This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Version 1 (older):
Gibson's political activity is frequently met with criticism. Nine days after a far-right advocate allegedly stabbed three men on the Portland TriMet transit system, Gibson hosted a rally met by thousands of counter-protesters. [1]
References
Version2 (most recent version):
Gibson's political activity has met with criticism. On April 2, 2017, nine days after far-right advocate Jeremy Joseph Christian allegedly stabbed three men on the Portland TriMet transit system, Gibson hosted a Patriot Prayer rally which was met by thousands of counter-protesters. [1] Christian was seen at the rally yelling racial slurs. [2] Gibson denounced Christian's actions and said he ejected Christian from the event due to his "bizarre behavior". [1]
References
After some attempts to resolve the problems that I see in both these versions, I'm coming here for help.
There appear to be basic verification problems with both versions. The second version appears to confuse the timeline and references as well.
There appear to be two different intents here: To document the criticism that Gibson's political activity has received, and to document Gibson's relationship with Jeremy Joseph Christian. The first seems far better supported by available reliable sources, so both versions appear to ignore due weight. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Zak Smith ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This page does not display any content relating to controversy surrounding the career of the subject. Specifically, announcements have been made by a number of role playing game industry publishers in the past week in response to sexual abuse allegations against the subject. Reasons for lack of content on the page have included lack of authoritative references, and the nature of the allegations. Content relating to the controversy has been removed by anonymous editors. The publishers have made their announcements on typical platforms for the industry. The announcements have been reported by industry related media outlets. The announcements have not been picked up by the mainstream media. The subject's involvement in the controversy should be reflected on the page in some way.
On Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zak_Smith the subject's notoriety has been proposed to be too low to warrant a page. This may explain the lack of mainstream media coverage of the recent controversy. Either the subject is notable, and the content relating to the controversy should be referenced, or the subject is not notable, and the page should be deleted. Recent views of the page have far outweighed the views since the page was created in 2015, suggesting that the notability of the subject is largely due to this recent controversy. [1]
If there can be agreement on the approach about how to proceed to include content relating to the specific recent controversy, then this would enable the editors of the page to proceed with confidence.
Merxa ( talk) 06:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Since the 5th of February an IP has been adding poorly sourced info to this article violating the BLP policy, here is the latest. I have reverted several times (some with edit summaries) thinking they will quit but unfortunately not. The IP in question keeps using songmeanings.com, which I was led to believe is an unreliable source at Wikipedia. Other editors that have reverted said IP include Diannaa and Stwalkerster and as such, I mention them here. Would page protection be an unreasonable request for such a circumstance? Rob van vee 15:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Edit-warring to include the previously disputed material.
This looks like an attack on Duterte. While there may be some material due mention, at best it looks like a lot of OR and material taken out of any broader context in order to attack Duterte.
Help would be appreciated. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
On review, this article needs a lot of work, and much of it is heavily biased in a way that is not compatible with WP:BLP. MPS1992 ( talk) 01:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Stefan Molyneux ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am having a dispute with PeterTheFourth at the "Stefan Molyneux" article. Discussion can be found at Talk:Stefan Molyneux/Archive 6#White genocide conspiracy theory. Other opinions welcome. Bus stop ( talk) 18:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
"Wiki-links within quotes do not have to be in the source as long as its clear that the article linked to corresponds to the source author's meaning."First things first: the wiki-link is not within the quote. That is because it is not a quote. It is a paraphrase. Secondly, it is definitely not clear that "the article linked-to corresponds to the source author's meaning." The author at Radio New Zealand has no awareness of the article that we are now considering internally linking-to. Therefore we have to use our brains. And we have to choose the better of two possibilities. The linked-to article addresses a subject that is poorly defined and sprawls over a large area. This is not a fault of the linked-to article. But it is a cautionary factor that has to be taken into consideration when contemplating linking to that article. It is simply a fact that some articles address subjects of limited scope and other articles address subjects whose scope is more amorphous. We have to think twice before linking to articles that include everything but the kitchen sink. Bus stop ( talk) 16:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I have personally watched hundreds of hours of Molyneux's videos" - braver person than I. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 11:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
"I have personally watched hundreds of hours of Molyneux's videos, and he never describes white demographic decline as a "genocide" nor a "conspiracy"."I'm sure he never has and never will refer to his conspiracy theory beliefs as conspiracies. Most conspiracy theorists actively avoid using the word "conspiracy". As for whether or not he's ever called it "genocide", that's really immaterial. We have no requirement that a person be quoted as stating the exact names of whatever conspiracy theories they believe in order to report that reliable sources have stated clearly that they do. Finally, he may not have used "genocide", but he's used the terms " horrific violence", " crisis", " civil war" and " slaughter" in the titles of his videos. And it's quite certain it's a favorite subject of his, because even when he has the common sense to tone down the rhetoric just a tad, he still can't shut up about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
The Radio New Zealand source does not support the contents of the "White genocide conspiracy theory" article—not by a long shot.That is simply and obviously untrue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
That source also refers to Molyneux as "alt-right" and a "provocateur". I am arguing that the descriptions of Molyneux in the RNZ source are a world apart from the descriptions of people in the WGCT article, especially suggestion of Neo-Nazism.So you are arguing that there's no connection between the alt-right and neo-nazism? The very first sentence of Alt-right says:
The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely connected and somewhat ill-defined grouping of American white supremacists/ white nationalists, white separatists, anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, neo-Confederates, Holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists and other far-right fringe hate groups.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
This is a misuse of Wikipedia.In what way? You have asserted numerous times that linking to the CT article is the problem (while simultaneously condescending to another editor for taking you at your word that it was that very linking with which you disagreed, although to your credit, you walked back on that) but you have not once given a policy based reason for why this is so. Those closest you have come is in your comment above, where you (hilariously) try to draw a distinction between neo-nazis and the alt-right. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
"I see this is turning into a bull session. Let's cut to the chase. The Radio New Zealand source does not support the contents of the "White genocide conspiracy theory" article—not by a long shot."If you still think the IP has a point, then state what you think that point is and we can proceed (please include policies and/or sources). I'll let you find the answer yourself because it's on this exact BLP page and explaining the same thing over and over (or in my case reading over and over) is tiring WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Further reading on "white genocide" and how it's a far-right fantasy Pokerplayer513 ( talk) 20:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
But I was not already commenting on it.You are lying or incompetent to discuss this subject: [2], [3]. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
This just keeps going around and around in circles. If it helps, with absolutely zero authority, I declare MjolnerPants the winner, not so much because their arguments were much more convincing, remained on point, are free of logical fallacies, or what they have in directness they lack in tact, but because Bus stop's are far less convincing and remaining too on point, basically just spiraling into circulus in probando, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, argumentum ad infinitum, and other forms of kettle logic. We can argue "Did not" "Did so" for the rest of our lives and it won't get us anywhere. Zaereth ( talk) 21:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The RS cited above and in the article seem adequate to support a statement that Molyneux belives in / promotes a white genocide conspiracy theory. If such a statement is included in his article, it is consistent with general practices on here that the mention of the white genocide conspiracy theory (whether using those exact words or a paraphrase) would contain a wikilink to our article on that topic, unless the article is already linked-to in an earlier place such as at the beginning of the section Stefan Molyneux#White_genocide via a template like {{ Main}}. -sche ( talk) 22:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Radio New Zealand reported that Molyneux subscribes to a white genocide conspiracy theory-- 74.195.159.155 ( talk) 02:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The article is displaying an ugly error message for "Born" in the infobox because someone claiming to be the subject removed the birth year, and an IP tried to restore it but messed it up. I normally fix a few of these every day either by removing the birth date altogether if I can't see a good source, or by fixing it. What do people think about this unfortunate case? Ref 2 is an arrest record for a traffic violation and failure to appear. Is that a reliable source? It seems petty to rely on that. There might be something in the Twitter refs (omg) which I don't open. Should the birth date be deleted or restored? Johnuniq ( talk) 03:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
In article:
user:
repeatedly inserting biographical details such as a specific birthdate without cite. Example edit-diffs: [4], [5], [6] When pressed, they state that they have no cite and that it probably can't be cited to our reliable-sourcing standards (example: [7]) but they state that this is not a problem because it's so well known and other bio articles don't cite such details (see edit-summaries and my talkpage). For other details, they use social-media (instagram/twitter) as a ref, but the links (when they are even provided) make no mention of the claimed details. User was warned {{ uw-biog2}} and I replied to their concerns on my talkpage, but the behavior has not changed. DMacks ( talk) 13:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Is it possible some of the references in the article on the French Wikipedia could be used to support enhancing what is now basically a stub? My French is nowhere near good enough to be sure, though. Any French speakers here who could take a look? Neiltonks ( talk) 09:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I have reviewed this article closely and have two main issues: 1) I do not believe that this person is notable enough for Wikipedia. Their roles and appearances do not rise to the level of an actress of even moderate success; 2) The references and citations are of poor quality. I have attempted to find additional references and source material with no luck. Basically, I think this should be deleted. Coffee312 ( talk) 05:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
User Beyond My Ken reverted my edit in the article Ben Shapiro where I changed the caption from "(2016)" to "Shapiro in 2016", as the infobox caption is supposed to be stated in articles about invividuals ( Michael Jackson, John F. Kennedy, Elizabeth II, et cetera). I changed it back to the way it's supposed to be stated. Just informing you that he might revert it back to the former incorrect way. Must be a new user who doesn't know much about Wikipedia. – Sullay ( Let's talk about it) 22:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Must be a new user who doesn't know much about Wikipedia.Sullay, the next time you think to characterize another editor's experience, you may want to check their contributions first. BMK has been around for 5 years longer than you and has about 100 times more edits. You should probably try to discuss this with them, rather than running straight for a noticeboard. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
This is also a beautiful solution. The name is not being used redundantly. And additional information is being provided.
