotes. Very recent activity and purported upcoming events were not included as TOOSOON.

In the content dispute department, let's discuss the subject of Motsepe and Ramaphosa: it is widely reported that Ramaphosa personally refuted Lamba's claim of a connection to them; coverage persisted well after the event, with the false claim receiving mention in subsequent articles such as those reporting on Lamba's arrest or court dates. I get that using their pictures in DYK when they're not the bold link is not optimal. But aside from that can someone please explain why it is not appropriate to cover this widely reported event or use photographs to illustrate the people, because I found nothing against it in WP:PUBLICFIGURE or WP:MUG and genuinely do not understand the objection.

As for tone, copyedits like this are absolutely welcome -- mea culpa, failure of NPOV on my part there. Other tangential issues: Drmies wrote in an edit summary: such overlinking is frequently a sign of poor writing Okay, I'll take the criticism about overlinking, that's certainly something I've been made aware of and need to work on. But "poor writing"? Care to elaborate more specifically on that and offer constructive criticism?

— 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, several days have passed and zero discussion has occurred. Rather, Drmies has, over my reasoned disagreement, unilaterally deleted pictures of Motsepe and Ramaphosa from the article, leaving an unhelpful edit summary of no this is not acceptable, while offering no explanation with respect to specific BLP policy as to why they considered use of the photographs to be inappropriate. I object to this. The pictures used were not photographed in a compromising context (WP:MUG) and do not demean or disparage Motsepe and Ramaphosa, nor does the usage allege any scandal or wrongdoing on their part. The photographs help convey that Lamba built a reputation not just based on purported wealth, but also upon claims being well-connected to other big businesses and influential public figures. Although his claims gained some traction initially, they were subsequently shown to be not credible and widely reported as such. In the specific case of the Ramaphosas, the claim was personally and publicly refuted in an unusual event that was covered by cited sources. Such context is made clear in both article prose and the photo caption. Therefore, I ask @Drmies to please clearly communicate your reasoning behind the deletion of the photographs.

Aside from that, I've been holding off on making edits to replace the FORBESCON source in the references, and am also considering addition of The Sowetan as an additional source to help pre-bunk potential future claims along the same lines as OP above. I expect these should be uncontroversial, but will wait a few more days in case there are legitimate concerns. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

You just cannot add pictures of people associated negatively with the subject based on this reasoning. It's not that complicated. What you are doing, esp. in the DYK nomination, is the equivalent of namedropping: posting pictures of famous people to attract attention to something that involves them only tangentially, if at all. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Point taken with respect to DYK, which aims to attract attention to the article, so use of photo could be construed that way. What's there to be gained from namedropping in the article itself though? A distinction should be drawn between engaging in namedropping versus reporting on Lamba's namedropping. His quest to seek recognition from Motsepe and Ramaphosa went beyond just a casual claim — per Ramaphosa, Lamba somehow managed to acquire their private contact details (his work number; her cellphone number and e-mail address) through which to make unsolicited contact with them. This led to Ramaphosa personally calling the radio station shortly after Lamba's interview, an unusual intervention compared to, say, simply releasing a statement through the usual PR channels. It is not accurate to characterize the level of involvement as tangentially, if at all. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 05:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

List of Unification movement people (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This list has been getting a lot of attention lately, due to recent events. The part I am concerned about is the last section the list of "supporters." Should we even have lists of "supporters" of something? Especially when that something is controversial? At the very least there should be stronger standards of what kind of evidence is required to list someone.Mightyherculescalifornia (talk) 13:40, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

So long as reliable sources indicate that such people are unambiguous supporters, then it is fine. Wikipedia reports what reliable sources do, and if someone is a clear, unambiguous, and vocal supporter of something, and such is well documented in reliable sources, I don't see a problem with including it. Of course, if any entries on the list lack sourcing, remove them. --Jayron32 14:00, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

That sounds good. I just took someone off the list who was sourced to only one newspaper story. Mightyherculescalifornia (talk) 14:12, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi all--we could do with a few more editors who can help assess the sourcing for a BLP matter. Please help out on the talk page--thanks! Drmies (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The page is under attack by an individual and they are stating I committed a crime. I NEVER committed a crime and I have NEVER been convicted of a crime. I have served the United States with the highest honor. I testified to the January 6th committee and that is not in the article. I am entitled to due process of law. I did not do anything wrong and again have Never been convicted of a crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everettstern (talk • contribs) 00:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The allegation has been reported by NPR [21], so it's not unsourced or poorly sourced. Whether it is due at this stage is another question. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I have never been convicted of any crime. To have it in the Wikipedia like this is not right. I testified against General Flynn and that was in the New York Times and Guardian and that was not put in the article for me testifying against the January 6th committee. I have a right to due process. This is libelous as it infers I committed a crime. Everettstern (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

You have never been convincted of a crime. However, you are currently accoring to NPR: set to be arraigned in a Pennsylvania court Thursday following accusations [you] masqueraded as a public servant while pulling over a vehicle occupied by four young women in late March, according to a police affidavit.. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This is an accusation. That is it. To have it in the top of the Wikipedia completely destroys me when I did not commit a crime. Everettstern (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC

If it was just a baseless accusation, then why are you being formally charged? Whether or not you committed a crime is up for the court to decide. That said, the coverage of this has been pretty thin so far. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, please do not make these kinds of comments here. It's like "why did you run from the cops". Focus on the material. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

That is not what happened. They were on my property. I used a Tactical Flashlight to get them off. I said I was a federal candidate! Not a Federal Agent! Everettstern (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The facts are not being presented accurately. Even according to the story. Everettstern (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add to the article that I testified to the January 6th committee against General Flynn as reported in The Guardian and New York Times. If this is going to be reported against me then this is fair. Everettstern (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if WP:PUBLICFIGURE is being met here given every story I could find on this is authored by Bryce Schuele from Fresh Take Florida ("a news service of the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications"), published to two local NPR affiliates and one local newspaper.[22] We have to ponder about NOTNEWS also since the news stories are not more than 24 hours old. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's an article from the 23rd by a different author about Sterns' bail conditions: https://www.dailylocal.com/2022/07/23/senate-candidate-facing-charges-can-travel-freely-judge-says/

Here's the Court Summary [Redacted]

Here's the docket: [Redacted]

The complaint that the page is "under attack" is not in the least supported. It is a lie that the article claimed he committed a crime. No version stated this. The claim was that he was arraigned, because... he was arraigned. This is not an attack, it is simply relevant and well-documented information about a political candidate. A published description of his innocence claim was then appropriately added, fairly airing his views.

The account bringing this complaint seems to claim to be the real person, and if so he has been curating his own wikipedia page for years, while keeping it filled with misleading information not backed up by any sources, and now, complaining loudly about factual accurate edits. Battling McGook (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Note that I'm unsure if those court summary and docket links are permanent links. They may be tied to the search I ran on their website and might expire. Not sure how to check this or how to cite these documents. Battling McGook (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I have put back the section and added additional information and references. References now include three articles by two authors, as well as a link to the PA court docket. Battling McGook (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I have redacted the court documents per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Please don't post those anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages and noticeboards. Zaereth (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll abide, but I have to confess I'm a bit baffled by this rule. There is no personal information divulged in that docket. Only factual things relevant for use as a source, such as arrest date, hearing dates, etc. I can see how transcripts would be problematic. Or records that divulge his address or something like that. But I see none of those issues in the PA docket record. Battling McGook (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

That sources is NOT an NPR source. "This story was produced by Fresh Take Florida, a news service of the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications." It is a work of a college paper, and for that reason, that is a terrible source to include such a claim. --Masem (t) 21:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I have moved the criminal charge to the body of the article, and included detail of the incident/his denial of the accusation that was published in the cited source, as recommended at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Denial. Endwise (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Primefac Guy Marchjuly Drmies There appears to be a user who is making signifcant unfounded accusations against me on the pages talk page. I have not been maniplulating anything and yes it is me who is responding to people. I do not have a third party hence my lack of knowlege on Wikipedia. The page is not mine but Wikipedias as this is community consensus but I am obligated to jump in and input my opinion when there are major factual errors or there appears to be an attack on the page. Wikipedia is the gold standard for people conducting preliminary due dilligence thanks to the volunteers at Wikipedia therefore when my reputation is harmed I of course will input my option. I sincerely ask the Wikipedia community to debate what I say in this paragraph and come to a fair consensus as my page causes me harm right now not becuase I disagree with it, but becuase it is not based on fact. Please note I am being sued by General Flynn for 250 million dollars and I belive one of the users attacking the page or saying I did not find billions of transactions at HSBC and making other harmful changes is one of Flynns operators. I find it interesting that I am running for Senate in PA and the incident occured in a small town courtroom in PA yet the college newspaper running the story against me is coming from where Flynn is in Florida. Moreover, I do not understand why I testified to the January 6th committee against General Flynn and that was in the New York Times and The Guardian and that is not in Wikipedia, but when a college paper writes something false about me it is put in the article. Also the On the issues should be removed from the bottom as it does not accurately reflect my views. My campaign manager filled it out and I have reached out to that website numerous times to test the candidate test again to no avail. Ballotpedia is a better more accurate and credible site. Also on the top paragraph, it says I am a member of the Republican Party when I am not. I left the Republican Party. Overall the entire scandal involving Flynn is not in the Wikipedia where I took a major risk defending democracy but this Battling Mcgook keeps inserting that I am a criminal harming my reputation. It is libel and slanderous what he is doing and the page is not fair and accurate. Please see the Guardian article that is not even mentioned whereby my action was extreme in defending the United States. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/21/michael-flynn-allies-allegedly-targeted-republicans-back-election-audits

