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

An IP editor, claiming to be the subject of the article Ryan Creamer ( [1] [2]), has removed sourced prose because I do not want my mommy to go on my Wikipedia and see that I called our family 'very very religious' please let this part fade away lol and Don't need to do me dirty saying im a LONGTIME PORN CONSUMER. Everything removed by the IP is cited to an interview with the article subject.

I tend towards adding & citing everything I think might be relevant, and then working with any editors who'll want to remove chaff. I think these facts are both interesting and relevant, especially considering the bulk of the article's topic. I've never encountered anybody claiming to be the actual biographee and requesting edits for their personal reasons, and I'm disinclined to effectively censor the article contrary to the subject's own words, regardless of whether IP is the subject or not.

I would appreciate some input regarding (a) the propriety of the prose removed by the IP editor, and (b) what to do about an IP claiming to be Creamer themselves. I was referred here by the BLP noticeboard, I've not edited the article since the IP made their claims, and I've already added {{ connected contributor}} to the talk page. Thanks. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:40, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The content in question is sourced to a podcast by a comedian. Nothing that comedians say about themselves while performing should be regarded as true, and such podcasts are pretty much the opposite of reliable sources. I would not recommend reverting. Cullen328 ( talk) 18:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

The podcast isn't by the comedian, but it's by Pornhub, interviewing the comedian. Are all comedian interviews considered unreliable performances, in that case (I haven't written about comedy-writers before)? — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:07, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure of the status of Pornhub or the podcast in particular, but comedians by their very nature need to be treated with caution. Always best to wait for secondary sources--and I think that is especially so here, where the content does not strike me as being of vital importance. I would advise erring on the side of caution. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 12:31, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

10-4, thanks. — Fourthords | =Λ= | 12:36, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

There are recent news reports that Michael Knighton who attempted to buy Manchester United F.C. back in 1989 is preparing to mount a hostile takeover bid from the Glazers, (see Glazer ownership of Manchester United).

This has led to some recent additions to Knighton's article. It has also led to some articles in UK press on Knighton himself which may be better / more accessible than the ones used to create the article in the first place.

I think the article would benefit from objective, non-sports fans who are used to writing blps knocking the article into shape. It is also worth skimming through some of the talk page disputes from 2013. The Vintage Feminist ( talk) 17:49, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

I am the subject of this article. At the end of the article (right at the end, below the references), somebody has added information about my family members, including the names and ages of my children and of my brother's children who are under 18. I believe this violates child protection norms in most jurisdictions. Could someone please delete this section? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:7635:F701:20ED:617:C258:2532 ( talk) 22:52, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Clicking on "History", I see the change was done on 30 April 2022 from IP address 2a00:23c6:7626:f201:ede1:bcdf:68c:4e3c. The change can be reversed by clicking "undo". 2A00:23C6:7635:F701:20ED:617:C258:2532 ( talk) 23:13, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

I have removed the unreferenced personal family information per the WP:BLP policy. Cullen328 ( talk) 23:22, 14 August 2022 (UTC)

Many thanks. Much appreciated. 2A00:23C6:7635:F701:21F1:C8FB:AED6:C3B ( talk) 21:00, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Sort of an odd, quasi-BLP issue here: Donald Templer has been declared dead on Wikipedia since 2016. However, the alleged death was first alluded to by an IP address with no source. Court documents ostensibly verifying the death were added shortly after, however in 2016 it would have violated WP:BLPPRIMARY (there is no evidence in the primary document that the person mentioned is the same as the article subject). I have yet to find a reliable source that supports this person is dead. Can anyone find a decent source? I realize the person has been associated with the race and intelligence controversy and white nationalism, but do we relax our standards for such persons? --Animalparty! ( talk) 01:09, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I agree a clearcut BLPPRIMARY violation and I've removed it. Until and unless an acceptable reliable source emerges which mentions his death, we shouldn't mention it. It wouldn't exactly be the first time when we have decent reason to believe a subject may be dead, but are not reporting it due to the absence of reliable sources. Nil Einne ( talk) 07:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Seeking more views on this content. Ping to Thespearthrower. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Under the personal life section of Tommy Dorfman's wikipedia page, Tommy Dorfman it includes an addition at the end of the section that deliberately misgenders Tommy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.68.180.236 ( talk) 20:37, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The article is a bit of a mess right now. I've removed one unsourced section, and I think the remaining issue has also been sorted out. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:45, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

For the record, the sentence you removed was originally sourced to social media (see this diff). Maybe it's still worth including, I don't know. In any case, if the vandalism continues, page protection might be called for I think. -- 2003:E5:173E:D5FB:4159:D1E7:ECFD:C3AF ( talk) 20:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

There are very good reasons not to cite social media for such things. Even more so, when looking at a context-free 15-second TikTok posting. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:24, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Hello. This question is related to the biographical page for C.E. Poverman. I am wondering why his photo was taken off his page. Thank you.