I've taken the liberty of making this edit. Bus stop ( talk) 02:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Anent image captions in general - ADA requires accessibility for handicapped persons, so the test of a caption should be whether a blind person hearing the caption or text would reasonably understand what the image is. Frankly, were I to hear "2016" as the entire description of an image, I would have no idea what the heck the image was. In short, unless there is separate "alt text" for the image, the caption should be completely clear. Right now the ALT text does not give either date nor place, just "Ben Shapiro speaking.". For video clips, this is also a major issue https://www.3playmedia.com/2018/09/24/automatic-captions-wcag-ada-508-compliant/ In short, this is a far more complex issue than heretofore discussed. Collect ( talk) 15:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
And thanks for the earlier link to WP:CAPTIONOBVIOUS. I think it is suggesting that superfluous information can be omitted. Bus stop ( talk) 17:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Inviting all editors to join the conversation about image alts here. Leviv ich 22:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I've come across an interesting BLP issue. Kirsten Haglund, a former Miss America, got married in 2012. There are reliable sources for this. This isn't in dispute. However, in her social media (Twitter is what I noticed, though there could be others), beginning in early 2018, she made references to leaving an abusive marriage. There are no reliable sources that I can find that corroborate a divorce. The edit history on the page shows a user named "Kirsten1488" who we can venture to guess is the article subject, as well as IPs associated with her hometown, removing the marriage material and stating that she is divorced. So, this seems like a bit of a sticky situation for Wikipedia. It seems to me to be wrong and unnecessary to leave the marriage info on the page if she is indeed divorced and especially if she was the victim of domestic abuse, however, WP:V usually trumps all here, and the available tweets, while from a verified account, don't specifically indicate a divorce or a divorce date, just a general end to the relationship due to abuse. Are there any analogous situations to look to for guidance here? What's the right move? Marquardtika ( talk) 22:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Jade Love Kids Foundation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A lot of edits in the edit summary are rather slanderous. Can someone look at the contributions of an IP address [9] that has no edits except on that article? They writes slanderous lies about the person then claims "they sent some thugs over to" their house to hurt them, etc. Some odd sense of humor, but I think it should be removed from the edit summary entirely. Dream Focus 17:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to bring some attention (from an admin hopefully) to this discussion, and specifically a series of pointy BLP edits that are linked and detailed there. (This section header is a quote, btw). Thanks - wolf 02:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Use of the word "English" to describe Britons from ethnic minorities in England is complicated by most non-white people in England identifying as British rather than English. In their 2004 Annual Population Survey, the Office for National Statistics compared the ethnic identities of British people with their perceived national identity. They found that while 58% of white people in England described their nationality as "English", the vast majority of non-white people called themselves "British".
I don't know how the above applies to the issue at hand but I thought I'd provide it as it is lifted right out of our article on English people. Bus stop ( talk) 03:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict) What you forget is that Caribbean islands which were British colonies until recently were not "English colonies". People with heritage from British colonies were not "English" and so their descendants also identify as "British" to a great extent. In short, there seems to be a misunderstanding as to use of the English language at times on Wikipedia. Collect ( talk) 14:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
References
Leaving Neverland ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In our article on the Michael Jackson documentary,
Leaving Neverland, we have a lot of content sourced to a Forbes contributor article,
What You Should Know About the New Michael Jackson Documentary, including contentious
WP:BLP material. I've attempted to explain on the article talk page that anything published under the "sites" directory Forbes contributor articles are not subject to Forbes editorial control and Forbes takes no responsibility for their content. They're basically self-published opinion articles, and we're not supposed to
WP:SELFPUB for content about third-parties. I've removed the content
[10] and explained my edit on the talk page.
[11] Can someone review the situation and let me know whether you think I've done the right thing?
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk)
18:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I've had a slight back-and-forth with an editor on this article; my guess, from their commentary and the sources they cite, is that the candidate isn't left-wing enough. They're trying to blackball the candidate by linking some YouTube video that supposedly shows her support to right-to-work, and some links (including to a pretty rad Democratic-y blog) that tie her to a donor whose husband works for Goldman Sachs--in other words, guilt by associated association. The editor is blocked for edit warring for 24 hours (see User talk:VirginiaPoliticalFactCheck) but given that this article is their sole interest I have no doubt they'll return to this. Two things always help: article expansion and improvement, and your eyes on the topic. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 04:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The /info/en/?search=Michael_Glick page is about me, but someone unknown to me continuously adds incorrect and libelous information on this page. This has caused me personal and professional harm and I want this page deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Micglick ( talk • contribs)
I have an issue with this line: Shapiro later reversed his view on the West Bank issue, saying it was "both inhumane and impractical."[52]
While this is accurate, it doesn't explain the length Ben has gone to in order to retract and explain his regret in saying such stupid things.
"Stupid/Immoral Stuff I’ve Said (And Usually Retracted Multiple Times)
The “Transfer” Column: At the top of this list is a column I wrote when I was 19 years old regarding the Israeli/Palestinian situation. That column called for transfer of Palestinian Arabs from Judea and Samaria and Israel proper. That idea was stupid and immoral. I have myself called that idea “inhumane and impractical,” as well as a “moral and philosophical error.” It is also worth noting that the same people who decried the transfer column as genocidal and ethnic cleansing were very much in favor of forcing every single Jew out of the Gaza Strip in 2006, and seem fine with complete destruction of Israeli settlements in favor of a Judenrein Palestinian state." [1]
References
This could be summed up better in a less offensive way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awkaratekid0108 ( talk • contribs) 11:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
"This could be summed up better in a less offensive way". OK, but what is that less offensive way? That can be posted on the article Talk page in a new section. Or, as NatGertler suggested, you could just edit the article. But if you edit the article, also be mindful of your edit summary, as that could explain why you feel the edit you are making is called for. I might add that if you have other, only tangentially-related questions, you can consider posting them at the Teahouse. Bus stop ( talk) 13:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Juan Van-Halen Acedo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Somebody is providing false information in the page of Juan Van-Halen Acedo.
1. Mr. Van-Halen has never been a falangist, or a member of Frente de Juventudes. 2. An insult quoting an external source has been included in his biography. 3. Information with misleading and false information is being persistently added to erode Mr. Van-Halen's image.
Despite numerous efforts to correct this false information, this user insistis in publishing it.
We kindly ask you to forbid this from happening.