We are now in the General Election and people need to know where I stand on certain issues and the actions I took defending democracy. My information is coming from credible verifiable sources unlike what battling mcgook is trying to insert from a college paper. Why does a college paper have more weight then the New York Times or the Guardian? I will let the community decide on these issues but I sincerely ask this is taken very seriously becuase my reputation is on the line and what is written in the Wikipedia article has real implications on my life. I will repeat this again, I did not commit a crime and I have lived a life of the highest integrity and honor. Everettstern (talk) 13:02, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Everettstern, thanks for pinging me. Please, though, be concise, and write in paragraphs that are easier to bite into and digest. I can't comment on why something is NOT in the article, but I do know that the disputed content pertaining to this matter should not be, and I see that Primefac agrees with me. (No longer a Republican? Can that be verified? On the talk page, please.) I am not going to speculate on Battling McGook's motives, but I will say that they are on shaky ground here--that we need to be conservative with including BLP content, and that edit warring with an admin over BLP matters is often a bad idea. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 14:38, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your help. I know everyone is volunteers and I appreciate the time. Please see my FEC filing which shows I am an Independent and I left the Republican Party. It also states it in this article which is the Flynn Extortion plot I exposed, reported to the FBI, and Testified under oath to the January 6th committee. For senate that I am a registered Independent is https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/S2PA00315/ For the Flynn Extortion Plot I uncovered please see as it is significant that I testified to the January 6th Committee. That was a major move and shows the credibility of my allegations. The fact that General Flynn filed a 250 million lawsuit against me shows what I am saying is a threat to him and the trump org. Flynn is adding to me credibility. https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/21/michael-flynn-allies-allegedly-targeted-republicans-back-election-audits

-

Flynn lawsuit https://dockets.justia.com/docket/florida/flmdce/8:2022cv01250/402221

I cannot thank you enough for your help. Everettstern (talk) 15:09, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, Everettstern, if you win and you run the joint, you can slip me a whole bunch of money one way or another, or, alternatively, I'll write up some legislation for you to pass. Mind you, I am a BLM/LGBTQ supporting cultural materialist tree hugger. No, we can't go to those primary documents for verifying such material, but if you see the edit I made, I think that is the best way to tackle that problem. As for your activities that aren't in the article, I will have to leave that to other editors. Good luck, Drmies (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! Everettstern (talk) 18:18, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I started a discussion about List of serial rapists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on Jimbo Wales talk page. Frankly, I am disgusted by this page, which looks like a scoreboard of the most prolific rapists. It is sorted by number of "proven cases". One of the problems is that "proven cases" is not defined and it is immediately apparent that the numbers in "proven cases" are not "proven" in any sense. Just as a convenient example, the most recent addition was yesterday by Adakiko. The person added has been convicted of 9 sexual assaults, but the "proven cases" reads "9+". There are also "proven cases" like "1000+", "950+", and "14-24". It should be obvious that claiming that someone has "proven cases" of such a heinous crime as rape is a violation of Wikipedia policies.

Another issue with this list is that "rape" is a somewhat loose term. As Wikipedia's rape page says "The definition of rape is inconsistent between governmental health organizations, law enforcement, health providers, and legal professions". Having a scoreboard of cases like this encourages people to lump cases together to make a single, higher number. One entry says Erik Anderson was "Convicted of sexually abusing and assaulting 60 boys by frotteurism and oral rape". The "proven cases" number for this entry is 60. The page on Erik Andersen (child molester) actually says "The more serious offenses he is alleged to have committed include oral sex, which in some cases borders on the Norwegian criminal code's definition of rape". So he was not convicted of "rape" at all, let alone in 60 cases.

A further issue that needs to be dealt with is that the list includes people who have been accused of sexual assaulted or charged with sexual assault but not convicted. I pointed out the example of actor Danny Masterson (which was removed) but there are others, like Richard Alexander (exonerated convict) (listed in the table as "River Park rapist"), a man who was exonerated by DNA evidence after he was wrongly convicted of two sexual assaults. Peter Nygård is another example of someone charged but not convicted.

I would like this entire scoreboard of rapists to go away, but I don't think that is likely to happen, so I am asking for adult supervision some attention by responsible and careful editors. Thanks. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I've commented in both places but agree this list is a problem as is. It needs to be trimmed to only those convicted, or to cases of where the identity is unknown, and that the main sorting should default to something alphabetic or chronological that doesn't "rank" these (though with sortable tables, the reader may opt to see it that way). I also agree that this should only be for convictions of rape under the appropriate local laws, and the counts should only include those they have been convicted with , not possibly higher numbers. --Masem (t) 21:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Masem and Jimbo Wales (suggests date sort) on a different sort order. I would suggest by last name. Dates are often vague, unknown, and/or have a range. So a date sort would require more discussion. Should a new section on talk:List of serial rapists be started on which sort order?

Polycarpa aurata (talk · contribs · count) also started a discussion on Talk:List of serial rapists#"Proven cases" column removed. This in addition to here and on the previously mentioned Jimbo Wales: List of serial rapists which, BTW, Jimbo replied to. This is the third venue. I believe this is getting into the realm of forum shopping. WP:FORUMSHOP

Polycarpa's original addition above I am asking for adult supervision some attention by responsible and careful editors. (strike out added with original edit) could easily be seen as a personal attack. This is unnecessary.

Polycarpa for some reason, doesn't remove entries that are not convicted rapists. Richard Alexander (exonerated convict) aka River Park rapist. I just removed the entry. Adakiko (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Polycarpa did not add a notice to the article's talk page per suggestion above. I added one talk:List of serial rapists#Notice of discussion on BLP/N. Adakiko (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Adakiko Thank you for adding that note. I'm not willing to fight with a bunch of people who can't see the problem with making a scoreboard for serial rapists. If you don't like how I'm doing things, report me to the Administrators Noticeboard. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• The list is now ordered chronologically. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Anythingyouwant Thank you. Now can you work on getting "proven cases" defined? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  Wikipedia has a policy WP:Verifiabilty that says, “Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources.” For living people, the standard is even higher per WP:CRIME: “A living person accused of a crime is presumed not guilty unless and until the contrary is decided by a court of law.” Those rules seem sufficient, don’t you think? I just added this info as a comment at the list’s talk page. Anythingyouwant (talk) 03:27, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Anythingyouwant Those poliicies and guidelines would be probably be sufficient if they were followed but they are not be followed on this list. That is why I started this discussion. Two high profile people who were accused of sexual assault but not yet tried or convicted have already been removed. One person who was exonerated by DNA evidence has been removed. None of these people should have been on this list. This list needs to be gone over carefully by people that understand the policies and guidelines, but that doesn't seem to be happening. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 14:57, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

  User:Polycarpa aurata, it’s good that the improper stuff you mentioned has been removed, and hopefully you or someone else will be able to check the list carefully to see if more stuff needs to be removed. If there’s resistance to removing it, then that would be something very much worth discussing here at BLPN. I already spent a ton of time putting that list into chronological order, and doing a few other miscellaneous edits, and it’s not really an area of interest for me, so I’ve removed it from my watchlist. But I’m sure other editors here will be willing to spend some time helping with that list, as necessary. Anythingyouwant (talk) 18:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

The main editor of the list, ContributingHelperOnTheSide, who has written literally 50% of the list, just said on the talk page "I don't even know what BLP means...". Polycarpa aurata (talk) 03:23, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

The current version of Jessica Matten, which I've reverted before, states that she is "s an actor of Chinese^[1] Canadian and self-identified Indigenous actress."

The body of the article says "She is the daughter of Theresa Ducharme and self-identities as Cree/Ojibway through her grandfather without sharing his communities, ^[2] and now self-identifies as Red River Métis, an Indigenous culture separate from Cree and Ojibway." The source used doesn't mention her, although Ducharme is her mother who is described as a Métis activist here.[23] Sources differ about her father, eg [24] says Chinese British. And [25] says "she is also of Chinese, Ukrainian, British and French as well as of Métis/Saulteaux Cree descent."

Confusing to say the least with some OR thrown in. Doug Weller talk 07:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Lead now says "an actor of eurasian and self identified mixed-indigenous Canadian heritage." Doug Weller talk 10:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

:Sorry, can’t get reflist talk to work, just says something about thee lua module so refs keep dropping to bottom. Doug Weller talk 13:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This should work. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The lead sentence should emphasize her nationality (Canadian); not WP:ETHNICITY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts happy with that, but are these reliable sources, and if so for the text they back?[https://newlegacyinterviews.wordpress.com/][https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/canadas-pocahontas-theresa-ducharme-is-a-powerhouse] Doug Weller talk 18:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

New Legacy seems self-published and not RS. ICT seems reliable but does not mention Matten (or Yee) so there are synthesis concerns. There is also a profile about her in Elle that verifies parts of her background.[26] Reading her article talk page, we should respect WP:BLPNAME and not go into detail about her family without strong sourcing just to "prove" that she is indigenous) Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The editor continues to edit war to put the synthesised heritage in so I filed a 3RR report.[27] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I've an offline draft that I've been working on for a while. It concerns a case of child sexual abuse which was surprisingly well-written upon, including repeated naming of the once-underage victim—both by sources and the victim themself. Everything is very-thoroughly cited, but I'm nonetheless wary of even posting the draft given the... sensitive? and/or unpleasant? nature of the subject matter. I don't often write articles from whole-cloth, and I guess what I'm asking for is reassurances and advice from the BLP community about how to tread carefully and avoid both drama and unintentional violations of anything BLP-related. (I considered asking at WP:PAW, but it seems pretty dead, and I'd prefer a wider audience.) Thanks, all. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 02:26, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean it was surprisingly well-written? Did someone else write it, or are you just patting yourself on the back there? There are too many variables to give you any kind of specific answer. Is this an article about a person or an assault? In most cases we don't name victims even if the sources do, unless there is some very compelling reason it needs to be there, or if the victim is possibly of celebrity status and has talked about it. Especially children. Likewise, we don't name suspects unless they have been convicted in a court of law. Don't use trial transcripts or court documents. You know what, just read WP:BLP, because this is all in there and more.