Hedman1, This one: [3]? WP:F4. WP (and Commons) are very careful about copyright. Since the subject is alive, in short we can have a photo if the copyright holder, usually the photographer, uploads it themself (correctly). Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:51, 13 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. I appreciate the information. T. Hedman Hedman1 ( talk) 05:28, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

A tweet to a news story caught my eye: "Prosecutors said the men's intentions were as false as the Wikipedia page created to entice investors with misleading information." Sure enough, I found an article for Darin Pastor, almost entirely written by single-purpose account KCDPR in 2013/2014. Anyone interested in trawling through its sources to see what, if any, is verifiable? Schazjmd  (talk) 00:33, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it appears to the naked eye that there have been several accounts adding to this article over the years that all sound suspiciously like the same person. There is definitely something hokey going on. The first source is a link to the US Patent Office, which just list some of their extensive rules for getting a patent, yet does not mention the subject at all nor does it mention any actual patents that could be used to call him an inventor. Source 2 is a bunch of photos from a university, of people who attended it, which supports nothing found in the Early Life section. #3 is an internal newsletter from an insurance company's website. Sources 4 and 5 are the first RSs. #6 doesn't mention his name at all, let alone support the cited sentence. #7 is just a Go-Daddy link to the cloud; could find no mention of the subject. #8 is a 404 error. Sources 10 and 11 are reports from the SEC, which are about the same as court documents as far as BLPPRIMARY goes.

The rest of the article follows this same pattern, Most sources are primary, and few support the cited text. There are a couple of good sources, but I doubt enough to confer notability. Certainly not enough to make a decent bio. Much of this seems fabricated or was written by someone with very intimate knowledge of the subject, because little of what's there is found in the cited sources. Zaereth ( talk) 01:21, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Article partially cleaned up. Still needs work. Maria Gemmi ( talk) 13:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks to AndyTheGrump, Maria Gemmi and Snarkigal for the quick clean-up of the article! Schazjmd  (talk) 15:19, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I'd recommend people keeping an eye on this article for a bit though. Both to ensure the unsourced content doesn't get restored, and to ensure that new content is WP:BLP-compliant - as of now, the guy is merely 'indicted on fraud charges', and we must not assume guilt. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:35, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Persistent addition to a WP:BLP of a cherry-picked quote, in order to make an original research point. I've asked for a user block at AIV, but more eyes and perhaps page protection will be appreciated. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 17:31, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

3RR warning issued. Even though I believe WP:3RRBLP applies to you, you are also at 3 reverts and should let others take over. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 17:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Morbidthoughts. My rationale is that I'm defending WP:BLP policy, since the edits in question are intended as critical commentary, but you're absolutely right. I'm retreating in hopes that other editors, like yourself, will be of assistance. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 18:07, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

By the way, I found this bizarre [4]. Apparently I'm Ms. Newman-Bremang. Won't she be surprised. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 18:20, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I am the living person in this biography article. I need help to resolve removing or changing the photo. It is unclear to me if this article was created in bad faith. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persimmonsss ( talk • contribs) 04:25, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Greetings and welcome to Wikipedia. The image is a screengrab from a Creative Commons licensed YouTube video available here. If there's a timecode for a screengrab you'd prefer from that video, someone may be willing to swap it out. Alternatively, you can upload an image yourself, but it needs to be properly licensed (see: WP:IUP#COPYRIGHT). -- Jahaza ( talk) 04:44, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Ping to @ MoviesandTelevisionFan, who uploaded the current version. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:58, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

I have also issued a 3RR reminder due to the back and forth removal and reinstatement. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 23:15, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Btw, I see no reason to believe that the article was created in bad faith, though the choice of image is slightly on the amusing side. If you want to have an influence on the WP-article about you, please take the time to read the guidance at WP:COI. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:10, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the resources. I have no interest in influencing the article other than taking down this photo. It exists as a mockery to me. If this video must remained linked, (0:58) is a much more appropriate screenshot. Is this possible? @ MoviesandTelevisionFan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Persimmonsss ( talk • contribs) 16:58, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

"Must" is overstating it, the reasoning is something like this: It's nice if a WP-bio can have a pic of the subject > Per copyright rules the ones we can use are quite few > The Tony Awards says we can use this one, so let's do that. If you are interested, you can "donate" a (previously unpublished) selfie here [5], and that one can be used instead, unless there's some sort of relevant objection. Or someone standing close to you can take the new pic, and then they can upload it.

Anyway, per comment below, a better screengrab should be in place at some point. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:53, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, when I get on my PC later I'll go ahead and change it. I'll use the one at 0:58, I don't think any reasonable person would have an objection. Thespearthrower ( talk) 18:18, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I think 1:28 looks better, but either is improvement. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:57, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

I used what I felt was the best at 0:58. I hope it is satisfactory. Thespearthrower ( talk) 21:42, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

While it's good to see a better photo uploaded, this is a good reminder that merely having a freely licensed image on Commons doesn't mean it absolutely must be used on Wikipedia, especially if it's low-quality, awkward, disparaging, or unprofessional, per WP:BLPIMAGE. In some cases (especially for living people), having no image is better than a poor quality or unrepresentative image (like a baby portrait in the infobox of a scientist). Remember, just because we legally can do something, doesn't mean we should. --Animalparty! ( talk) 23:44, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

That's a very good point, and I agree 100%. These images are rather low quality, seeing as how they are just screenshots of a moving image. This may be a case where no picture is better than a blurry one. That said, a picture is truly worth a thousand words, and pictures of people are especially helpful to the reader in cognizing the information. It's just the way our brains are hardwired. The largest area in the visual-processing system is, by far, the fusiform gyrus, which processes facial expressions. Put a face to a name and suddenly the information seems a lot more meaningful.