Thank you for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argovejo1938 ( talk • contribs) 17:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I am trying to edit this page. My edit is truthful, accurate and factual. Specifically I am trying to edit the paragraph on the DAVID BOREN page as follows:
"2019 Sexual harassment investigation[edit] On February 13, 2019, it was reported that the University of Oklahoma had hired the Jones Day law firm '(Atlanta Office; Natalie A. Williams, Atty.)' to investigate Boren after allegations of his "serious" misconduct arose at the university. The university and specifically the OU Board of Regents have declined to specify whether the investigation is actually of Boren, or to specify its start or projected end date, instead referring to it generally as an ongoing personnel investigation.[48]"
I am trying to insert the specific Jones Day Law office (they have many offices) and specific name of the attorney investigating David Boren, which is "Atlanta Office, Natalie A. Williams, Atty.". However, one of your volunteer editors, by the nickname of "DemocraticLuntz" keeps removing my edit and sending me a "warning" using broad and vague language and language that is misused, and does NOT apply to my edit. He claims my edit is "unconstructive" and is "vandalizing". This is defamatory to me and will not be tolerated. The info I am inserting is TRUE and correct. "DemocraticLuntz" is simply angry as he is a DEMOCRATIC and MR. Boren has always ran on the democratic ticket when he was senator, governor. Your "editor" is making this "political", I am not.
My editing comports with your editing requirements for living persons, including but not limited to it is NEUTRAL , FACTUAL information.
Thus, if I am doing something allegedly incorrect, please let me know in reasonable detail, and not by using broad and vague language that does NOT apply to my edit. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.195.106 ( talk) 04:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know about the COI--that's entirely possible. I've been looking at two things: a. the longtime vandalism, for which I've applied indefinite semi-protection, and b. the rather piss-poor quality of the article. It's full of all-too technical stuff, possible fluffery (note the claims about his influence on that unlocking bill), inline links to stuff including his own, etc. I've pruned it some already, but I'd appreciate it if some of you could have a look. The sourcing is probably there, but the language and content need to be neutered. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 03:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The page [ [18]] is being constantly vandalised and information are being extensively deleted from this page. Presently the page has been semi-protected. Here is the link to the diff comparing the present version and an older version that was verified by the subject himself [ [19]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aratrika21 ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I have just spotted the following:
"Harvey Price Snr signed a three-year deal with Rangers on 19 June 2017[34] for an undisclosed fee, which was widely reported to be £1 million.[2][35]
He made his debut for Rangers F.C. in a 1–0 home win against Progrès Niederkorn in the Europa League first qualifying round first leg ten days later, coming on in the 77th minute in place of Martyn Waghorn.[36] On 9 August, Morelos scored his first two Rangers goals in a 6–0 win over Dunfermline Athletic also at Ibrox in the second round of the Scottish League Cup.[37] Three days later he scored his first goal in the Scottish Premiership, heading the team into an early lead in a 3–2 home loss to Hibernian.[38]
He finished the season with 18 goals and 47 lines of primo columbian sniffed,"
"Harvey Price Snr" has replaced the correct name
"and 47 lines of primo columbian sniffed" - suggesting Morelos has snorted cocaine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.34 ( talk) 15:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm alerting this noticeboard that more BLP-focused eyes may be needed at 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides. In my view there's an excessive amount of extremely lurid and invasive detail about sexual activities and other personally embarrassing and sensitive content, much of it about non-public figures. R2 ( bleep) 18:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Stacey Plaskett - if you google Rep. Stacey Plasket, a picture comes up on the side of the google results page of Ms. Plaskett, but it says she died in 1998. She is well and alive and serving in Congress. The result that pops out is a mash up of Stacey Plaskett and Elmo Alexander Plaskett a baseball player who is indeed deceased. Stacey Plaskett Delegate to United States House of Representatives Image result for rep. plasket DescriptionElmo Alexander Plaskett was a professional baseball player — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.8.151 ( talk) 19:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
This article is clearly just copied and pasted from an online bio. It should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9209:9F00:1114:D4F5:2A02:D3F8 ( talk) 05:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
"Her complaint about being interviewed by a majority of white men led to an attempt at review bombing Captain Marvel's page on Rotten Tomatoes with sexist comments."
There is no references about part "Her complaint about being interviewed by a majority of white men". When i tried to add them, content author rejected with no explanation and looks like he is going against Wikipedia guidelines! In my opinion if there is references, that Rotten tomatoes comments were just sexist, there were bad reviews, about Captain Marvel movie, then people should know why it happened, without skipping that part. All required references should be added, also its like turning things around, skipping crucial part! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw ( talk • contribs) 11:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC) If for others this complaint is acceptable, i would like to see his other articles reviewed, cause looks like author prefers personal interests over facts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw ( talk • contribs) 12:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I want to point out this part "review bombing" and "sexist comments"! There was no reviews, but poll weather people will go to movie or not. This senence promotes fake news and it also has references to fake articles. I suggest to use references, where is also visible poll, before it was closed. Also promoting that all comentators was just trolls is stupid idea, without proof that they was actually trolls. Knowing that they faked idea, that it was actually reviews not polls, makes everything to look as fake story. So pleas don't promote any propaganda in articles, weather it is west, Russian or someone else and instead use checked resources!!! User:Wumbolo so i won't agree with you that nothing should be changed. If you also promote idea than wiki should promote fake news, than it is very very bad... + if there is references to poll downvoting, that there should be at least 1 reference why it happened! Nothing more, just reference is enough! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw ( talk • contribs) 06:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC) I don't even get it why i should fight here so that here is just truth written. It that really that bad for you in US, that you can't even write truth, if some feminist is involved!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw ( talk • contribs) 06:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Kim Kardashian ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Like I noted at Talk:Kim Kardashian, Liselanora ( talk · contribs) has repeatedly added disputed content to the Kim Kardashian article. The latest version of the content is seen with this revert by me. The concern is that the content that Liselanora is adding contains material about a supposed enemeies list (in previous versions), feuds, rumors, includes some trivial material, and includes some poor sourcing. Before I jumped in, Vistadan was reverting Liselanora. I left a message on Liselanora's talk page about WP:Edit warring. If Liselanora read that page, Liselanora should have realized that the next best course of action was to take the matter to the article's talk page. Instead, Liselanora re-added the material. And I reverted for a second time. Although it makes sense to include some makeup and fashion material in the article, it should not be overly detailed and it should be supported by WP:Reliable sources only. Appropriate WP:Tone is also an issue. A "Fashion ventures" section was in the article, but it was recently removed. And we can see that it contained some poor sources (although it also contained some WP:Reliable sources).
Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello.
The images of important filmmaker Charles Burnett, are NOT of Mr. Burnett, but of a someone's child. Please fix this disrespectful nonsense. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.152.80 ( talk) 21:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
There is inaccurate and personal damaging information on the page for Dominique Lévy. The information in the ‘Personal Life’ section is no longer accurate. Dominique Lévy is separated from Dorothy Berwin. In addition to that fact, the information noted regarding their number of children in the referenced article is actually incorrect. We do not have any articles to reference this information because the subject of the article has since then wanted to retain her privacy and the privacy of her children. Due to the change in relationship, and the sensitivity of this personal information, the subject of the article would like please have the Personal Life section removed and any reference to her former partner and children removed from the Information Box. Very much appreciate your help dealing with this personal and sensitive situation. JacksonWW123 ( talk) 18:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
This seems awfully POV to me. Like writing "In elementary school he read the racist [1] childrens book Dr. Seuss." Certainly that would be taken as a BLP or at least a POV issue? Ilovetopaint ( talk) 14:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Saying a person has "read" a book does not justify saying, or implying in any way, that the person agrees with, or holds opinions congruent to, the book. I have read the JBS "Blue Book", Mein Kampf, the works of Chairman Mao and Lin Piao, speeches by Fidel Castro, Das Kapital, the Communist Manifesto, parts of The Prince, and a slew of other works. Saying or implying that a person agrees with any book he or she has read is WP:OR and/or violative of WP:NPOV. If a person has said he agrees with such a book, that is a different matter, but, as phrased, the answer is that the Wikilink to the noted book does not violate WP:NPOV but ascribing its specific views to a person is violative of policy. Collect ( talk) 14:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Ingrid Newkirk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Her bio needs to be addressed. Particularly this statement. "She is known, in particular for hating Pit-Bulls and lobbying for easier requirements for their euthanization, as well for the media stunts that she organizes to draw attention to animal-protection issues in order to pretend that her organization actually helps animals rather than killing them hours after adopting them from shelters or abducting them from homes or off the street." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.113.102 ( talk) 16:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes protect this page. Subtle and unsubtle vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord ( talk • contribs) 17:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
2017 Interstate 75 rock-throwing deaths ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I recently stumbled across this again and I've removed some of the information in the article. I wanted to double check some of my work with you guys.