Is this a very notable person or crime? I mean, has it gained national --sustained-- attention? My suggestion would be to carefully read BLP policy, and all of the other core policies, and make sure you have a really good understanding of them before submitting your article. I haven't looked at your history, but if you're new here, or if this is your first article, you may want to put it on the back burner and start with something a little less touchy, at least until you get a good understanding of all these rules and why they exist. When you feel it's ready, create a draft on Wikipedia and submit it to WP:Articles for creation, so that others can view it before it goes online. If you like, ask us then and I'm sure we'll be happy to take a look before it goes to mainspace. Zaereth (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

What do you mean it was surprisingly well-written? Sorry, I meant it's been surprisingly well-written about in a quantitative sense, that is to say the case had a surprising amount of news articles written on it. Is this an article about a person or an assault? It's a case of abuse, covering the acts, their recording and dissemination, the arrest, the perpetrator's fugitive status and capture, trial, conviction, aftermath, and lasting victim-recompensing litigation. Most if not all of the news articles named the victim, who themselves went on national US TV to discuss the abuse; sources specifically note that the then-adult victim went out of their way to eschew privacy regarding the case. Is this a very notable person or crime? As for attention, the case was written about from at least 2007–2016, with sources located in Georgia, California, Washington state, and Houston (as well as citing SCOTUS and America's Most Wanted).

I mean, it's not my first new article, but I was around when WP:PAW was started in the wake of a lot of controversy, and as such, I just wanted to lay out my thoughts and get feedback. Last thing I want is to be embroiled in that sorta thing. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 03:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok. Just wanted to be sure there wasn't some copyright problem. Like I say, it's hard to give any specific advice without seeing something in specific. I would still recommend taking it through the article creation process. That way we can comment on it specifically and clean up any possible problems before it goes "live". Anyhow, that' all I got. Every case is different and needs to be weighed on its own merits. But who knows, maybe someone else will have some better advice than mine. Zaereth (talk) 03:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! — Fourthords | =Λ= | 16:05, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: There is a discussion at Talk:David_Leigh_(journalist)#'Agreement'_with_Wikileaks about a section talking about the disclosure of a password by David Leigh in a book he wrote. BLP is being quoted as a reason for removing any hint that he might have done anything silly or made a mistake. He worked for the Guardian and SPECIFICO wants to use the Guardian statements about the incident without attribution. [28] was the latest before this business and it just stated the facts without saying anything about them making a mistake or being silly so even so they had no cause to argue and I can't see a BLP violation. The latest version [29] threee times states that Wikipedia had said they would remove the file and it has made a mess of the entire paragraph with the aim I guess of trying to downgrade that Leigh published the password. Other sources have described the publication of the password as reckless or a mistake or that they had been cavalier about possible harm but I am quite happy not to stick that in. I just want the article turned back into a straightforward factual description of what happened rather than a polemic against Wikileaks and a whitewash of David Leigh.

Is there any BLP violation in what was there before the changes? Is there any BLP considerations that stop reliable sources being used for him or justify using the Guardian without attribution when they were so closely involved and Wikileaks started litigation with them over this. I'm happy to use [30] but I think statements in it ought to be attributed to the Guardian unless they correspond with other sources. To me it looks like an ass covering exercise. NadVolum (talk) 23:21, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Please frame the question to reflect the views of other editors on the article talk page. You've been requested to find additional sourcing and to frame the text in a way that reflects the mainstream narrative, rather than to suggest -- as you recently did on the article talk page -- that Leigh enabled the publication of sensitive data by willful or negligent disregard of the possiblity that the information would be accessed. SPECIFICO talk 23:47, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe any source has said anything like that what he did was wilful and I've never said anything like that. NadVolum (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

And at the talk page you asked [31] for a BLP compliant draft - somehow the BLP has disappeared in your description here. I am trying to find out here what was non compliant about the text before you got at it which you said you changed for BLP reasons. NadVolum (talk) 00:19, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

I am proposing the article be reverted to the before state [32]. The reason I didn't revert to that ws because the next edit by SPECIFICO had the edit comment 'Per cited Guardian source. The Guardian source was not written by Leigh. Attribution not needed. The previous version was a BLP violation. Further clarification and copyediting may be needed". I fail to see any BLP violation in what was there before but we mustn't include BLP violations. Can anyone here see a BLP violation in the part of the article there about the book and password or anywhere in fact? NadVolum (talk) 07:43, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

As I stated at ANI, the diff you wish to revert to contains something directly contradicted by the reference. As per SPECIFICO's edit, the statement about the temporary password was made by the Guardian not Leigh. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 15:07, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

. Comment This discussion has moved back to the articles talk page. Were how the details, and how much of the details of the issue should be included in the article. Other voices would be welcomed. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:03, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

At Naomi Wu an IP has added inacurate material about Wu's sexuality. See [33] and compare it with [34] (especially starting at timestamp 26:50). We should keep an eye on this, given the nature of the subject. --Guy Macon Alternate Account (talk) 21:41, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

She used a lot of words, and I regret even touching these links with my mouse, but that video is the only source, and with closed captions enabled, I distinctly did not detect her stating "I am a lesbian" nor "I am attracted to women" nor "I am asexual" or any related phrases that might indicate the nature of her orientation. She did give a strong impression, while not stating directly, of having no sexual attraction to men. Correct me if I'm wrong. Elizium23 (talk) 01:55, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I haven't watched the video but IMO this example illustrates why we should take great care and generally just avoid saying anything about sexuality, gender identity, ethnic identity, religion, relationship status or pretty much anything than can get complicated to when we are sourcing it exclusively to comments people make when they aren't covered in RSS and when such statements are more than a single line which we could quote if necessary. (Relationship status can't of course be covered by WP:ABOUTSELF unless it's a simple "I'm single" or something with no mention of anyone else.) Nil Einne (talk) 07:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Daniel chalifour is not a former but still racing actively. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.145.224.151 (talk) 01:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Looks like you fixed it.[35] Happy cycling. Anythingyouwant (talk) 07:12, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

An anonymous editor keeps adding a BLP violation to the Jackie Hill-Perry article. Specifically, they keep restoring this, a link to a Christian fundamentalist tabloid/gossip website. The specific article doesn't even give the name of the author. The claim this link is supposed to support is that Jackie Hill-Perry tweeted her support of Louis Farrakhan, despite her specifically nuancing the tweet with "say what you want about Louis Farrakhan (because there's a whole lot to say)". I keep trying to remove it but the editor keeps restoring it. I don't want to get in trouble for edit warring. 3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 18:05, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I have indefinitely pageblocked the IP editor from Jackie Hill Perry. Cullen328 (talk) 23:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

There's been some discussion on Talk:Kevin Knuth about using a WP:SPS to provide criticism on a BLP subject. I'm interested in broader community input on using SPS in WP:FRINGEBLP, and if that violates WP:BLPSPS, or if it can be acceptable because of WP:PARITY. This isn't particularly tied into Kevin Knuth, but it does provide an apt example.

I'm of the mind that FRINGEBLP specifically says that BLPs on fringe-related subjects must adhere to the BLP policy, which specifically forbids the use of SPS. Taking PARITY into account, I can see some instances where SPS might be usable, but it should be the absolute minimum usage necessary to provide context and balance. I'm very interested in the views of the community on this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy seems clear enough on this, and WP:FRINGEBLP explicitly states that WP:BLP has to be adhered to. Having to resort to questionable sources for content regarding fringe beliefs is generally an indication that discussion of such beliefs doesn't belong in an article in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Even WP: PARITY says that we don't suspend BLP for fringe topics. Upholding BLP is taking PARITY into account. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, to start with, that article reads like a resume. The first source is a university profile; a primary source but ok. Source 3 is a simple profile from "The Conversation", which is not much different from the university profile. Sources 2, 4-11 are all papers he has written.

Now, the way this is written is: we are saying he has written papers on such and such a topic, and then using the papers he has written as evidence. There is nothing from secondary sources. No peer reviews. Nothing even about what he has written. Just that he has written. This is just OR.

Source 12 is the same thing. We're using the website he's an editor of to prove he the editor. Source 13 is SciProfiles, which is just a list of his published works, not much different from 1 and 3. The last three sources are the only secondary sources we have!

As for the blog in question. No, that should not be used. But in looking at the article as a whole, it all just reads like a resume --even the UFO section! "He is vice president of..." "He is a member of..." "He has been quoted in..." But it doesn't really tell us anything about the person, does it? It's all stuff a future employer might be interested in, but as the reader I want to know what he believes in. What was he quoted as saying. I want to know if this is a person or just a collection of job qualifications. As written, I would have to support the nomination for deletion. I really don't see much for independent notability. Zaereth (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Zaereth, scholars are governed by WP:NPROF (if they meet the criteria), and therefore do not have to have secondary sources discussing them. This bio is typical of all academic biographies on people who don't also meet GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 23:42, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

A big problem here is that there has historically been a WP:CRYBLP faction that advocates for special treatment in living person articles that removes WP:PARITY-based criticism but allows for all sorts of poor sourcing to support their fringe activities because WP:BLPSPS says that self-published sources by the subject are okay as an exception. Thus the BLP becomes a WP:COATrack for fringe theories. See the problem? Perhaps a way out is to remove all sources that do not stand up to the WP:FRIND standard. If we avoid all sources that are not reliable for fringe claims in BLPs, this would solve a lot of problems. jps (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

SPS by the subject of a BLP are only ok for uncontroversial factual claims (typically degrees, job titles, and dates), not for anything that involves an opinion (the fringe theories in question, or even the fact that the subject has promoted these opinions). For instance, the self-sourced "Education" section of the Knuth BLP is fine, but the description of what research topics he is known for in the "Academic career" section, sourced only to his own publications, is more problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I can agree with that. My particular opinion of articles like these is that they usually become pseudobiographies that are all about the particular fringe theory rather than the person who believes in them. This is often a big problem with the BLPs for scientists and professors and the like, because we very often have little in the way of actual biographical info on the person themselves. So Wikipedia articles often become a vehicle for them to push their theories, fringe or otherwise-- and other works in the guise of a biography. In an article about a person we need to know what that person believes in to be able to understand them, because that's a part of who they are. We shouldn't promote those beliefs, but at the same time, in a bio I see no reason to try and refute those beliefs either. If the article were about the fringe topic, then sure, but it's not. It's supposed to be a bio about the person, so all I need to know is what they believe.