I'm not saying that it's a reason to use a poor quality (to the point of being blurry or unflattering) image. What I am saying is that this is one area where the article subjects could really help us out, by taking and uploading their own images. Ideally, the lede image should be a portrait-style image with the subject looking directly at the camera if at all possible. That's just a suggestion to the OP, and to anyone else who is an article subject. No need to wait for some random Wikipedian to come along and snap a shot of you on the street. Zaereth ( talk) 00:12, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Do you see how that logic could be perceived as intimidating, and almost threatening to the subject? "Hey, we're the largest encyclopedia in the history of the world. If you don't give us a high quality free image, we'll post this embarrassing snapshot of you talking with food in your mouth because it makes our fusiform gyrus happy and its all we got." Aesthetics, ethics, and discretion are issues where Wikipedia can improve significantly. --Animalparty! ( talk) 02:02, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I don't recall ever saying such a thing. I believe what I said is that I agreed with you, in that no image is better than what we got. But a good image would be wonderful, and I'm not sure that every subject understands that they are perfectly free to upload one if they wish. Zaereth ( talk) 02:29, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

In this particular case, I think the screengrab is clear enough for leadimage use, and according to the article, it seems to be from the event why he has an article. Tony Award screengrab is better than no image here, is my opinion. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:07, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Sacheen Littlefeather has been in the news recently in light of the Academy Awards' apology to her related to the Marlon Brando boycott. In reviewing the talk page, I had originally removed multiple comments that seemed to exceed the bounds of WP:BLPTALK in speculating whether she was actually Native American. [6] One of the editors reinstated his opinions, [7] but it's probably better to have other editors review and decide whether they should be removed. We've seen this type of conflict at BLPN before when discussing native heritage. (See WP:CHEROKEEPRINCESS) I normally advocate leeway over opinions if discussion can improve the article, but how much WP:RGW leeway should be tolerated on the talk page? Morbidthoughts ( talk) 22:22, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The person is still at it with righting great wrongs. [8] I've issued a BLP DS/Alert and a talkpage forum warning. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 18:54, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Trying my best to cool things down a bit, but I tend to agree that they are at the very least flirting with BLP violations, and, in reality, probably going over the line. I'd say let's see how they respond to the warning and where it goes from here, but if they continue in a similar way, some kind of action will be necessary. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 18:57, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

Administrative intervention needed? [9] Morbidthoughts ( talk) 03:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

Interesting to get told off in Gaelic in that context! Perhaps it's an insight as to why someone might want to stridently defend one Marion Morrison. Certainly seems like an issue. I'd also like to note some suspicious editing that strikes me as vandalism attempting to hide as competence issues -- for instance, 'New York Times' was changed to 'New Yowark Times.' More eyes would likely be good. Cheers, all. Dumuzid ( talk) 23:56, 20 August 2022 (UTC)

The user has been blocked. Carry on... The Blade of the Northern Lights ( 話して下さい) 02:11, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

This article erroneously states that "Lee Mays" had 200+ yards and was named the MVP of the 2000 Humanitarian Bowl. However, the MVPs of the 2000 Humanitarian Bowl were QB Bart Hendricks (Boise State) RB Chris Porter (UTEP). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.98.243.100 ( talk) 03:22, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

I've removed it as it's unsourced and contradicted by the 2000 Humanitarian Bowl article. Lard Almighty ( talk) 10:44, 19 August 2022 (UTC)

In searching for the source of this discrepancy, it is true that the players of the game for that bowl were players other than Mays. There are other references to Mays being player of the game that day, such as news reports in later years. For whatever reason, it seems the incorrect information caught on and you can find RS references to it in later years. But the news stories from contemporary sources immediately after the game contradict Mays as the most valuable player of that game. Because of that, removing that particular statement from the article is the correct decision. Go4thProsper ( talk) 00:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

(originally posted at WT:FOOTY)

One of the worst-kept secrets in the women's game over the last few years has been the romantic relationship between Tobin Heath and Christen Press. They never confirmed the relationship, though they'd occasionally drop social media posts that hint at a romantic relationship, and neither has publicly come out. This summer, they appeared as a couple publicly for the first time, holding hands at the ESPY Awards. At that event, Press answered questions from ET Online, where she was asked about her relationship with Heath and mostly tried to dodge the interviewer's attempts to get her to confirm their relationship status, but she does concede at one point that the two are a "power couple" like Sue Bird and Megan Rapinoe.