Here's the deal: In 2017 there were two cases of teenagers throwing rocks off of bridges. In both cases, the teenagers killed someone, with one person in specific being responsible for the deaths in each group. The article listed the names and ages of these teenagers and in one section, listed the general area where they lived (ie, their town name). The article also had some slight issues with tone and NOTOBITUARY in how the sections were written out.
I removed the obituary and tone wording - that's not what I'm worried about. What I wanted to get some discussion on is the removal of the teenagers' names in each section. I don't feel that we need their names to tell the story of what happened. There's also a question of future harm since almost all of the teenagers were under 18 when each death happened. Only in one situation was one of the teenagers 18. I don't know that it's really necessary to have their names up on Wikipedia for something incredibly awful they did when they were young and incredibly stupid. The kids range in age from 13 - 18. If they were all adults admittedly I wouldn't worry as much but essentially I removed their names because they were minors and there's more of a question of future harm for them. I suppose that there's a question of them being notable for one event, although the article has been kept the prior two times at AfD, once by no consensus.
Basically, should we retain their names? If so, what is to be gained by including them? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 20:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict)::Good summary of the situation presented. I guess the time element question can be looked at with 1999 Interstate 75 rock-throwing death - later this month marks its 20 anniversary. Two of the teenagers were convicted and I believe it was mainly due to the age limit as described here. – The Grid ( talk) 21:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Opinions are needed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Mary Kay Letourneau. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 17:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Mr. Thomas died in 2014, but has recently received coverage re: allegations of sexual and financial abuses. There are at least two separate issues that require administrative attention. The first is the obvious, edit warring over the content. Yesterday I requested page protection. I'd appreciate more thoughts as to whether the accusations merit inclusion--I've pared content on the subject to a minimum. The second issue is yesterday's repeated additions of copyright violation text, lifted from one of the newspaper sources. So some rev/deletion is necessary, regardless. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 18:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
What is the rule on living people who deny a negative characterization of them? I though it was to include the denial, even if the denial is likely to be false. Under "public figures" BLP policy says "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." For this reason I reverted JzG's removal of the fact that Jenny McCarthy denies being anti-vax [22], he then reverted me [23], I checked BLP policy to make sure I was right and reverted him again [24] and then Bradv reverted me. Could somone here clarify for us what the proper interpretation of BLP is here?. Tornado chaser ( talk) 18:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.Fairly straightforward. PackMecEng ( talk) 19:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
she still claims that vaccinations can be dangerous, doctors don’t prescribe them correctly, and the pharma industry makes unsafe vaccines... ok... and??!? MPS1992 ( talk) 04:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
The lede seems fine, and her denial is included in the article. Any denial of a clearly notable and well-referenced aspect about a person is going to require context, which we do. Before anyone starts an RfC, it would be useful to review how similar denials are treated: Jared Taylor and Joey Gibson (political activist) immediately come to mind for having long-running attempts to place the subjects' personal opinions of themselves on par or over the opinions of others. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
X is an antivaxer, source, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, but X denies it, source X, quoted in Yis not at all compelling evidence that X isn't an antivaxer, but it is factual and policy compliant, and saying it will not mislead people into thinking X isn't an antivaxer, precisely because it is not compelling.
We'd need some independent sources that conclude that she's not an antivaxer to balance the hundreds that conclude she is.True, except saying she denies being an antivaxer is very different from concluding that she isn't one. Tornado chaser ( talk) 01:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
this is about Tornado chaser trying to shoehorn a defense into the ledeNo, this denial has been in the lead and I reverted a BLP-violating attempt at removing it. Please stop the insinuation that upholding BLP on an article about an person means I must agree with them. Tornado chaser ( talk) 06:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I do like the change [25] that MPS1992 just made to the article, but this sounds a little bit like she could admit to being antivax but doesn't think she is the most prominent antivaxer, maybe we could change it to "although she says the characterization of herself as anti-vaccine is inaccurate."? Tornado chaser ( talk) 06:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Bradv says above that the anti-vax movement is a global health concern and a growing threat.
This is absolutely true, correct, and important -- I read a BBC article today which said exactly that. Bradv also asked, with exactly the wrong and very foolish implications, To what extent are Wikipedia editors responsible?
The answer is that Wikipedia editors are not responsible for these outbreaks of stupidity -- instead, other types of social media are responsible.
Some editors think that dangerous stupidity in the real world can be fixed by breaking BLP rules in the Wikipedia world. They are wrong in this belief, and their edits should and will be reverted. MPS1992 ( talk) 00:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Pope Francis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article on Pope Francis contains extensive criticisms of Pope Francis that are not sourced to a secondary source, as required by WP:BLPSTYLE. With one exception (discussed below) all of the criticisms are sourced to news articles and opinion columns, which are primary sources by official Wikipedia policy per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Among the criticisms are extensive defamatory allegations against Pope Francis in the section titled "Sexual Abuse". The other criticisms are largely theological and political but nevertheless need to be sourced to a secondary source per WP:BLPSTYLE. The one secondary source given is to a book by Ross Douthat (Footnote 496), but the user fails to give a page cite and the claim represents a fringe view and mischaracterizes the dispute (no one is claiming the Catholic Church can overturn its doctrine in response to the sexual revolution and modernity). The criticisms have been repeatedly reinserted into the article as seen here: Special:Diff/885689580 PluniaZ ( talk) 18:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for your feedback. Based on the recommendations of Zaereth, I propose that the article on Pope Francis be revised as shown on this diff from my sandbox page: Special:Diff/885734328. In sum, the article as it currently stands gives undue weight to fringe criticisms of Pope Francis from theological and political extremists. The only substantive criticisms that have generated meaningful coverage in mainstream news media relate to sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. I have removed the more minor allegations (relating to his handling of particular cases of priests), and moved the section into the "Papacy" section of the article, thus eliminating the need for a separate section on Controversies. I would appreciate your feedback. PluniaZ ( talk) 00:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: I've made a WP:BOLD revision to WP:BLPSTYLE to bring it into line with WP:BLPPRIMARY, here. Since it's pretty bold I wouldn't be surprised if someone objects and reverts or if it requires hashing out, but given the seriousness of the policy I feel that this is definitely something that needs to be hashed out, so I've started a discussion about it here Please take any discussion of if / how to change the relevant policy there. (Of course, changing WP:PRIMARYNEWS would be easier and might also be worth considering, but I feel that the apparent contradiction between WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPPRIMARY is more serious and needs to be resolved, even if it's really just a matter of a few words.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 05:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my concern regarding the use of secondary sources, which was due to a misunderstanding of the authority of WP:PRIMARYNEWS. I have made revisions to the article intended to address the concerns of Only in death does duty end regarding sourcing. I eliminated all statements that are not sourced and restructured a few paragraphs for better flow. I also deleted the fringe criticisms regarding apostasy and crypto-protestantism. You can see my changes here: Revisions by PluniaZ to article on Pope Francis PluniaZ ( talk) 21:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
hello to whom may concern
kindly note that the bio of Paris kassidokostas latsis is constantly violented
False information, gossip and many other not real sources have been writen in order to draw bad attention or serve other purposes
kindly take some action in order to respect the whole environment of the wikipedia — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
AnnieKalou (
talk •
contribs)
10:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
What are our rules on naming persons accused of crimes notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia? I ask because this has come up in a series of recent AfD discussions ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of crimes committed in the United States by illegal aliens, 2019 Nevada killing spree, Killing of Nabra Hassanen). We are, of course, talking about major crimes (murder) that had been in the national news. These are U.S. crimes and the names of the suspects have been all over the front page. Is naming the accused-but-not-convicted suspect permitted. I would be happy to know where to find the rule on this. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Version 1 (older):
Gibson's political activity is frequently met with criticism. Nine days after a far-right advocate allegedly stabbed three men on the Portland TriMet transit system, Gibson hosted a rally met by thousands of counter-protesters. [1]
References
Version2 (most recent version):
Gibson's political activity has met with criticism. On April 2, 2017, nine days after far-right advocate Jeremy Joseph Christian allegedly stabbed three men on the Portland TriMet transit system, Gibson hosted a Patriot Prayer rally which was met by thousands of counter-protesters. [1] Christian was seen at the rally yelling racial slurs. [2] Gibson denounced Christian's actions and said he ejected Christian from the event due to his "bizarre behavior". [1]
References
After some attempts to resolve the problems that I see in both these versions, I'm coming here for help.