Now this article is different because it really doesn't tell me anything about his beliefs, or anything else that would give me insight into him as a person. There's nothing being promoted and thus nothing to refute. Zaereth (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a way out is to remove all sources that do not stand up to the WP:FRIND standard. If we avoid all sources that are not reliable for fringe claims in BLPs, this would solve a lot of problems. This is an inspired idea that I can completely get behind.

Either we note that the guy's a UFO proponent and move on, or we include details about his advocacy/beliefs, and treat those details according to WP:FRINGE, meaning WP:PARITY applies. Happy (Slap me) 21:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Knuth is best known for his advocacy of the notion that UFOs are most likely the work of aliens. His academic career is not the focus of RS coverage of him. His Newsweek opinion piece and The Conversation piece are cited in a number of media, usually with click-bait headlines about governments hiding evidence of aliens. His primary notability is in relation to his WP:FRINGE ideas and not his rather unremarkable academic career. If his bio survives, it shouldn’t be downplaying his ufology advocacy in favor of his non-notable academic works. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Then we use WP:FRINGE to guide how we write about his advocacy. The whole situations is remarkably simple, and I really don't understand the hand-wringing about this. There's no contradiction in the policy.

In this case, a well known skeptic commenting on Knuth's arguments isn't even addressing Knuth himself; he's addressing the arguments. As far as I can tell, BLP protections don't extend to arguments.

There's a world of difference between saying "X said something ridiculous" and "X is a ridiculous person". Happy (Slap me) 21:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

If we are writing about material in a BLP, it must comply with the sourcing requirements of BLP. We can't hide behind the excuse that when we write about some specific aspect of a living person, especially their beliefs, it is somehow not about the person. If we cannot provide neutral mainstream-POV sourcing for his beliefs, then per WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE we cannot cover those beliefs. If those beliefs are the only thing he is notable for, then we cannot cover him. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

when we write about some specific aspect of a living person, especially their beliefs, it is somehow not about the person. By that logic, English language is subject to BLP standards because it's about an aspect of [insert native English speaker of choice here].

We can't conflate every aspect that goes into defining a person with that person, unless we're going to subject the entire project to BLP standards. Knuth's beliefs aren't unique to him. They're shared by many others, and we even have an article on them. Happy (Slap me) 14:29, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

If we aren't talking about Knuth's individual beliefs it doesn't belong on Knuth's article. If we are talking about Knuth's individual beliefs then BLP applies. That others show similar beliefs and we can write a generalized article elsewhere does not mean we don't apply BLP to Knuth's individual beliefs. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:55, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

You are arguing now that a bio article cannot discuss beliefs a person shares with others. That covers religion, politics, etc.

What an amazing contortion of logic. Happy (Slap me) 21:26, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Take a look at a really good biography. Let's say ... Joe Biden, for example. Do you see how remarkably well-done it is? Now check out the section on his beliefs, titled "Political positions". Does it talk about a lot of other people's beliefs? Do we need to add Republican beliefs to make it "neutral", or other Democrat's beliefs to support them? No. It is just about the beliefs of the subject of the article. Why should this bio be any different? Zaereth (talk) 21:58, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

I have never seen nor heard Knuth claim that all UAP are "aliens". That would clearly be preposterous. What he has said - quite clearly - is that the extraterrestrial hypothesis cannot be ruled out and should be considered as one possible explanation for some of the cases for which there is, as yet, no other feasible resolution. This approach is absolutely consistent with the scientific method. The Colavito quote in question blatantly misrepresents Knuth's words. This seems to be an effective tactic, since it'd appear that many now believe Colavito's misinterpretation of Knuth's statement represents the intent of the statement, despite that conclusion being absurd by any reasonable and objective reading of what Knuth actually said. Cosmoid (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

We aren't here to fight about whether Colavito is correct or not in his analysis (I happen to believe he is correct, but I'll leave that argument for another venue). The issue here is whether and how arguments from Knuth that are at least partial to allowing for the possibility of aliens being the result of UFO reports can be couched appropriately given that this position is so profoundly marginalized in the mainstream. It does the reader no good to pretend that this isn't the case. This is precisely why we have a WP:FRINGE guideline. It's because it's often the case that WP:PROFRINGE prose ends up being promoted if we aren't careful. jps (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

LuckyLouie stated "Knuth is best known for his advocacy of the notion that UFOs are most likely the work of aliens." This implies that Knuth believes that all UAP are the "alien" in origin - which is precisely the way that Colavito's comment, that provoked this discussion, misrepresented Knuth's position. The misrepresentation is clear. And that is why this is the place for that discussion. The offending comment was taken from the personal blog of someone with an agenda. As such, it should not have been included in the article. Cosmoid (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

By that argument, none of Knuth's commentary on UFO/UAPs which have, to the exclusion of none, all appeared in either self-published articles or articles in journals over which he has editorial control deserve inclusion. Removing that from the article makes the notability angle even harder to justify. jps (talk) 22:21, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, I'll add that I'd have accepted the less egregiously misrepresentative aspect of Colavito's criticism appearing in the article, for the sake of parity (even though I now see that violates rules on SPS). This is not about preventing factual critique of one notable aspect of Knuth's biography - it is about preventing the inclusion of deliberate misrepresentations of the subject of the biography, which were published by a critic on their personal blog. Cosmoid (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, there is no objective measure we can point to here to decide that you have successfully identified a "misrepresentation" here. I am fairly convinced that Colavito is not misrepresenting Knuth, but it is not the place of Wikipedia editors to make that determination one way or another. Otherwise we are doing original research. If you want to show that Colavito is misrepresenting Knuth, you'll have to find a source which indicates that. But this is rather beside the point. Deciding whether and how to include text and ideas in an article is subject largely to a question of relevance rather than the judgement of the editor that the rhetoric is sound, for example. jps (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Knuth actually stated "A scientist must consider all of the possible hypotheses that explain all of the data, and since little is known, the extraterrestrial hypothesis cannot yet be ruled out."

Those were his actual words. Please explain how anyone could reasonably arrive at the conclusion that Knuth was intending to convey that, as a scientist, he considers all UAP data indicates all UAP are "aliens". Good luck - because that is precisely not what he said. Cosmoid (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is beside the point. But briefly, the reason that Colavito correctly identifies Knuth as holding water for his predilection for a belief in aliens being the cause is because by his argument any extravagant hypothesis can't be ruled out. The fact that he focuses on the "I'm not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens" discussion is the basic name of the game and basically has always been that way. jps (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

No - that's the way you choose to interpret it, based on your biases. What Knuth actually stated - in so many words - is there for all to see. Knuth has never claimed that any UAP case was "aliens" as far as I have seen, never mind all UAP cases. He has stated that he's seen accounts and some evidential data that, in his view, merit investigation and that, in the small subset of UAP cases that appear to exhibit extraordinary capabilities and cannot be readily resolved, extraordinary solutions cannot be immediately ruled out. That is entirely reasonable and in concordance with scientific method.

Come on, be reasonable. The suggestion that Knuth would believe all UAP are "alien" in origin is utterly absurd. People like Colavito - and apparently yourself - may desire to put those words in his mouth. But, you're simply creating a straw man. By all means, criticise Knuth for what he actually said. But, it's extraordinarily disingenuous to infer that "he said this, but really he must have meant that" just so that you can fit him into a box of your own creation. Cosmoid (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This may be the last time I respond to you since, again, this is not relevant to this discussion, but you aren't really dealing substantively with the point that the "U"-boosters entertain aliens because that's what interests them in spite of "U" taken at its most straightforward admitting literally any wild hypothesis. They rarely entertain, I don't know, huldufólk as a possible explanation, for example. Knuth sure doesn't. jps (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

To say Knuth isn’t pushing a fringe view is to ignore his many appearances on UFO conspiracy podcasts and the like. He’s even a featured speaker at events such as Phenomecon: Utah's Paranormal Conference "We Believe". - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This chosen tactic of WP:PROFRINGE always perplexed me. They will, on the one hand, argue that they are being conservative in their proposals, but insist that they not be judged by the company they keep. "I don't agree with everything that is said at the woo-woo conference, but I think they deserve to be heard." We only have a limited amount of time in this mortal coil to entertain ideas. Why these ideas? They must find something they think is worth considering. The irony is that I do as well! It's just that I think agnotology is fascinating and they categorically reject the proposal that their pet idea falls under that umbrella! jps (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Appearances and even featured speaker status do not make someone notable. What has been written about him in reliable sources? I'm not talking about sources that simply quote him or use him for a soundbite. I mean, has any reliable sources taken enough notice to actually write about him?

Just to be clear, when people use the word "fringe" it is often done with a negative connotation, as if anything fringe is automatically something psychotic. When Alfred Wegener first proposed the theory of plate tectonics, he became the laughing stock of the scientific community. His theory was fringe at the time, but only because it hadn't been accepted yet, but now it's gospel. Ask any astronomer if they believe there is life somewhere out in the universe, and you'll get an almost unanimous "yes". With all the billions of stars surrounding trillions of galaxies, the odds are too great. Besides, it would give a great boost to the evolutionists to shove in the face of all those intelligent design-ers out there, and billions of dollars in space explorations is done in search of life. But you ask those same astronomers if we've been visited by spaceships, and most are likely to say the odds are greatly against it, although few would probably give you a direct no. I think Richard Feynman said it best:

Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers — because I am scientific I know all about flying saucers! I said "I don’t think there are flying saucers’. So my antagonist said, "Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it’s impossible?” “No”, I said, “I can’t prove it’s impossible. It’s just very unlikely”. At that he said, “You are very unscientific. If you can’t prove it impossible then how can you say that it’s unlikely?”