Some editors see that as a confirmation of their relationship (see [10] and [11]). I watched the same interview and thought Press was trying to avoid declaring themselves a romantic pair. In any case, I think we need a source other than etonline to verify, but as far as I can tell, no WP:RS has reported the "power couple" statement.

What's the correct approach here? I know this is a gossip column, but it sticks mostly to reported facts and the conclusion is that they're not "officially" a couple, even though they obviously are. My reading of the BLP is that people should not be outed, even if they're not exactly hiding their identity or relationship status. Or is the "power couple" statement enough to be a "confirmation" (without any other source, I think it runs afoul of WP:SYNTH). Adeletron 3030 ( talk • edits) 13:51, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

This guideline seems to suggest that we should not "out" the subject, unless they themselves openly come out. Nehme ₁₄₉₉ 13:52, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

FYI, I have left a notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject LGBT studies about this thread, as I imagine that editors there would have views on this. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 15:40, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Alerted through the LGBT WikiProject. We should not be outing people and speculating about their sexuality, regardless of if they are celebs or not. We should only be incorporating RS that cover what the subject says about themselves. WP has a longstanding practice to not incorporate gossip about sexuality; it's unencyclopedic and UNDUE. Examples include Aaron Schock and Colton Haynes, who were obviously gay and just hadn't publicly confirmed it yet (they since have). The info was only included was they publicly confirmed. -- Kbabej ( talk) 15:49, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

@ Kbabej Thank you for responding. But specifically in this case, there's an exchange in this red carpet interview, where she responds to the interviewer's "You to form a power couple," with "I like to think so." Does that count as confirmation? She otherwise deflects the questions about their status, I think. Adeletron 3030 ( talk • edits) 16:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

For me, it's still too elliptical for Wikipedia purposes. I would vote to err on the side of caution here until we have a reliable source explicitly establishing the relationship, but reasonable minds may certainly differ. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 16:02, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I would not consider that confirmation. Until the subjects actually say what their sexuality is, WP has no business trying to push that narrative. -- Kbabej ( talk) 16:04, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Ahmad Wali wiki page is incorrect and false. The only online source that has correct information about Ahmad Wali is his official website. https://www.ahmadwalimusic.com/ Please have all information removed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5CC:C800:6790:A07C:A09C:97E4:7E53 ( talk) 02:28, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

If that is so, the article should be deleted, see WP:AFD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:06, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

In line with WP:BOLD, WP:GF and WP:NPOV, I made the following edits on Leyla Aliyeva:

International Dialogue for Environmental Action

In July 2011, Aliyeva launched the International Dialogue for Environmental Action (IDEA), an international environmental NGO that works to promote awareness and education of environmental issues. ^{[1] [2]}

Awards and recognition

• 2011 - Received the Key to Life award of the Children's Cancer and Blood Foundation(CCBF) in New York ^[3]

• 2012 - Received Special International Honorary Award for Environmental Protection at the 6th International Environmental Project Olympiad (Inepo-Euroasia) held on April 6-7 in Baku ^{[4] [5]}

The edits above are factual and are clearly inline with WP:RS, WP:SIGCOV and WP:GNG. But User:Thenightaway reverted the edits minutes after tagging them as "Puffery" and "COI". This is never puffery. Also, I don't have any COI issue on this. I only made a good faith edits in line with WP:BOLD.

A look at the history of the page reveals that User:Thenightaway has been in the habit of reverting edits on the page. He prevents other editors from updating the page by reverting their edits. This is quite disheartening.

I am saddened about this. I believe User:Thenightaway's actions are not in line with wikipedia mission which allows good faith edits from all editors. I feel so bad about this to be sincere.

I am bringing up the notice here for other BLP editors to review the scenario. I believe there are no issues with the edits I made. The edits are factual and properly sourced. They are also written in line with WP:NPOV. These are never spammy.

I don't want to engage in "Edit wars" with User:Thenightaway. I want the edits to be re-added because they are inline with wikipedia guidelines. Thanks. Phedhima ( talk) 16:00, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Related ANI discussion [12] Morbidthoughts ( talk) 18:39, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Please stop forum shopping, you have a thread at ANI that should be sufficient. Additionally looking at those edits, I would also have reverted them. They're pure puffery of a non-notable organisation and completely non-notable awards just trying to make the person seem more notable than they are. Canterbury Tail talk 20:07, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you User:Canterbury Tail. I am sorry for raising the issue here and at ANI. I don't really know the right place. I thought it's a BLP issue as well. My only concern is to understand the reason for the reversal. English wikipedia encourages everyone to edit in line with the guidelines. That's exactly what i tried to do. I am willing to learn more if I am wrong. Phedhima ( talk) 21:14, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

See: WP:PUFFERY Zaereth ( talk) 21:17, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe that all the sources I cited to back up the edits meet WP:RS. These are well know news media in Azerbejan. They are cited in countless pages on En wiki and other wiki languages. None of them is blacklisted on En Wiki.