There appear to be basic verification problems with both versions. The second version appears to confuse the timeline and references as well.
There appear to be two different intents here: To document the criticism that Gibson's political activity has received, and to document Gibson's relationship with Jeremy Joseph Christian. The first seems far better supported by available reliable sources, so both versions appear to ignore due weight. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Zak Smith ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This page does not display any content relating to controversy surrounding the career of the subject. Specifically, announcements have been made by a number of role playing game industry publishers in the past week in response to sexual abuse allegations against the subject. Reasons for lack of content on the page have included lack of authoritative references, and the nature of the allegations. Content relating to the controversy has been removed by anonymous editors. The publishers have made their announcements on typical platforms for the industry. The announcements have been reported by industry related media outlets. The announcements have not been picked up by the mainstream media. The subject's involvement in the controversy should be reflected on the page in some way.
On Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Zak_Smith the subject's notoriety has been proposed to be too low to warrant a page. This may explain the lack of mainstream media coverage of the recent controversy. Either the subject is notable, and the content relating to the controversy should be referenced, or the subject is not notable, and the page should be deleted. Recent views of the page have far outweighed the views since the page was created in 2015, suggesting that the notability of the subject is largely due to this recent controversy. [1]
If there can be agreement on the approach about how to proceed to include content relating to the specific recent controversy, then this would enable the editors of the page to proceed with confidence.
Merxa ( talk) 06:29, 16 February 2019 (UTC)
Since the 5th of February an IP has been adding poorly sourced info to this article violating the BLP policy, here is the latest. I have reverted several times (some with edit summaries) thinking they will quit but unfortunately not. The IP in question keeps using songmeanings.com, which I was led to believe is an unreliable source at Wikipedia. Other editors that have reverted said IP include Diannaa and Stwalkerster and as such, I mention them here. Would page protection be an unreasonable request for such a circumstance? Rob van vee 15:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Edit-warring to include the previously disputed material.
This looks like an attack on Duterte. While there may be some material due mention, at best it looks like a lot of OR and material taken out of any broader context in order to attack Duterte.
Help would be appreciated. -- Ronz ( talk) 00:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
On review, this article needs a lot of work, and much of it is heavily biased in a way that is not compatible with WP:BLP. MPS1992 ( talk) 01:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Stefan Molyneux ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am having a dispute with PeterTheFourth at the "Stefan Molyneux" article. Discussion can be found at Talk:Stefan Molyneux/Archive 6#White genocide conspiracy theory. Other opinions welcome. Bus stop ( talk) 18:35, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
"Wiki-links within quotes do not have to be in the source as long as its clear that the article linked to corresponds to the source author's meaning."First things first: the wiki-link is not within the quote. That is because it is not a quote. It is a paraphrase. Secondly, it is definitely not clear that "the article linked-to corresponds to the source author's meaning." The author at Radio New Zealand has no awareness of the article that we are now considering internally linking-to. Therefore we have to use our brains. And we have to choose the better of two possibilities. The linked-to article addresses a subject that is poorly defined and sprawls over a large area. This is not a fault of the linked-to article. But it is a cautionary factor that has to be taken into consideration when contemplating linking to that article. It is simply a fact that some articles address subjects of limited scope and other articles address subjects whose scope is more amorphous. We have to think twice before linking to articles that include everything but the kitchen sink. Bus stop ( talk) 16:29, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
I have personally watched hundreds of hours of Molyneux's videos" - braver person than I. PeterTheFourth ( talk) 11:46, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
"I have personally watched hundreds of hours of Molyneux's videos, and he never describes white demographic decline as a "genocide" nor a "conspiracy"."I'm sure he never has and never will refer to his conspiracy theory beliefs as conspiracies. Most conspiracy theorists actively avoid using the word "conspiracy". As for whether or not he's ever called it "genocide", that's really immaterial. We have no requirement that a person be quoted as stating the exact names of whatever conspiracy theories they believe in order to report that reliable sources have stated clearly that they do. Finally, he may not have used "genocide", but he's used the terms " horrific violence", " crisis", " civil war" and " slaughter" in the titles of his videos. And it's quite certain it's a favorite subject of his, because even when he has the common sense to tone down the rhetoric just a tad, he still can't shut up about it. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:03, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
The Radio New Zealand source does not support the contents of the "White genocide conspiracy theory" article—not by a long shot.That is simply and obviously untrue. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:22, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
That source also refers to Molyneux as "alt-right" and a "provocateur". I am arguing that the descriptions of Molyneux in the RNZ source are a world apart from the descriptions of people in the WGCT article, especially suggestion of Neo-Nazism.So you are arguing that there's no connection between the alt-right and neo-nazism? The very first sentence of Alt-right says:
The alt-right, or alternative right, is a loosely connected and somewhat ill-defined grouping of American white supremacists/ white nationalists, white separatists, anti-Semites, neo-Nazis, neo-fascists, neo-Confederates, Holocaust deniers, conspiracy theorists and other far-right fringe hate groups.ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:47, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
This is a misuse of Wikipedia.In what way? You have asserted numerous times that linking to the CT article is the problem (while simultaneously condescending to another editor for taking you at your word that it was that very linking with which you disagreed, although to your credit, you walked back on that) but you have not once given a policy based reason for why this is so. Those closest you have come is in your comment above, where you (hilariously) try to draw a distinction between neo-nazis and the alt-right. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:11, 6 February 2019 (UTC)
"I see this is turning into a bull session. Let's cut to the chase. The Radio New Zealand source does not support the contents of the "White genocide conspiracy theory" article—not by a long shot."If you still think the IP has a point, then state what you think that point is and we can proceed (please include policies and/or sources). I'll let you find the answer yourself because it's on this exact BLP page and explaining the same thing over and over (or in my case reading over and over) is tiring WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Further reading on "white genocide" and how it's a far-right fantasy Pokerplayer513 ( talk) 20:08, 14 February 2019 (UTC)
But I was not already commenting on it.You are lying or incompetent to discuss this subject: [2], [3]. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
This just keeps going around and around in circles. If it helps, with absolutely zero authority, I declare MjolnerPants the winner, not so much because their arguments were much more convincing, remained on point, are free of logical fallacies, or what they have in directness they lack in tact, but because Bus stop's are far less convincing and remaining too on point, basically just spiraling into circulus in probando, cum hoc ergo propter hoc, argumentum ad infinitum, and other forms of kettle logic. We can argue "Did not" "Did so" for the rest of our lives and it won't get us anywhere. Zaereth ( talk) 21:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
The RS cited above and in the article seem adequate to support a statement that Molyneux belives in / promotes a white genocide conspiracy theory. If such a statement is included in his article, it is consistent with general practices on here that the mention of the white genocide conspiracy theory (whether using those exact words or a paraphrase) would contain a wikilink to our article on that topic, unless the article is already linked-to in an earlier place such as at the beginning of the section Stefan Molyneux#White_genocide via a template like {{ Main}}. -sche ( talk) 22:13, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Radio New Zealand reported that Molyneux subscribes to a white genocide conspiracy theory-- 74.195.159.155 ( talk) 02:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
The article is displaying an ugly error message for "Born" in the infobox because someone claiming to be the subject removed the birth year, and an IP tried to restore it but messed it up. I normally fix a few of these every day either by removing the birth date altogether if I can't see a good source, or by fixing it. What do people think about this unfortunate case? Ref 2 is an arrest record for a traffic violation and failure to appear. Is that a reliable source? It seems petty to rely on that. There might be something in the Twitter refs (omg) which I don't open. Should the birth date be deleted or restored? Johnuniq ( talk) 03:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
In article:
user:
repeatedly inserting biographical details such as a specific birthdate without cite. Example edit-diffs: [4], [5], [6] When pressed, they state that they have no cite and that it probably can't be cited to our reliable-sourcing standards (example: [7]) but they state that this is not a problem because it's so well known and other bio articles don't cite such details (see edit-summaries and my talkpage). For other details, they use social-media (instagram/twitter) as a ref, but the links (when they are even provided) make no mention of the claimed details. User was warned {{ uw-biog2}} and I replied to their concerns on my talkpage, but the behavior has not changed. DMacks ( talk) 13:48, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Is it possible some of the references in the article on the French Wikipedia could be used to support enhancing what is now basically a stub? My French is nowhere near good enough to be sure, though. Any French speakers here who could take a look? Neiltonks ( talk) 09:22, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
I have reviewed this article closely and have two main issues: 1) I do not believe that this person is notable enough for Wikipedia. Their roles and appearances do not rise to the level of an actress of even moderate success; 2) The references and citations are of poor quality. I have attempted to find additional references and source material with no luck. Basically, I think this should be deleted. Coffee312 ( talk) 05:21, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
User Beyond My Ken reverted my edit in the article Ben Shapiro where I changed the caption from "(2016)" to "Shapiro in 2016", as the infobox caption is supposed to be stated in articles about invividuals ( Michael Jackson, John F. Kennedy, Elizabeth II, et cetera). I changed it back to the way it's supposed to be stated. Just informing you that he might revert it back to the former incorrect way. Must be a new user who doesn't know much about Wikipedia. – Sullay ( Let's talk about it) 22:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
Must be a new user who doesn't know much about Wikipedia.Sullay, the next time you think to characterize another editor's experience, you may want to check their contributions first. BMK has been around for 5 years longer than you and has about 100 times more edits. You should probably try to discuss this with them, rather than running straight for a noticeboard. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 22:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
This is also a beautiful solution. The name is not being used redundantly. And additional information is being provided.