But that is the way that is scientific. 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.

The problem is, these are all great opinions to have on the Flying Saucer article, where we can worry about parity and all those good things that any theory should really have. A biography about a person should be about the person. Take the J. J. Becher article, for example. This is what a biography should look like. Do we spend a lot of time promoting his phlogiston theory? Do we need to spend a lot of time debunking it? No. We save that for the phlogiston article and use the bio to describe the man.

And really, when you're talking about flying saucers and aliens, you're no longer in the realm of science but off into the realm of modern mythology. You may as well try to refute Jesus, Buddha, or Scientology. Those who believe will regardless of what you tell them, and those who don't, won't.

But this article is not about any of that. It's about a person, isn't it? This is yet another example of why I think we need much, much higher notability standards for BLP articles. We should never even create an article about a person unless we have enough biographical info to make a decent C or B-class article. That's what would save us a lot of these problems. Save stuff like this for the UFO articles and create a bio when secondary sources take an actual interest in the man himself. Zaereth (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree wholeheartedly that we should make biographies only on people who have been discussed at great length in several SIRS. There really should never be a circumstance where a contemporary subject's death or criminal transgressions or other major events are not covered in multiple such venues. If we can only report on a small snippet of someone's life without relying on primary non-independent sources, that subject does not merit a standalone article because it can never hope to be neutral. JoelleJay (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

• WP:BLPSPS cannot be used as done on Jess Phoenix. WP:PARITY does not enable someone to use SPS and personal blog posts to attack people personally. You can use that if the original source was not scientifically peer-reviewed to respond to it with equally unscientific, but still reliable, material. And BLP still applies, it is not suspended or in any way contradicted by the WP:COAT essay. Andre🚐 01:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Andrevan, theres nothing in WP:COAT that contradicts WP:BLPSPS. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

If a person makes a fringe claim and that claim is included in their biography, then, per WP:BLPSPS that is allowed to be sourced directly to them. However, a similar SPS that criticized that claim would be removed. This means that the article becomes a coatrack. And I have seen this happen! The solution is either to (a) remove the fringe claim or (b) allow for the criticism. I see no alternative. I think (a) may be more palatable. jps (talk) 02:33, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The simple answer is to delete the fringe claim as well as the response to it, if the fringe claim was from an unreliable source to begin with. Maybe in some cases delete the whole article. I haven't looked at other examples other than Jess Phoenix so you can feel free to be more specific. Andre🚐 02:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed with your idea of removing both. However, WP:BLPSPS indicates that the subject of the article can be used as a source for their own ideas and in the past was used on certain articles about global warming deniers. Tim Ball, Judith Curry, and Anthony Watts come immediately to mind as examples from the distant past. You might have to dig far back in the archives for how those arguments played out. jps (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Thats not what a WP:coatrack is, a coatrack is when you focus on tangential rather than directly related subjects, its not possible to use WP:SPS for WP:ABOUTSELF in a way thats tangential. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I've seen it done. jps (talk) 02:41, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it can be used as a source for statements about themselves like their own birthday. Not statements about external things like climate or the planet's warming. See the exception here, it's clearly spelled out: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves Andre🚐 02:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Its literally impossible to use a source for WP:ABOUTSELF and have it be tangential, SPS can only be used for "information about themselves" on the condition that "it does not involve claims about third parties;" so it does have to be about the subject of the article and therefore directly not tangentially related.Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I've seen the argument made, "This is just attesting to what the person believes. It's not attesting to the fact of the matter." The argument is that because it is their opinion, it's not a statement about external things. "John Doe believes the Earth is flat and argues extensively that gravity does not exist because he is able to fly.[cite to his blog]" That sort of statement has been argued to be okay because it's not asserting the fact, it's merely documenting what John Doe says was his opinion. Maybe we can say that sourcing a person's opinion to themselves is not okay if the opinion is somehow controversial. But that seems not to be quite where we are when it comes to WP:ABOUTSELF. jps (talk) 02:47, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

What the person believes is directly related, thats not tangential. It would be a WP:DUEWEIGHT issue and consensus may well be to not use the blog at all. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:48, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Exactly my point? I mean, what has happened here is that by changing the rhetorical syntax of the argument, it becomes "directly related". But the effect is that we now have a fringe theory being promoted as an opinion and our PAGs seem to be okay with that. jps (talk)

Your point is that you have fundamentally misunderstood and misapplied WP:coatrack which has nothing to do with the issue at hand? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Either you are being deliberately obtuse here in not understanding that covering a BLP subject's opinion can end up serving as a coatrack for that opinion, or you missed your own point. jps (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

OK, but nobody's making that argument now, right? And if they do, I will disagree with those people. Andre🚐 02:49, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Well, I appreciate the support, and while I don't think it is happening right now, it's definitely something that will show up again at some point. That's why I think it would be nice if there was some policy statement that explained why it was the right thing to disagree. WP:ABOUTSELF gets almost there, but not quite. jps (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The exceptions for self-published sources aren't a free license to promote fringe theories - nor are they a carte blanche to use them to attack perceived peddlers of fringe theories either. Sources must be reliable - regardless. Self-published sources are sometimes reliable in certain contexts for certain limited information only. It's a very narrow exception, and consensus of editors will keep out the abuses. Andre🚐 02:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I am glad you have a faith in consensus of editors like that, but, as it is, I don't think it so cleanly gets resolved. jps (talk) 02:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Just don't use unreliable sources, for, or against fringe theories, and if you see them, remove them. Andre🚐 03:02, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I want to emphasize here that WP:BLPSPS makes an exception for sources that are by the subject of the BLP. What would normally not be "reliable" can and does get argued as being reliable. There isn't a clear explanation of this problem nor a satisfactory solution documented in the WP:PAGs right now. jps (talk) 11:45, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

If their opinion on a matter hasn't been covered in RS, it is not DUE and cannot be sourced to BLPSPS. That solves the issue entirely and is already supported by our P&Gs. JoelleJay (talk) 02:52, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I have seen instances where opinions were mentioned in RS in a somewhat off-handed way. "John Doe has famously supported the flat Earth![Impressive Newspaper of Record]" and then that gets used to launder the opinion into the article. jps (talk) 02:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

This reminds me of a big RfC we had[36] a while back about Michael Greger. The important outcome there I think was the consensus that

there indeed is a difference between commenting on someone's work and commenting on someone directly. Wikipedia uses a similar rule in discussions where users are required to comment on content and not the user writing it.

The nub of this issue is that editors sometimes mistakenly argue that a person's views, particularly scientific or science-adjacent views, somehow inherit the full protection of BLP as if those views were people. They don't, and fringe views need mainstream context wherever they appear, even in biographies, because NPOV (which is not negotiable) requires it. I wonder if we need to add something to BLP about saying this. Alexbrn (talk) 03:24, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

None of which refers to the content in this diff: [37] Andre🚐 03:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It might, it anybody claimed that a documentary enjoyed the protections of BLP. Documentaries do not inherit the BLP protections of the people who worked to make them. Alexbrn (talk) 03:54, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

No, the article is a BLP, it's a self-published attack blog post, so it was correct to remove it. The act of including this line on the person's article is the attack. She was affiliated with the production, but she is not the documentary. The criticism could potentially be on the documentary's article, but not cited to a self-published blog post. Andre🚐 04:10, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

This is a common misunderstanding. The scope of BLP is "material about living persons" on any Wikipedia page (even here). A biography is typically a conflation of several notable topics, usually at least The Work of X and The Life of X but per WP:NOPAGE these are combined (sometimes for very large topics, they are separated). BLP applies to the material "about the living person"; it does not necessarily apply to their work/views/historical context/etc. This is the whole point of the RfC I linked ("there indeed is a difference between commenting on someone's work and commenting on someone directly". Alexbrn (talk) 04:18, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I think I'm not being clear. I agree that the work, and the person, are different. That is why it would be inappropriate to put a bunch of stuff, which frankly in this case is not even about its veracity: "worst, most incoherent, poorly written, and badly produced pseudohistory documentaries", about the documentary on a person's BLP. The person does not lose BLP protection from this undue opinion simply because it a fringe documentary - which, I mean, it sounds more like entertainment that vaguely masquerades as sciencey content. Saying that it's really bad, cited to some guy's blog with a BA in anthropology who has written a few self-published books, that has nothing to do with the case of the RFC you cited. Andre🚐 04:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

There may be an argument the material is undue, but if the criticism of the documentary may be admissible somewhere, with no BLP issue (as you acknowledge it might be) is is admissible on the biography page, with no BLP issue. The scope of BLP is explicitly "material about living persons", it is not "the entire HTML page which is a biography". Again, this relates back to the RfC I linked the upshot of which was that it admissible to use a blog to debunk scientific misinformation from somebody even it it's on their "biography" page. TL;DR - BLP applies to content, not to pages. Alexbrn (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The diff in question is not debunking anything, it's just trashing it. Andre🚐 04:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe, I'm unfamiliar with the documentary but obviously the one guy quoted seems to think it's pretty bad. That's a conversation you involved editors can have between yourselves. My point is simply that criticism of a documentary cannot be excluded with a kind of BLP trump card; that's WP:CRYBLP stuff. Alexbrn (talk) 04:35, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

If the criticism were from a reliable source, not a self-published blog. Just because the documentary is about Atlantis stuff doesn't mean you get to add all the self-published blogs that said it was poorly written and badly produced, and claim that was equivalent to an expert scientific opinion debunking misinformation. That itself is a real twist of BLP vs reasonable critique of work. Andre🚐 04:39, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

What criticism is WP:DUE or WP:RS is another question (and not one I intend to get into). My point simply was that a documentary is not protected from adverse criticism by WP:BLP, and making mention of a documentary within a biography is not a way to protect it with some kind of magical BLP forcefield. Alexbrn (talk) 04:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you're the one who is confused, the scope of our BLP policy is "material about living persons" on any Wikipedia page but a page can also *be* a BLP (a biography of a living person), as the one here is. "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy... This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." Horse Eye's Back (talk) 04:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