Here's a little analysis from my search on En wiki.

azernews.az https://en.wikipedia.org/?search=azernews.az&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1

aze.media https://en.wikipedia.org/?search=aze.media&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1

azertag.az https://en.wikipedia.org/?search=azertag.az&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1

en.trend.az https://en.wikipedia.org/?search=en.trend.az&title=Special:Search&profile=advanced&fulltext=1&ns0=1

Here are the direct sources cited

https://aze.media/leyla-aliyeva-protecting-the-environment-is-vital/

https://www.azernews.az/nation/51816.html

https://azertag.az/en/xeber/Vice_President_of_Heydar_Aliyev_Foundation_to_be_awarded_by_Childrens_Cancer__amp_Blood_Foundation_in_New_York-284146

https://azertag.az/en/xeber/IDEA_campaign_founder_Leyla_Aliyeva_receives_Special_International_Honorary_Award_for_Environmental_Protection-222101

https://en.trend.az/azerbaijan/society/2012679.html

can we analyse the sources above? are they not reliable to be used on En wiki? I really want to know. Similar sources are all over En wiki.. None of them is blacklisted.

With the above, I believe the edits made are in line with wiki guidelines. I am re-adding the edits temporarily in line with WP:BOLD.

It's on record that she founded the organisation. It's also on record she won those awards. These are never mere awards. They featured in the news.

Older editors are never here to intimate others by engaging in fierce reversions. We are not here to edit with bias or in anger. We can correct the other in a better way if there are valid reasons to do so.

Let other editors weigh in. Let's arrive at a consensus regarding this. I am more than willing to go by any decision the editors arrive at the end. If more BLP editors agree that the edits should be removed, then, the matter is resolved. I simply want to put an end to this. It will also serve for future reference. Phedhima ( talk) 05:38, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi Phedhima. I'm afraid you have some misconceptions about what Wikipedia is, what these policies mean, and how this all works, so I will try to help explain some of the difficulties you are having. First, no one is trying to get "intimate" with you. Sorry, but that one made me laugh. I think what you meant was "intimidate", but no one is trying to do that either as far as I can tell. This is just the Wikipedia process at work. You were bold, and that's good. But read the rest of that essay, especially where it links to the relevant page, WP:Bold, revert, discuss cycle. You were bold, you got reverted, now it's time to go to the talk page and discuss. You need to try to persuade others that your reasoning for including this information is sound and try to gain consensus. Sometimes that's easy. Sometimes it's not. Much of that depends on the logic of your reasoning.

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. What this means is that we don't need all the boring details found in newspapers and books, and other reliable sources. Just because something is found in a reliable source doesn't automatically mean it's worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia provides a summary of the subjects; not in-depth analyses. They're designed for quick reference material, which is why you find them in the reference section of the library. The very definition of summarizing means cutting out all the trivia and boring details that readers are just not interested in. We focus on the big things. Major accomplishments. Pivotal points in someone's life. The things that make them notable. The nitty gritty. Things that tell us about who this person is in very short order.

What we don't want is an article that reads like a resume, an advertisement, or a list of trivial accomplishments filled with glorious adjectives that tell us how wonderful the subject is. We don't want to make the readers barf, and an article that is sickly sweet or terribly bitter will do just that. We try to avoid puffing up someone's article with a bunch of filler, whether it's flattering or disparaging information. In many cases this includes awards, unless those are major national/international awards that have been widely reported. For example, if someone wins a beauty contest like Miss America or Miss Universe, that would be a very noteworthy award. If, on the other hand, someone wins a high-school beauty pageant, that is just boring trivia that only serves to puff up the article like puffed rice. Likewise, we don't need to list ever porn-industry award given to a porn star because those types of awards are ten a penny. Industry awards are about as significant to the general reader as an employee-of-the-month award. So what makes these awards so significant?

Now, I haven't made up my mind one way or the other as to whether this stuff should be included or not. I haven't looked at the article in question because no one has provided me a link, and I'm just too damn lazy right now to scroll to the top and type it into the little search box. I see by the ANI report that no discussion has taken place on the talk page yet, and your argument here focuses on the other editors and the process rather than providing us with good, sound reasoning as to why this should be included. You should take this to the talk page and discuss it before bringing it to a noticeboard like this or ANI, so we can go read the discussion and get a better idea of the reasoning on both sides. That's how you gain consensus. If you can't work it out on the talk page, then it's time to take it through the many steps of the WP:Dispute resolution process, or try bringing it to a noticeboard like this. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth ( talk) 19:26, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for the soothing explanations Zaereth. I am happy reading from you. Your response is calming. I actually I meant I felt "intimidated" by the other editor that has always reversed edits on the page.

You said you've not looked at the disputed edit. Here is it again:

Dialogue for Environmental Action In July 2011, Aliyeva launched the International Dialogue for Environmental Action (IDEA), an international environmental NGO that works to promote awareness and education of environmental issues. ^{[6] [7]}

Awards and recognition

• 2011 - Received the Key to Life award of the Children's Cancer and Blood Foundation(CCBF) in New York ^[8]

• 2012 - Received Special International Honorary Award for Environmental Protection at the 6th International Environmental Project Olympiad (Inepo-Euroasia) held on April 6-7 in Baku ^{[9] [10]}

I have also raised the issue on the talk page but it seems editors avoid getting into such arguments.