I've taken the liberty of making this edit. Bus stop ( talk) 02:37, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Anent image captions in general - ADA requires accessibility for handicapped persons, so the test of a caption should be whether a blind person hearing the caption or text would reasonably understand what the image is. Frankly, were I to hear "2016" as the entire description of an image, I would have no idea what the heck the image was. In short, unless there is separate "alt text" for the image, the caption should be completely clear. Right now the ALT text does not give either date nor place, just "Ben Shapiro speaking.". For video clips, this is also a major issue https://www.3playmedia.com/2018/09/24/automatic-captions-wcag-ada-508-compliant/ In short, this is a far more complex issue than heretofore discussed. Collect ( talk) 15:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
And thanks for the earlier link to WP:CAPTIONOBVIOUS. I think it is suggesting that superfluous information can be omitted. Bus stop ( talk) 17:42, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Inviting all editors to join the conversation about image alts here. Leviv ich 22:44, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
I've come across an interesting BLP issue. Kirsten Haglund, a former Miss America, got married in 2012. There are reliable sources for this. This isn't in dispute. However, in her social media (Twitter is what I noticed, though there could be others), beginning in early 2018, she made references to leaving an abusive marriage. There are no reliable sources that I can find that corroborate a divorce. The edit history on the page shows a user named "Kirsten1488" who we can venture to guess is the article subject, as well as IPs associated with her hometown, removing the marriage material and stating that she is divorced. So, this seems like a bit of a sticky situation for Wikipedia. It seems to me to be wrong and unnecessary to leave the marriage info on the page if she is indeed divorced and especially if she was the victim of domestic abuse, however, WP:V usually trumps all here, and the available tweets, while from a verified account, don't specifically indicate a divorce or a divorce date, just a general end to the relationship due to abuse. Are there any analogous situations to look to for guidance here? What's the right move? Marquardtika ( talk) 22:57, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
Jade Love Kids Foundation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A lot of edits in the edit summary are rather slanderous. Can someone look at the contributions of an IP address [9] that has no edits except on that article? They writes slanderous lies about the person then claims "they sent some thugs over to" their house to hurt them, etc. Some odd sense of humor, but I think it should be removed from the edit summary entirely. Dream Focus 17:00, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
I wanted to bring some attention (from an admin hopefully) to this discussion, and specifically a series of pointy BLP edits that are linked and detailed there. (This section header is a quote, btw). Thanks - wolf 02:02, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
Use of the word "English" to describe Britons from ethnic minorities in England is complicated by most non-white people in England identifying as British rather than English. In their 2004 Annual Population Survey, the Office for National Statistics compared the ethnic identities of British people with their perceived national identity. They found that while 58% of white people in England described their nationality as "English", the vast majority of non-white people called themselves "British".
I don't know how the above applies to the issue at hand but I thought I'd provide it as it is lifted right out of our article on English people. Bus stop ( talk) 03:31, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict) What you forget is that Caribbean islands which were British colonies until recently were not "English colonies". People with heritage from British colonies were not "English" and so their descendants also identify as "British" to a great extent. In short, there seems to be a misunderstanding as to use of the English language at times on Wikipedia. Collect ( talk) 14:58, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
References
Leaving Neverland ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
In our article on the Michael Jackson documentary,
Leaving Neverland, we have a lot of content sourced to a Forbes contributor article,
What You Should Know About the New Michael Jackson Documentary, including contentious
WP:BLP material. I've attempted to explain on the article talk page that anything published under the "sites" directory Forbes contributor articles are not subject to Forbes editorial control and Forbes takes no responsibility for their content. They're basically self-published opinion articles, and we're not supposed to
WP:SELFPUB for content about third-parties. I've removed the content
[10] and explained my edit on the talk page.
[11] Can someone review the situation and let me know whether you think I've done the right thing?
A Quest For Knowledge (
talk)
18:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)
I've had a slight back-and-forth with an editor on this article; my guess, from their commentary and the sources they cite, is that the candidate isn't left-wing enough. They're trying to blackball the candidate by linking some YouTube video that supposedly shows her support to right-to-work, and some links (including to a pretty rad Democratic-y blog) that tie her to a donor whose husband works for Goldman Sachs--in other words, guilt by associated association. The editor is blocked for edit warring for 24 hours (see User talk:VirginiaPoliticalFactCheck) but given that this article is their sole interest I have no doubt they'll return to this. Two things always help: article expansion and improvement, and your eyes on the topic. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 04:35, 23 February 2019 (UTC)
The /info/en/?search=Michael_Glick page is about me, but someone unknown to me continuously adds incorrect and libelous information on this page. This has caused me personal and professional harm and I want this page deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Micglick ( talk • contribs)
I have an issue with this line: Shapiro later reversed his view on the West Bank issue, saying it was "both inhumane and impractical."[52]
While this is accurate, it doesn't explain the length Ben has gone to in order to retract and explain his regret in saying such stupid things.
"Stupid/Immoral Stuff I’ve Said (And Usually Retracted Multiple Times)
The “Transfer” Column: At the top of this list is a column I wrote when I was 19 years old regarding the Israeli/Palestinian situation. That column called for transfer of Palestinian Arabs from Judea and Samaria and Israel proper. That idea was stupid and immoral. I have myself called that idea “inhumane and impractical,” as well as a “moral and philosophical error.” It is also worth noting that the same people who decried the transfer column as genocidal and ethnic cleansing were very much in favor of forcing every single Jew out of the Gaza Strip in 2006, and seem fine with complete destruction of Israeli settlements in favor of a Judenrein Palestinian state." [1]
References
This could be summed up better in a less offensive way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Awkaratekid0108 ( talk • contribs) 11:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
"This could be summed up better in a less offensive way". OK, but what is that less offensive way? That can be posted on the article Talk page in a new section. Or, as NatGertler suggested, you could just edit the article. But if you edit the article, also be mindful of your edit summary, as that could explain why you feel the edit you are making is called for. I might add that if you have other, only tangentially-related questions, you can consider posting them at the Teahouse. Bus stop ( talk) 13:45, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
Juan Van-Halen Acedo ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Somebody is providing false information in the page of Juan Van-Halen Acedo.
1. Mr. Van-Halen has never been a falangist, or a member of Frente de Juventudes. 2. An insult quoting an external source has been included in his biography. 3. Information with misleading and false information is being persistently added to erode Mr. Van-Halen's image.
Despite numerous efforts to correct this false information, this user insistis in publishing it.
We kindly ask you to forbid this from happening.