It's possible for a page to be a "pure" bio, yes. But it's more often the case that a BLP is a mixture. This was the issue at the centre of the big RfC I linked. Alexbrn (talk) 04:40, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

In this context what do you think? Is that an appropriate use of the source? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:06, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I have no view on that (I don't really "do" Atlantis). But this is BLPN so I was concerned about the policy aspect here. Alexbrn (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

If their opinion received coverage sufficient for not only DUE but also the stricter sourcing reqs for contentious content, then a general RS rebutting that opinion in general (e.g., "[opinion][ref], a view that is widely rejected by the scientific consensus on climate change[ref]") may be used as non-awkwardly as possible if leaving it unchallenged would violate FRINGE. And an RS that meets BLP standards may also be used with attribution to rebut that specific person's comment. However, IMO if a topic appears fringe but there aren't any sources generally or specifically discounting it, then either it's not actually fringe or it's such a minor perspective as to be UNDUE even with media repeating it. JoelleJay (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

While material about the living person requires "an RS that meets BLP standards", material about their work does not necessarily. This (again) is the whole point of that huge RfC I linked, which also commented that BLP policy as drafted (then and now) is amenable to multiple interpretations, but that it does not preclude the use of blogs in biographies ("if policy is meant to stop these sources [i.e. blog posts] from getting included, it should be fixed to avoid such ambiguity"). Alexbrn (talk) 05:08, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

The exception is quite narrow for parity: countering unscientific sources with other unscientific sources. The exception for self-published blog posts is very narrow and applies to debunking claims by a known scientific expert. It isn't a general permission to use unreliable sources. RS still applies. Andre🚐 18:01, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm reluctant to base policy interpretation on a 6-year-old RfC that took place on some guy's talk page... My position is that FRINGE claims just shouldn't be repeated if we don't have both exceptional sourcing for them and criticism of them in indisputably reliable sources. We're cautioned against using expert SPS for even clearly non-BLP content, I don't think it's a stretch to handle them much more cautiously when they're direct responses to statements by a BLP even if they're not passing value judgments specifically on the person. JoelleJay (talk) 23:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

In other words, you don't like the consensus so you'll agree with yourself. The RfC was on an Article talk page, drew participation in the normal way and from this very noticeboard.[38] It drew wide participation including from admins who helped write BLP (which is even older than 6 years). It confirmed BLP was unclear on this question, and it has not got any more clear in this respect since 2016. Editors cannot change unclear policy to clear policy through force of will: either the policy needs to be redrafted or we proceed by RfC. This 2016 is the most recent RfC on this question. Alexbrn (talk) 05:07, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not doubting the consensus from the RFC, but it doesn't apply in every case. It applies in a very narrow case. Andre🚐 05:08, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

That RfC that was advertised as a specific narrow BLPSPS question regarding a particular person. Even if it evolved into a broader query on the topic or received modest participation, we just cannot generalize consensus from policy discussions that were not initiated or advertised as general questions in a central location. Given that the result was apparently "this is ambiguous", BLP would seem to encourage defaulting to the most cautious interpretation until clarity is actually established. JoelleJay (talk) 06:03, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The conclusion was also that the specific argument some editors are trying to deploy, is not supported by policy. By all means start another RfC or propose a policy amendment; but don't argue that policy says something it does not. The "default" is to obey NPOV, Wikipedia's central pillar, when dealing with fringe views. That policy is not ambiguous. Alexbrn (talk) 06:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

jps argued at AfD that there were insufficient reliable sources for this article and I agree, although I did not participate in the AfD. But I don't think that means we can lower the bar for rs to include criticism, even if that makes the article less POV. It's better to reduce the article to a stub, try again for AfD and hope that rs appear in future. We could also try to merge the article into one whose topic is notable. There is nothing btw to prevent us from developing an article about the theories that Knuth and others promote. TFD (talk) 16:25, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Stubbifying is another way of saying "remove all mention", I guess. I think the problem comes when we host an article and the primary notability is the fringe promotion, as is the case here. The question then becomes what is an appropriate source for criticism. WP:FRIND seems to argue that if there is no criticism, then it does not belong. WP:BLPSPS seems to argue that if the criticism is all self-published, then there is no criticism. That would mean removing the fringe promotion entirely from biographies if that was the case. It would be nice if this were spelled out. jps (talk) 16:53, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we need to spell this out further. If there are indeed biographies that are fringe coatracks, you should trim them heavily and remove self-published source material. In situations where you do want to use the parity argument, it does exist to be used to counter fringe material. However it is not a free license to use self-published blogs to generally attack the credibility of anyone in the orbit of the fringe world. It's a narrow exception used to counter specific fringe claims. If a claim isn't there, it doesn't need to be countered. Andre🚐 17:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello, Someone created this Wikipedia page regarding my mother, Billie Lynn Daniel, and I'd like to correct (edit) several errors. First and foremost, Billie Lynn Daniel- though a notable NYC classical singer- is no longer living. She passed away in 2002. I'd like to create a new page that isn't under the restrictions of a "biography of LIVING persons".

Thank you, Andrea Frierson — Preceding unsigned comment added by Scriptdiva (talk • contribs) 03:00, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Scriptdiva. Thanks for bringing up the issue. I edited the article to note her 2002 passing. Someone with more user rights than me can change the BLP edit notice. Please read and adhere to WP:COI; I don't think a new article needs to be created, but the policy has some content on how to do so. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:11, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

It's not necessary to have more rights, anyone who can edit the page can effectively remove the edit notice Template:BLP editintro which was injected due to the presence of the Category:Living person tag [39]. Scriptdiva a particularly important part of COI in this case beyond the recommendation you avoid making edits directly and instead post on the talk page asking for changes is we still need reliable sources for any additions you wish to make. We cannot rely on your own personal knowledge of what is correct. If any of the existing information is not sourced we can remove it in any case and especially if you say it's wrong but it gets trickier if it is sourced. Nil Einne (talk) 07:10, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I’m reporting an act of repeated vandalism to the biography page of author Chinelo Okparanta.

This is a repeat of vandalism that Wikipedia moderators previously dealt with in 2018. The page has previously been given protected status because of tampering in the form of a repeatedly added “controversies” section. You can see a note in the Talk section by editor Yunshui in 2018, stating that they are “in favor of leaving it out” because “the only sources provided so far have fallen woefully short of WP:RS” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chinelo_Okparanta).

It was recently added again, and I removed it in an edit today. The section in question is labeled ‘“Benji"/"Corrie" controversy.’ It claims that there were allegations of plagiarism against Okparanta, but provides no references for that claim. The only source cited is an interview with Okparanta regarding a story she published in the New Yorker. There is no mention of plagiarism or controversy in the source cited.

This clearly violates the following sections of Wikipedia rules around biographies of living persons:

“Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material.” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons)

The added section provides no evidence for the claim of “controversy,” the material is clearly an attempt at sensationalism, and harm to the living person has not been considered.

According to the guidelines on biographies of living persons, “All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.”

Since no citation exists to support the claim of a controversy, the section ‘“Benji"/"Corrie" controversy’ should be removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Icykuiperbelt (talk • contribs) 14:22, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

You're correct in removing that material. The source says nothing about plagiarism, and we need very good sources to make such a claim. Having "parallels" is not uncommon, nor does that fall under the definition of plagiarism, or we wouldn't be able to do what we do at Wikipedia. If that were the case then West Side Story would be plagiarized from Shakespeare, and people like Weird Al wouldn't be able to do parodies. If this problem persists, then your best bet would be to report it at WP:ANI, or request page protection at WP:RFPP. Zaereth (talk) 21:14, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

I have protected this article due to an edit war. An editor asked me to remove a section of text, and I have done part of it per BLP because the claim doesn't appear to be supported by the cite and suggests impropriety. However I can't read the cite for the first part of the disputed paragraph, as it is inaccessible in Europe per GDPR. If anyone else would like to have a look and see if it is OK, it would be appreciated (actually, looking at the whole article might be good). Black Kite (talk) 21:15, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

The source, CNN, I would rate about as reliable for for political news as Fox News is. The source is basically a "gotcha' article typical of political rhetoric. To break it down, it's basically "Trump says he doesn't know the subject, but the subject was seen at campaign rallies and attended golf tournaments that Trump was at, etc." It's only about the subject in as much as it's about calling Trump a liar. However, it does seem to support the cited sentence. I don't know what the point is we're trying to make with it, though, and the nature of the source makes me think we can do better. Zaereth (talk) 21:34, 8 August 2022 (UTC)

Regarding inclusion of denials in BLPs, the essay WP:MANDY argues against inclusion if it would have been obvious that the person would deny. WP:BLP says denials generally should be included. This tension is the subject of an RFC now at the Mandy talk page. The proposal is to put a template atop the essay, making users aware of the tension between Mandy and policy. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:53, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm currently topic-banned from editing BLPs so I shouldn't do anything directly, but Grant Guilford, which has previously been targeted by socks (see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Kardon6/Archive), has been updated substantially in recent months by relatively new editors. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:06, 9 August 2022 (UTC)

The long-term imprisoned human rights activist Mohammad Fahad al-Qahtani has a namesake, Mohammad Fahad al-Qahtani (businessman). The namesake happens to have died live on camera on 8 August and have had the "honour" (or misfortune) of his death video circulated on social networks. Several Wikipedians (some apparently new - redlinked talk pages) zealously edited the human rights activist's page without bothering to read the page and wonder how a long-term imprisoned human rights activist suddenly became a rich businessman able to travel internationally (to Cairo). I suggest that BLP people keep an eye on Mohammad Fahad al-Qahtani, the primary page - the human rights activist.