Leyla Aliyeva was honored with "Key to Life" alongside Muffie Potter Aston, and Buddy Valastro in New York on November 1st, 2011. That's a notable award.

The CCBF issued an official release about this here https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20111012005097/en/Children%E2%80%99s-Cancer-Blood-Foundation-Breakthrough-Ball-Gala-Honoring-Leyla-Aliyeva-Muffie-Potter-Aston-and-Buddy-Valastro

The release summary and contacts of the staff that wrote the release are clearly stated on the given Press.

Also this link has a clear picture of the award https://en.trend.az/azerbaijan/politics/1953133.html

You can see that the award is real and well covered in the media.

The lady, Leyla has multiple awards but many of them are not featured in good media. I only picked the two awards because I saw sources backing them up. We can at least allow the most covered award to be on the page. One is even enough. It can be added directly under the "career" section without a separate sub section. Thanks Phedhima ( talk) 20:59, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

@ Phedhima, this doesn't need to be here. You were told at ANI to discuss the issue at Talk:Leyla Aliyeva and the discussion should remain there. There are no BLP issues with these sources—or at least no issues that reflect negatively on Leyla Aliyeva. There is plenty of puffery cited only to unreliable sources, which other editors have repeatedly told you. Woodroar ( talk) 21:22, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. I said I hadn't looked at the article yet, because I'm too busy with real life right now. It's nice that you provided the edits in question, but it helps by far more to see everything in context. I added a link in the section header, so if anyone is interested, they can just click on it. This is just a note to anyone who brings a problem here. Some of the names have some difficult spellings to remember, and if you want people to take an interest then make it as easy for us as possible. I need to see the article and the article's history to get a really good understanding of the dispute, as well as the talk page and noticeboard discussion. I'll look at the sources in context, because context has a lot to do with a source's reliability. For example, a cook book is a very reliable source on the recipe for a peanut-butter and jelly sandwich, but it's a poor source on thermodynamics, even though cooking involves thermodynamics and chemistry to a great extent. Context is everything.

Now that I have a link I may go look and see what this is all about when I have a bit of spare time. I still suggest trying to work it out on the talk page first, so I will have something to go read. Bringing it to this noticeboard is a bit premature at this point. While you're doing that, try to answer the question I asked above. Why are these awards significant? Why is this information something that should interest the general reader. (No need to answer here, but these answers should be the focal points of your arguments. Are they some kind of major awards? If so, then how.) Zaereth ( talk) 21:34, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Media freedom in Azerbaijan and her being the daughter of the president does not give me the greatest confidence in the sources and how important those awards are. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 22:27, 23 August 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. I try to assume good faith, but after reading the article I can definitely see what the dispute is about, without even getting as far as the talk page. The article reads like a resume. To summarize: she's the daughter of the president, which is apparently her claim to fame. She owns some companies and is a board member of a few more. She's done some charity work, edits a magazine, and won award after award after award. She was a producer of a movie. That's a nice list of things to have on a resume, but tells us very little about the subject, that is --who this person is. The last thing this article needs is more awards. It needs substance, because, as is, it's just a hollow shell. Zaereth ( talk) 03:35, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Since the death of his daughter yesterday in an apparent car-bomb attack, the article on Aleksandr Dugin has been edited heavily in all kinds of ways. Of particular interest may be a concerted effort to revise longstanding language in the lead asserting that Dugin's views are "widely characterized as fascist". See simultaneous discussions here and here. Generalrelative ( talk) 18:21, 21 August 2022 (UTC)

Aleksandr Dugin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

At the top of Aleksandr Dugin biography page political commentary stating him as a fascist was placed at the top of his page which breaks biographies of living persons rules including neutrality, when users try to discuss and revert it to “views characterized as fascist” users revert it back to “fascist views” regardless of the discussion board, which i suspect is due to its political nature and news related to Dugin, I came here to see if it could be reverted to “views characterized as fascist” as he doesn’t call himself one but others still consider him one — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bobisland ( talk • contribs) 10:10, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Greetings. I hope this is an appropriate place to ask. I would appreciate some other experienced editors keeping an eye on the Roger Woodward article. At present I have been dragged into a ridiculous dispute with another editor who appears to have a WP:OWN mindset about the article and whose almost entire editing history seems to be devoted to editing it. Unfortunately this has resulted in the article being far too long and detailed and also containing puffery and many other stylistic problems. When I started to modestly improve some of the layout, formatting and other stylistic problems (and gave some reasons for this on the talk page) the response from that editor was a very silly rant accusing me of vandalism and having some kind of personal agenda against Roger Woodward. Anyway, if you can keep an eye on things I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks, Afterwriting ( talk) 09:45, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

Good golly that article is, like, brutal reading. It made my brain go numb. What is with all the overlinking and name dropping, and run-on sentences? I mean, here's an example of a single sentence pulled at random:

"He worked with musicologists Charles Rosen, Paul Griffiths, H. C. Robbins-Landon, Richard Toop, Paul M. Ellison, Nouritza Matossian, and Sharon Kanach; violinists Philippe Hirschhorn, Ivry Gitlis, Ilya Grubert, Winfried Rademacher, Asmira-Woodward-Page and Wanda Wiłkomirska; violist James Creitz [ de; cellists Rohan de Saram, Nathan Waks, Jacopo Scalfi and David Pereira; Synergy Percussion, Chris Dench, Adrian Jack, Elena Kats-Chernin, Alessandro Solbiati; the flautists Laura Chislett, Pierre Yves- Artaud; pianists: Yuji Takahashi, Alexander Gavrylyuk, Stephanie McCallum, Robert Curry, Noel Lee and Simon Tedeschi."

Yes, that is a single sentence. Most of the article reads just like that. There is almost more blue than black words. I don't know what the point of all this name dropping is, but it makes for extremely hard reading and provides little to no insight into this person. I would say it needs serious work to make it even readable, let alone encyclopedic. Zaereth ( talk) 23:55, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

The article on Arsham Parsi contains a section on a lawsuit which, as far as I can tell, only has one secondary source, the rest being court documents (questionable as per WP:BLPPRIMARY) and SPS. Given the paucity of reliable sources here, it seems to me that this section should be reduced quite a bit. Any advice? -- 2003:E5:173E:D5FB:4159:D1E7:ECFD:C3AF ( talk) 16:34, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

Given that no one has responded, I went ahead and removed the whole section. As I could not find any coverage in high-profile sources, I decided to err on the side of caution. -- 2003:E5:1720:19A:6065:AA7B:454A:2990 ( talk) 11:20, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

There is a discussion on the talk page whether to include the name of a suspect per WP:BLPCRIME or omit it per WP:BLPNAME. Some more input would be appreciated, especially since this is a subject that is in the news. Regards So Why 18:06, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

In short, Darya Dugina was killed by a car bomb, and the name person Federal Security Service of Russia is accusing appears right now on the page. Her innocence is of course presumed, but it does appear as "Russian FSS claim".
I guess the discussion is mostly on whether she has or hasn't become a public person. In the media of Spain I've seen clear articles dedicated to her, such as this one: Who is Natalia Vovk - El Mundo
Any input is appreciated. —  AdrianHObradors ( talk) 08:23, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I think the relevant policies are clear enough on this. We should not include her name. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 08:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

• I've removed the name from the infobox. Any editor who thinks that including it is consistent with core BLP policies (e.g. WP:BLPCRIME might want to consider defending that view at ANI. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:47, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

  I now also removed the name and some details of FSB's "investigations", which were called out purportedly, and hence not really relevant in an encyclopedia, from the main article of Darya Dugina. Hope, that's fine. 2001:4BB8:1D0:F63A:7854:5691:DC11:55B1 ( talk) 12:13, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

The article Michigan Five Fluke Freshmen was flagged in 2018 with a WP:N template banner but it appears nobody took notice. I suggest this should be revisited because the subject matter is quite obscure. The article discusses five one-term Democrat members of Congress from Michigan who were first elected in the 1964 Democratic landslide but all lost re-election in 1966. The article claim this is the last time such an event has occurred in a single state. Whether or not this remains true, I suggest merging this information into either the 1964 or 1966 elections pages. It seems 1964 would be the more appropriate page. The term “Five Fluke Freshman” is not part of the American political lexicon or commonly known election history; thus, I recommend merging it as noted above. It is worth mentioning in a larger article but does not merit its own article. Go4thProsper ( talk) 05:00, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

@ Go4thProsper: since it appears none of these 5 politicians are living, this doesn't seem to be a BLP matter. And even if one or all of them were alive, it would still be a mater of notability and WP:DUE (and maybe WP:OR). If the group isn't commonly discussed as a unit (whatever it's called), then a redirect or deletion may be warranted. You might try starting a discussion at WT:MICH or WT:USC. --Animalparty! ( talk) 22:49, 24 August 2022 (UTC)

I easily found two 21st century books about political science that describe the Michigan Five Fluke Freshmen using that term. The first is The Fierce Urgency of Now: Lyndon Johnson, Congress, and the Battle for the Great Society and the second is Nixon in New York: How Wall Street Helped Richard Nixon Win the White House. Accordingly, the topic is notable and the article should be kept. Cullen328 ( talk) 17:55, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Pinging Go4thProsper. Cullen328 ( talk) 17:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

The Fierce Urgency of Now simply mentions that the nickname exists. That's a trivial mention. It doesn't give significant coverage of the 5 as a discreet unit (compare to The Squad (United States Congress), for instance). In every single election there is a group of newcomers typically called "the freshman crop" or "incoming". If nothing more significant beyond this group of 5 can be said beyond "they got a nickname in this one election and were defeated in the next election", then that's probably better said in a single sentence or two at or 1966 United States House of Representatives_elections#Michigan(or perhaps an article dedicated to Michigan political history). Otherwise the article look like the trivial creation of a political junkie who care more about stats than articles. --Animalparty! ( talk) 19:50, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi, I'm the guy who tagged the article in 2018. Seems I got no response on the talk page (until Cullen328 today) and forgot all about it. I'll take it to AfD. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 20:06, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Some of other related policies for current requested RfC discussion: WP:BLP, WP:SUSPECT, WP:BLPPUBLIC, WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE.