Thank you for your attention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Argovejo1938 ( talk • contribs) 17:29, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I am trying to edit this page. My edit is truthful, accurate and factual. Specifically I am trying to edit the paragraph on the DAVID BOREN page as follows:
"2019 Sexual harassment investigation[edit] On February 13, 2019, it was reported that the University of Oklahoma had hired the Jones Day law firm '(Atlanta Office; Natalie A. Williams, Atty.)' to investigate Boren after allegations of his "serious" misconduct arose at the university. The university and specifically the OU Board of Regents have declined to specify whether the investigation is actually of Boren, or to specify its start or projected end date, instead referring to it generally as an ongoing personnel investigation.[48]"
I am trying to insert the specific Jones Day Law office (they have many offices) and specific name of the attorney investigating David Boren, which is "Atlanta Office, Natalie A. Williams, Atty.". However, one of your volunteer editors, by the nickname of "DemocraticLuntz" keeps removing my edit and sending me a "warning" using broad and vague language and language that is misused, and does NOT apply to my edit. He claims my edit is "unconstructive" and is "vandalizing". This is defamatory to me and will not be tolerated. The info I am inserting is TRUE and correct. "DemocraticLuntz" is simply angry as he is a DEMOCRATIC and MR. Boren has always ran on the democratic ticket when he was senator, governor. Your "editor" is making this "political", I am not.
My editing comports with your editing requirements for living persons, including but not limited to it is NEUTRAL , FACTUAL information.
Thus, if I am doing something allegedly incorrect, please let me know in reasonable detail, and not by using broad and vague language that does NOT apply to my edit. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.59.195.106 ( talk) 04:14, 24 February 2019 (UTC)
I don't know about the COI--that's entirely possible. I've been looking at two things: a. the longtime vandalism, for which I've applied indefinite semi-protection, and b. the rather piss-poor quality of the article. It's full of all-too technical stuff, possible fluffery (note the claims about his influence on that unlocking bill), inline links to stuff including his own, etc. I've pruned it some already, but I'd appreciate it if some of you could have a look. The sourcing is probably there, but the language and content need to be neutered. Thank you. Drmies ( talk) 03:45, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
The page [ [18]] is being constantly vandalised and information are being extensively deleted from this page. Presently the page has been semi-protected. Here is the link to the diff comparing the present version and an older version that was verified by the subject himself [ [19]]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aratrika21 ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I have just spotted the following:
"Harvey Price Snr signed a three-year deal with Rangers on 19 June 2017[34] for an undisclosed fee, which was widely reported to be £1 million.[2][35]
He made his debut for Rangers F.C. in a 1–0 home win against Progrès Niederkorn in the Europa League first qualifying round first leg ten days later, coming on in the 77th minute in place of Martyn Waghorn.[36] On 9 August, Morelos scored his first two Rangers goals in a 6–0 win over Dunfermline Athletic also at Ibrox in the second round of the Scottish League Cup.[37] Three days later he scored his first goal in the Scottish Premiership, heading the team into an early lead in a 3–2 home loss to Hibernian.[38]
He finished the season with 18 goals and 47 lines of primo columbian sniffed,"
"Harvey Price Snr" has replaced the correct name
"and 47 lines of primo columbian sniffed" - suggesting Morelos has snorted cocaine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 153.2.246.34 ( talk) 15:43, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
I'm alerting this noticeboard that more BLP-focused eyes may be needed at 2010–2017 Toronto serial homicides. In my view there's an excessive amount of extremely lurid and invasive detail about sexual activities and other personally embarrassing and sensitive content, much of it about non-public figures. R2 ( bleep) 18:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
Stacey Plaskett - if you google Rep. Stacey Plasket, a picture comes up on the side of the google results page of Ms. Plaskett, but it says she died in 1998. She is well and alive and serving in Congress. The result that pops out is a mash up of Stacey Plaskett and Elmo Alexander Plaskett a baseball player who is indeed deceased. Stacey Plaskett Delegate to United States House of Representatives Image result for rep. plasket DescriptionElmo Alexander Plaskett was a professional baseball player — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.203.8.151 ( talk) 19:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
This article is clearly just copied and pasted from an online bio. It should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9209:9F00:1114:D4F5:2A02:D3F8 ( talk) 05:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
"Her complaint about being interviewed by a majority of white men led to an attempt at review bombing Captain Marvel's page on Rotten Tomatoes with sexist comments."
There is no references about part "Her complaint about being interviewed by a majority of white men". When i tried to add them, content author rejected with no explanation and looks like he is going against Wikipedia guidelines! In my opinion if there is references, that Rotten tomatoes comments were just sexist, there were bad reviews, about Captain Marvel movie, then people should know why it happened, without skipping that part. All required references should be added, also its like turning things around, skipping crucial part! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw ( talk • contribs) 11:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC) If for others this complaint is acceptable, i would like to see his other articles reviewed, cause looks like author prefers personal interests over facts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw ( talk • contribs) 12:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
I want to point out this part "review bombing" and "sexist comments"! There was no reviews, but poll weather people will go to movie or not. This senence promotes fake news and it also has references to fake articles. I suggest to use references, where is also visible poll, before it was closed. Also promoting that all comentators was just trolls is stupid idea, without proof that they was actually trolls. Knowing that they faked idea, that it was actually reviews not polls, makes everything to look as fake story. So pleas don't promote any propaganda in articles, weather it is west, Russian or someone else and instead use checked resources!!! User:Wumbolo so i won't agree with you that nothing should be changed. If you also promote idea than wiki should promote fake news, than it is very very bad... + if there is references to poll downvoting, that there should be at least 1 reference why it happened! Nothing more, just reference is enough! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw ( talk • contribs) 06:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC) I don't even get it why i should fight here so that here is just truth written. It that really that bad for you in US, that you can't even write truth, if some feminist is involved!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw ( talk • contribs) 06:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Kim Kardashian ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Like I noted at Talk:Kim Kardashian, Liselanora ( talk · contribs) has repeatedly added disputed content to the Kim Kardashian article. The latest version of the content is seen with this revert by me. The concern is that the content that Liselanora is adding contains material about a supposed enemeies list (in previous versions), feuds, rumors, includes some trivial material, and includes some poor sourcing. Before I jumped in, Vistadan was reverting Liselanora. I left a message on Liselanora's talk page about WP:Edit warring. If Liselanora read that page, Liselanora should have realized that the next best course of action was to take the matter to the article's talk page. Instead, Liselanora re-added the material. And I reverted for a second time. Although it makes sense to include some makeup and fashion material in the article, it should not be overly detailed and it should be supported by WP:Reliable sources only. Appropriate WP:Tone is also an issue. A "Fashion ventures" section was in the article, but it was recently removed. And we can see that it contained some poor sources (although it also contained some WP:Reliable sources).
Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 00:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
Hello.
The images of important filmmaker Charles Burnett, are NOT of Mr. Burnett, but of a someone's child. Please fix this disrespectful nonsense. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.152.80 ( talk) 21:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
There is inaccurate and personal damaging information on the page for Dominique Lévy. The information in the ‘Personal Life’ section is no longer accurate. Dominique Lévy is separated from Dorothy Berwin. In addition to that fact, the information noted regarding their number of children in the referenced article is actually incorrect. We do not have any articles to reference this information because the subject of the article has since then wanted to retain her privacy and the privacy of her children. Due to the change in relationship, and the sensitivity of this personal information, the subject of the article would like please have the Personal Life section removed and any reference to her former partner and children removed from the Information Box. Very much appreciate your help dealing with this personal and sensitive situation. JacksonWW123 ( talk) 18:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)
This seems awfully POV to me. Like writing "In elementary school he read the racist [1] childrens book Dr. Seuss." Certainly that would be taken as a BLP or at least a POV issue? Ilovetopaint ( talk) 14:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Saying a person has "read" a book does not justify saying, or implying in any way, that the person agrees with, or holds opinions congruent to, the book. I have read the JBS "Blue Book", Mein Kampf, the works of Chairman Mao and Lin Piao, speeches by Fidel Castro, Das Kapital, the Communist Manifesto, parts of The Prince, and a slew of other works. Saying or implying that a person agrees with any book he or she has read is WP:OR and/or violative of WP:NPOV. If a person has said he agrees with such a book, that is a different matter, but, as phrased, the answer is that the Wikilink to the noted book does not violate WP:NPOV but ascribing its specific views to a person is violative of policy. Collect ( talk) 14:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Ingrid Newkirk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Her bio needs to be addressed. Particularly this statement. "She is known, in particular for hating Pit-Bulls and lobbying for easier requirements for their euthanization, as well for the media stunts that she organizes to draw attention to animal-protection issues in order to pretend that her organization actually helps animals rather than killing them hours after adopting them from shelters or abducting them from homes or off the street." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.113.102 ( talk) 16:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Yes protect this page. Subtle and unsubtle vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord ( talk • contribs) 17:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
2017 Interstate 75 rock-throwing deaths ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I recently stumbled across this again and I've removed some of the information in the article. I wanted to double check some of my work with you guys.