I have no opinion about whether the businessman is worth a named page or a Saudi businessman whose death was filmed and circulated widely on social networks WP:BLP1E type page. Boud (talk) 10:36, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Maybe there should be a sentence about his personal life or early upbringing (if RSourced) so that people understand he has a father or grandfather with the same name. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:32, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Yamelin tanto dos año hombres la zona se de gira familia gira familia GE han dos no es incorrecto oído su del febrero varios han dos no es su por dos favor yo el o junto hasta de de rey — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.176.126.121 (talk) 22:38, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I assume this might have something to do with Yamelin Ramírez, though there have been no recent content disputes at that article. General Ization ^Talk 22:41, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm not fluent in Spanish, but this comes off as gibberish or patent nonsense. It just reads like a random string of words sewn together. Zaereth (talk) 00:24, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Per Google Translate, “Yamelin so much two years men the area is on family tour family tour GE have two is not wrong heard her from February several have two is not her for two please I him or together even from the king”. Makes perfect sense to me! Anythingyouwant (talk) 06:48, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

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

There is a single-purpose account (using the pseudonym of the BLP subject who's article they're editing) repeatedly adding BLP-violating material to the Dominick Fernow article based on a self-published expose of sorts published on Substack. I've tried to explain why we can't accept such material in the article, but the editor, Rainforestspiritualenslavement, continues to restore the contentious accusations despite discussion on the article talk page and on their talk page. While this information could be added to the article in some form if supported by reliable sources, the way it is being presented is not BLP compliant and their last attempt at wedge to content into the article suffers from original research and WP:SYNTH. Additional input would be appreciated. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:59, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

Another problem is that Rainforestspiritualenslavement is one of Fernkw's stage names. That is an unacceptable username. Cullen328 (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

This looks pretty straightforward to myself, as others have discussed on the page "policies protecting living individuals does not allow for inclusion of such poorly-sourced content" and "All articles about people on Wikipedia MUST be notable, then multiple, WP:Reliable sources will be found, could be used. Until then, self-published claims cannot be used here." it looks like an consistent attempt at vandalism to me.Connorcp (talk) 10:22, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

i changed my username. the contents of the self-published article have been verified and re-reported by a mainstream music publication here:

https://thequietus.com/articles/30216-dominick-fernow-vatican-shadow-questions-raised-around-collaborators

Some wiki editors claim that the addendum to that article, which reads:

"tQ acknowledges that it has extensively covered Dominick Fernow's work in the past and not sufficiently raised or researched the above-mentioned issues. Our ongoing series of articles on the far-right in music will be continued this year."

indicates that the Quietus hasn't fact-checked this information. That is clearly an incorrect reading. That line refers to the Quietus's *previous* failure to do due diligence. I don't see any other good faith way to read it.

Further, the reporting on Substack led to Fernow being dropped by his booking agency, having interviews removed from websites, and having music websites publish statements distancing themselves from him. None of this information can be listed on his Wikipedia entry? I am just a music fan who think others deserve to have wide access to this information. As you can see on the Talk page for his entry, multiple others are also concerned about this situation. Even if the initial Substack post isn't a valid source for Wikipedia, I think it's irresponsible to disallow any information about this situation whatsoever. Is it enough to note that Fernow has released numerous recordings with this guy?

Clandestine Blaze#Ties to National Socialist black metal

https://www.discogs.com/release/693792-Grunt-Prurient-Split-C-40

https://www.discogs.com/master/44913-Nicole-12-Prurient-Love-And-Romance

https://www.discogs.com/release/9513847-Sadio-2-Prurient-BDSM-Atlantic-Partnership Nodumbdumbs (talk) 17:58, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

FYI Ponyo, I haven't looked at this deeply, but The Quietus is a reliable source. Black Kite (talk) 19:08, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

@Black Kite: I agree, but it's being used in conjunction with a number of unreliable sources along with a mix of original research. As I noted in my opening post, my concerns aren't that coverage of the controversy cannot appear in the article, it's the poor sourcing and original research that is being used by Rainforestspiritualenslavement (now renamed to Nodumbdumbs). I'm hoping that regulars here can offer input on the article talk page as to how the controversy should be covered in line with WP:RS and WP:DUE. -- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 20:32, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite. So let's just break this down and go piece by piece. The Quietus does indeed look like a reliable source, and their article is very well-written. However, they are only reporting on a blog and didn't confirm jack, so the first sentence of the disputed text is misleading and editorializing at best. From then on it's pure OR. We have nothing but primary sources and Wikipedia acting as the secondary-source investigative journalism. It's even written in a present perspective like a newspaper would.

On to the second sentence. Yet another example of why we should never use Twitter as a source. The third sentence is using the Wayback Machine to show the article was deleted in an attempt to prove the second sentence. Sentence 4 is the note a website published as proof they published it. Then, for the finale, we have the last sentence that says a booking agency "quietly" removed him from their listings, and we're using the agency's listings as proof he's not there. I mean, not to be rude, but... seriously? As a whole, it's best just to remove it altogether. If we want to add content from the one good RS, then we need to make sure we refrain from editorializing and keep NPOV in mind. Zaereth (talk) 22:17, 11 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you please explain why you're saying The Quietus "didn't confirm jack"? I'm not seeing the basis for that.

In any case, thank you for explaining. Per @Ponyo, is there some way to allude to this issue at all? Again, multiple people have raised it on the talk page. I don't see why a tweet isn't a valid source either. It seems like you're saying the only way any of this could be mentioned is if the New York Times does a full investigative report. Nodumbdumbs (talk) 05:46, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Sure. Just read the story. Nowhere in there do they say they've confirmed anything, nor do they imply it. In fact they, they do just the opposite. They are very careful to attribute everything to the blog, multiple times throughout the article. This is a newspaper's way of saying, "we're not taking any credit for this and we're keeping our asses covered". But to make this point even clearer, they go through the unnecessary step of adding a disclaimer at the bottom, to double-cover their butts. That's part of how you can tell they're reliable. This is simply a report about the blog, not an independent report on the subject, and we can't say nor imply otherwise.

By the way, I wouldn't say there is no way it can be included, but we need very good sources to make such claims. This is a case where a blog or tweet has been picked up by a reliable source, which kinda/sorta opens the door. However, there are a lot more hurdles to get over, which are found in WP:NPOV, including WP:BALANCE and WP:WEIGHT. I have a difficult time seeing this getting past all of those hurdles without more sourcing and independent reporting. Zaereth (talk) 19:25, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I think we read the Quietus article and its disclaimer differently, but thank you for explaining nonetheless. Nodumbdumbs (talk) 02:43, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

• Ezra Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Controversies surrounding Ezra Miller (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm not sure how I feel about D'SuperHero's decision to split this article. Seems like if the legal issues section was growing too long, the solution is to condense it, especially given that no issue listed has (yet) resulted in a conviction. Either way, the content could use some attention, especially the "Harassment allegations" and "Vermont farm incidents" sections. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 13:23, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

We should never split out a controversy page for a BLP. I don't think the Miller page, with this content, is too long, but if anything should be split off, the -ographies are far more neutral and lesser detail content that can be split. --Masem (t) 13:50, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Concur with this. Split the -ographies, if anything. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:32, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree that a separate article for controversies is unwise. Would this best be discussed via a merger proposal or AfD? Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:57, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Pure WP:RECENTISM that can be condensed considerably. Trim the insipid quotes, needless detail, and newsy tone from both articles ("Miller is due to be arraigned in court" is basically "tune in next week to Wikipedia News Network, where we bring you the scoop the moment after someone else does!"). --Animalparty! (talk) 18:12, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

I am afraid Controversies surrounding Ezra Miller will grow out of control. Once it is split into this article, every little incident can be stuffed in the controversies article. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 19:44, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

That is also a significant concern, as it throws off due weight when the topic is specifically controversies. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:52, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

@D'SuperHero: Given the ongoing discussion on talk, and the developing situation requiring regular discussion, you really should have checked in on talk and sought consensus before doing this. I agree with the consensus here that this didn't need to be split off. I suggest it be reverted. - CorbieVreccan ^☊ ☼ 19:58, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

The POV Fork page should be merged back into the parent article and D'SuperHero should be attacked with moist tuna for creating it. We should not have pages like that about BLP subjects. I'm going to suggest using the JzG's Robert Hooke test. How long is the article about someone who really made a difference in the world (ie Mr Hooke). How long is this article even if the POV fork is merged back into the parent article? If it's longer than Hooke's article it probably has too much detail. Springee (talk) 20:11, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi team, first I know that Ezra Miller's issue is the talk of the town. I didn't meant to defame them but to talk about it, the page justifies that they are indeed charged with numerous cases and its not a made up thing. Also it is not made for forum or any sort of news article. As such, there are other pages which includes details of Assassination of Mahatma Gandhi where in detail its written how, when and why he was killed. Similarly in short, I am not denying any facts but this page is prone to several criticisms (which can be seen clearly). SuperHero ● 👊 ● ★ 14:55, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• As this was a bold split, per BRD and in light of the emerging consensus here I have merged it back. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 15:02, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

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

The article Takarafuji Daisuke states that Takarafuji is a sandanme (4th) division wrestler. This is false, he is competing in the highest division, makuuchi, fighting in the 2022 Nagoia basho right now. 2a02:810b:48bf:edcc:14d7:4806:f7df:73d3 13:03, 20 July 2022

The lead should reflect the article body, and the latter does say he competes in the makuuchi division, so I adjusted the lead accordingly. Anythingyouwant (talk) 00:03, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

The police have released the name of the person suspected of stabbing Rushdie, and that name has been included in the article Stabbing of Salman Rushdie. I removed it per WP:SUSPECT as he hasnt even been charged yet, though its since been restored. Should it be included prior to a. being charge, b. being convicted? nableezy - 04:24, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Yet another nothing article that's basically regurgitating a news story. Why do we even have WP:NOTNEWS when people are so determined to turn Wikipedia into yet another news site? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:30, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

If you have a problem with it, then AfD it. WP:NOTFORUM. Love of Corey (talk) 04:34, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I am puzzled why someone would be concerned that an assassination attempt of such a high-profile writer, that's clearly going to remain notable for a very long time. One might argue that it should only be a subsection of Salman Rushdie rather than a separate article - but I don't understand the argument that this isn't significant. Why User:RadioKAOS do you not think this would be enduring? Nfitz (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The assassination attempt of this well-known public figure was witnessed by hundreds of people, the assassin was restrained by people at the scene and arrested. There are photos. There is zero doubt on who this person was. The assassin has also been named by the police, who have said he will be charged. Who knows how long that will take in a sparsely populated rural county. The name has been published around the world. Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Clearly WP:SUSPECT doesn't apply, and we need to apply WP:COMMONSENSE Nfitz (talk) 05:06, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed Andre🚐 05:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Support inclusion of name. It's a highly-publicised case, and the suspect's name has been published around the world. Clearly, way beyond the caveats of WP:SUSPECT. WWGB (talk) 06:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree, the name should be included. There is doubt here, he was tackled to the ground by spectators who stopped the murderous attack. ---Lilach5 (לילך5) discuss 07:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I also support the inclusion of his name. There were literally hundreds of witnesses, there is no doubt. Chuckstablers (talk) 07:49, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I deeply disagree with the frequent misuse of the WP:NOTNEWS shortcut by editors who do not bother to quote the actual policy language. It starts out by saying after all Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events but none of the editors who link to it ever quote that language that begins that policy section. There is literally nothing in this content that violates the actual policy language. It just "violates" the faulty reading of editors who oppose the first sentence of the policy language that they so blithely provide a shortcut link to, and nothing in the actual policy language that follows supports their idiosyncratic reading that is contrary to the clear meaning of how the policy is written. So, RadioKAOS, please quote the actual policy language that you think this content fails. Cullen328 (talk) 08:11, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I dont think this fails NOTNEWS, maybe a little early to spin out from Rushdie's bio, but certainly justifiable as it will grow quite a bit. But I do think WP:SUSPECT clearly applies here, and I dont understand why it is being waved off. Youre supposed to be more cautious with the people you dislike, not less. nableezy - 12:33, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The thing is, right now, the details of the event in the stabbing article are so short that the event can be properly covered in the Rushdie article. We have too many editors rushing to create new articles on breaking news events without considering if NEVENT will actually be met (enduring coverage over time). Certainly, the news here is notable to include somewhere, but whether it is a "significant current event" in the long-run is yet clear. Eg, effectively what Nableezy is saying above. Masem (t) 13:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I think you are going to clearly have a separate article long-term, and this isnt based on NEVENT but rather on CSPLIT. Unless he dies, in which case there would likely be an article on that death, this is still going to be a couple of paragraphs in his bio. But the coverage of it will span his, hopefully obviously, recovery, then charging and trial and verdict of the suspect, then possibly any changes the venue makes in terms of security. Like eventually the amount of coverage that we can include about this is going to take up too much space in his biography so that it will need to be split out. But I dont think thats a BLP issue, and I am still interested in views on whether naming, and giving the detail we do besides the name, the suspect is acceptable per WP:SUSPECT. nableezy - 13:47, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

On the naming: WP:SUSPECT 100% applies (the attacker being a non-notable individual until this), so right now, naming him is not appropriate. Just because the media has freely used the name, we have a higher responsibility to not include names of those yet charged of crimes. Once they are charged then the name inclusion is reasonable. Masem (t) 13:53, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:SUSPECT - "editors must seriously consider not including material". So, a strong caution but not a rigid prohibition. IMO a guy seen stabbing a high-profile individual who has lived under threat of death by religious extremists for *checks notes* thirty-four years, witnessed by hundreds of onlookers, is an exception. When one ties to assassinate a public figure, one tends to lose their low-profile status. Zaathras (talk) 14:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Zaathras. There's plenty of support here to include the name despite the SUSPECT rule-of-thumb. Direct eyewitness evidence should probably be an exception for something like that. Andre🚐 14:17, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

The eyewitnesses knew the name of the individual? No, all they know is that someone attacked Rushdie, but not his name. Masem (t) 14:21, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree, obviously, but now moot as he's been charged. nableezy - 15:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Eyewitnesses saw someone per RS who was identified as someone per RS. Or are you casting doubt on the reliability of the reliable news media and reliable press with journalistic oversight and editorial integrity? Or is that editorial oversight and journalistic integrity? Sorry, it's early, I'm at the auto mechanic, haven't had my coffee and didn't sleep much last night. But the point I think I'm making I think is valid. What are you doubting here, or are we just rules-lawyering? Andre🚐 14:25, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

My point is that just because the event was widely eyewitness, eyewitnesses aren't going to know a previously unknown person's name. They can witness the event but the eyewitnesses are not the RS for the name - in this case, that came from the police as reported through RSes, but they have yet to charge him because the investigation is still ongoing. Masem (t) 15:09, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

On the general point, so what? The whole point of WP:SUSPECT is to not include potentially defamatory material on somebody who is not a public figure. If the police ended up charging somebody else, we would have had BLP violations in the history. Our policy says to be cautious, especially with unknown people. This isnt a breaking news website, our goal is encyclopedic, yes up to date but still not on the level of breathlessly repeating everything we find on CNN as BREAKING NEWS, coverage. And accurate coverage. As he's been charged its moot in this point, but on the general topic I agree with Masem (obviously as I raised this) that an unknown person should not be named in our encyclopedia article as being suspected of a serious crime on the basis of news reports saying that. nableezy - 15:43, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

I think it depends on the context, the crime, and the amount of doubt involved. If it's something complex or something that relies on conflicting testimonies, or what have you, of course. Someone was accused of insider trading? Totally. The crime itself has to be proven on a technical basis. Political and controversial stuff that has differences of opinion and interpretation? Yeah. But again SUSPECT is a content guideline that advises editors to seriously consider not including material that would implicate non-public figures in crimes. I don't think we should apply that rule as a bright line when it comes to an incident where everyone saw a guy attack someone, and reliable sources are reporting who that person is. Charge or no, I think this is acceptable if there's very little doubt, and it's a clear-cut case of an obvious suspect, like a shooting where someone was apprehended at the scene. Andre🚐 15:50, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Again, I think our BLP policy largely exists to protect the people we dislike the most from our tendencies, and I think that the policy prescribes caution and not a rush to include material that has not been proven true about living people. nableezy - 16:37, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

• It's all moot now that charges have been laid, but this isn't the first recent assassination attempt where the suspect was on video, witnessed by hundreds, and held at the scene. But not one person at Assassination of Shinzo Abe suggested censoring the suspect's name before they were charged. Nfitz (talk) 16:26, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

ahem, though maybe AGF yourself and not call it censorship. nableezy - 16:35, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

WP operates at a high moral point in regards to BLP than most RSes, and given that it was only going to be a matter of time before charges came, and there is no deadline, waiting was the right answer. Masem (t) 17:03, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, our high BLP standards are a key feature not a bug. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:08, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

And yet, not one person spoke up to raise the identical issue at Assassination of Shinzo Abe. Why are we using a different standard here? The police arrested the suspect literally red-handed - with Sir Salman Rushdie's on their hands. They named him, and announced that they'd be charged. To try and enforce non-existent rules, and violate a primary pillar of Wikipedia is wrong. Nfitz (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Its not a non-existent rule, and again people did raise it at the Shinzo Abe article. The standard, site wide, is WP:SUSPECT. That people editing these articles often ignore that standard is a problem, but not the problem youre claiming it to be. What primary pillar is being violated though? nableezy - 03:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

There are literally no firm rules here. To claim otherwise is a WP:5P5 violation. Please stop violating the central tenets of Wikipedia. Nfitz (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I dont know if youre being purposely obtuse here or not, but I did not say "firm", but yes some of the rules we have, particularly about living people, are considerably more firm than you imagine. See for example WP:BLPRESTORE which requires consensus before restoring material removed as a BLP violation (a rule you broke for the record). Or the opening paragraphs of WP:BLP which says 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. Pretty firm of a rule. Yes, our policies evolve over time, and that is what it means by "firm" (which is obvious if you get past the section title, try that maybe?), but our BLP policy is something you may not simply wave away because you feel like it. That editors have done so in other articles is a cause for concern, not celebration. nableezy - 12:14, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

• I'm not sure how noting that something was censored User:Nableezy, could be uncivil. How was there no censoring of the subject's name? Our policy is generally to censor names of suspects until there's more than just an arrest. Obviously most of the censorship under this policy is agreement by all of us here; but it's still censored. I feel that you are implying there's a negative connotation to the word censor, which I don't see. Nfitz (talk) 03:17, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there is a negative connotation to that word. Nobody tried to remove the name because it was somehow objectionable or prurient or whatever. Declining to include material is not "censoring" it. Whatever though, not exactly an important discussion. nableezy - 03:32, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't believe there is a negative connotation - censorship is standard and regular practice of every government in the world - and so it should be. Declining to include material isn't censorship, at least in this case. But this case was never about declining to provide material. It was provided, and you censored it. There is no negative connotation to that act of censorship. This is an important discussion - you made a false claim about an AGF violation, which was highly improbable. This is in fact an AGF violation in itself. Nfitz (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with nableezy that calling it censorship is exceedingly unhelpful. If we want to have a useful discussion about this, people need to stop using offensive words. Even if you don't mean it to be offensive, it is, especially on Wikipedia given WP:NOTCENSORED as well as the long legacy of censorship in the world generally perceived negatively by many Wikipedians. And there is no reason to use the word, it's trivial to describe what happened without using such an offensive word. If you continue to use the word when you've been asked not to, then we can only assume you have no desire to discuss the actual issues and are instead just here to throw out ad homiens you've been explicitly asked not to use, so IMO we can safely ignore anything you say. This is intended to be a collobrative project, not a place editors can demand the right to use offensive words just because they say it isn't offensive. Nil Einne (talk) 08:24, 15 August 2022 (UTC)