Here's the deal: In 2017 there were two cases of teenagers throwing rocks off of bridges. In both cases, the teenagers killed someone, with one person in specific being responsible for the deaths in each group. The article listed the names and ages of these teenagers and in one section, listed the general area where they lived (ie, their town name). The article also had some slight issues with tone and NOTOBITUARY in how the sections were written out.
I removed the obituary and tone wording - that's not what I'm worried about. What I wanted to get some discussion on is the removal of the teenagers' names in each section. I don't feel that we need their names to tell the story of what happened. There's also a question of future harm since almost all of the teenagers were under 18 when each death happened. Only in one situation was one of the teenagers 18. I don't know that it's really necessary to have their names up on Wikipedia for something incredibly awful they did when they were young and incredibly stupid. The kids range in age from 13 - 18. If they were all adults admittedly I wouldn't worry as much but essentially I removed their names because they were minors and there's more of a question of future harm for them. I suppose that there's a question of them being notable for one event, although the article has been kept the prior two times at AfD, once by no consensus.
Basically, should we retain their names? If so, what is to be gained by including them? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (。◕‿◕。) 20:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
( edit conflict)::Good summary of the situation presented. I guess the time element question can be looked at with 1999 Interstate 75 rock-throwing death - later this month marks its 20 anniversary. Two of the teenagers were convicted and I believe it was mainly due to the age limit as described here. – The Grid ( talk) 21:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Opinions are needed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Mary Kay Letourneau. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 17:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
Mr. Thomas died in 2014, but has recently received coverage re: allegations of sexual and financial abuses. There are at least two separate issues that require administrative attention. The first is the obvious, edit warring over the content. Yesterday I requested page protection. I'd appreciate more thoughts as to whether the accusations merit inclusion--I've pared content on the subject to a minimum. The second issue is yesterday's repeated additions of copyright violation text, lifted from one of the newspaper sources. So some rev/deletion is necessary, regardless. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 18:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
What is the rule on living people who deny a negative characterization of them? I though it was to include the denial, even if the denial is likely to be false. Under "public figures" BLP policy says "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." For this reason I reverted JzG's removal of the fact that Jenny McCarthy denies being anti-vax [22], he then reverted me [23], I checked BLP policy to make sure I was right and reverted him again [24] and then Bradv reverted me. Could somone here clarify for us what the proper interpretation of BLP is here?. Tornado chaser ( talk) 18:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported.Fairly straightforward. PackMecEng ( talk) 19:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
she still claims that vaccinations can be dangerous, doctors don’t prescribe them correctly, and the pharma industry makes unsafe vaccines... ok... and??!? MPS1992 ( talk) 04:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
The lede seems fine, and her denial is included in the article. Any denial of a clearly notable and well-referenced aspect about a person is going to require context, which we do. Before anyone starts an RfC, it would be useful to review how similar denials are treated: Jared Taylor and Joey Gibson (political activist) immediately come to mind for having long-running attempts to place the subjects' personal opinions of themselves on par or over the opinions of others. -- Ronz ( talk) 22:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
X is an antivaxer, source, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, but X denies it, source X, quoted in Yis not at all compelling evidence that X isn't an antivaxer, but it is factual and policy compliant, and saying it will not mislead people into thinking X isn't an antivaxer, precisely because it is not compelling.
We'd need some independent sources that conclude that she's not an antivaxer to balance the hundreds that conclude she is.True, except saying she denies being an antivaxer is very different from concluding that she isn't one. Tornado chaser ( talk) 01:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
this is about Tornado chaser trying to shoehorn a defense into the ledeNo, this denial has been in the lead and I reverted a BLP-violating attempt at removing it. Please stop the insinuation that upholding BLP on an article about an person means I must agree with them. Tornado chaser ( talk) 06:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
I do like the change [25] that MPS1992 just made to the article, but this sounds a little bit like she could admit to being antivax but doesn't think she is the most prominent antivaxer, maybe we could change it to "although she says the characterization of herself as anti-vaccine is inaccurate."? Tornado chaser ( talk) 06:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
User:Bradv says above that the anti-vax movement is a global health concern and a growing threat.
This is absolutely true, correct, and important -- I read a BBC article today which said exactly that. Bradv also asked, with exactly the wrong and very foolish implications, To what extent are Wikipedia editors responsible?
The answer is that Wikipedia editors are not responsible for these outbreaks of stupidity -- instead, other types of social media are responsible.
Some editors think that dangerous stupidity in the real world can be fixed by breaking BLP rules in the Wikipedia world. They are wrong in this belief, and their edits should and will be reverted. MPS1992 ( talk) 00:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
Pope Francis ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The article on Pope Francis contains extensive criticisms of Pope Francis that are not sourced to a secondary source, as required by WP:BLPSTYLE. With one exception (discussed below) all of the criticisms are sourced to news articles and opinion columns, which are primary sources by official Wikipedia policy per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Among the criticisms are extensive defamatory allegations against Pope Francis in the section titled "Sexual Abuse". The other criticisms are largely theological and political but nevertheless need to be sourced to a secondary source per WP:BLPSTYLE. The one secondary source given is to a book by Ross Douthat (Footnote 496), but the user fails to give a page cite and the claim represents a fringe view and mischaracterizes the dispute (no one is claiming the Catholic Church can overturn its doctrine in response to the sexual revolution and modernity). The criticisms have been repeatedly reinserted into the article as seen here: Special:Diff/885689580 PluniaZ ( talk) 18:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
Thank you everyone for your feedback. Based on the recommendations of Zaereth, I propose that the article on Pope Francis be revised as shown on this diff from my sandbox page: Special:Diff/885734328. In sum, the article as it currently stands gives undue weight to fringe criticisms of Pope Francis from theological and political extremists. The only substantive criticisms that have generated meaningful coverage in mainstream news media relate to sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. I have removed the more minor allegations (relating to his handling of particular cases of priests), and moved the section into the "Papacy" section of the article, thus eliminating the need for a separate section on Controversies. I would appreciate your feedback. PluniaZ ( talk) 00:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
Note: I've made a WP:BOLD revision to WP:BLPSTYLE to bring it into line with WP:BLPPRIMARY, here. Since it's pretty bold I wouldn't be surprised if someone objects and reverts or if it requires hashing out, but given the seriousness of the policy I feel that this is definitely something that needs to be hashed out, so I've started a discussion about it here Please take any discussion of if / how to change the relevant policy there. (Of course, changing WP:PRIMARYNEWS would be easier and might also be worth considering, but I feel that the apparent contradiction between WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPPRIMARY is more serious and needs to be resolved, even if it's really just a matter of a few words.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 05:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)
I withdraw my concern regarding the use of secondary sources, which was due to a misunderstanding of the authority of WP:PRIMARYNEWS. I have made revisions to the article intended to address the concerns of Only in death does duty end regarding sourcing. I eliminated all statements that are not sourced and restructured a few paragraphs for better flow. I also deleted the fringe criticisms regarding apostasy and crypto-protestantism. You can see my changes here: Revisions by PluniaZ to article on Pope Francis PluniaZ ( talk) 21:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
hello to whom may concern
kindly note that the bio of Paris kassidokostas latsis is constantly violented
False information, gossip and many other not real sources have been writen in order to draw bad attention or serve other purposes
kindly take some action in order to respect the whole environment of the wikipedia — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
AnnieKalou (
talk •
contribs)
10:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
What are our rules on naming persons accused of crimes notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia? I ask because this has come up in a series of recent AfD discussions ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of crimes committed in the United States by illegal aliens, 2019 Nevada killing spree, Killing of Nabra Hassanen). We are, of course, talking about major crimes (murder) that had been in the national news. These are U.S. crimes and the names of the suspects have been all over the front page. Is naming the accused-but-not-convicted suspect permitted. I would be happy to know where to find the rule on this. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 21:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)