Requesting inputs about WP policies regarding, WP:BLP protocols and naming of the accused in relation to mentions of allegations and counter allegations in the given article, against a female victim of sexual assault, her associates and also other accused.

Requesting well studied, carefully thought inputs @ RfC: A TikToker, associates, other accused constitute 'Public figure' or not?

Thanks and warm regards

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 10:41, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

I found the RfC confusing. A woman was assaulted by a crowd and six suspects were identified and charged. None of these people are otherwise notable, in other words there is not enough reliably published information about them to create a Wikipedia article.

There are only two reasons to name suspects in articles. One is if they are otherwise notable and the sources mention this. The other is if naming them in the article is useful in explaining what happened. But it serves no purpose in naming someone just for the sake of naming them. In this case it would be wrong to name the six unless you had something to say about how each individually related to the story.

TFD ( talk) 19:05, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Hi there,

I'm the subject of the page in question. There are a few factual errors on the page, as well as a concern I've raised about WP:NPOV being applied properly to one section of the article. I've laid all of this out on the talk page. I'm not going to edit the page myself, of course, but I'd really appreciate it if someone could have a look at this and make any edits they deem appropriate in response to my comments. Thanks! FreelanceAstro ( talk) 23:30, 25 August 2022 (UTC)

It looks like some of the edits have been made, and I have requested Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics to review the balance of the criticism. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 23:16, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Great, thank you! Might be a good idea to loop in Wikipedia:WikiProject History of Science and Wikipedia:WikiProject Philosophy/Science as well, since the book is a book on the history and philosophy of physics. Could you request their attention too, Morbidthoughts? FreelanceAstro ( talk) 00:30, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I have crossposted to the two groups so that those who are familiar with the subject matter can evaluate the criticism. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 01:14, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, hi, I did some small edits about his bio, but didn't touch anything about the book review (until now). I agree with @ Freelanceastro with the wording not being great there. Did a very small rewording, removed some "while" and "although" words, should be more neutral now. —  AdrianHObradors ( talk) 08:36, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you! It's definitely an improvement. I left a few more suggestions on the talk page, including a rather serious NPOV violation that I only spotted after looking more closely at the references. FreelanceAstro ( talk) 03:55, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Reads like a CV.

Possibly written by the subject herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haman Aldhekair ( talk • contribs) 06:34, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The page is rather poorly written and does not conform to the standards of Wikipedia like one would expect. The main contributor of the article appears to be (or is closely related to) Amna Al Qubaisi, which would explain why the article is written more like an ad than a biography.

Some examples of less than neutral statements (emphasis mine):

• a racing driver that made history for the UAE when he became the first Emirati to compete at the legendary 24 Hours of Le Mans race in France
• Amna has made history by being the first Emirati woman to participate in motorsports
• Amna and her sister Hamda participated at the prestigious X30 Euro Series in Wackersdorf with Team Driver. It was Amna's first time to drive in Wackersdorf and she has showed great pace being amongst the top five in one of her heats.

The quality of some of the sources is poor. Amna Al Qubaisi's twitter account is used as a source for the results of some events, instead of official scoring: https://twitter.com/Amna_Alqubaisii/status/888817206401929216. Her Instagram page is also used as a source: https://www.instagram.com/amnalqubaisi_official

The article contains a high number of unsourced information. Examples are claims such as "She was also the first female to be sponsored by Kaspersky Lab". There is also some unverifiable information, such as "her interests include karting, gymnastics, and jet skiing."

The article has been proposed for deletion before, and I believe the article as poorly written and biased as this should be seriously rewritten or deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bramhaag ( talk • contribs) 22:11, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The article on Kim Petras (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) includes her birth name at the top of the early life section (pedantically, this word "néé" is also misused here). This seems to be a blatant violation of MOS:DEADNAME, since she was not notable under that name. Argument that she was the youngest person to receive reassignment surgery does not seem relevant since she identified as Kim at the time. Discussion on the talk page has gone nowhere, as the page has been repeatedly reverted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.60.4.170 ( talk) 19:07, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

The immediate issue has already been corrected by User:Beccaynr. Unfortunately other than more vigilance, it doesn't look like this is something we can easily deal with. Ironically although the article is unprotected, both recent additions of the name seem to have been by editors who are extended confirmed so short of an edit filter or full protection, there's nothing we can do to stop these additions before they happen. Nil Einne ( talk) 08:19, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I have added a hidden comment which I hope will reduce such additions [13] although I admit I'm not that hopeful going by the two recent ones. Nil Einne ( talk) 12:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Relies heavily on YouTube and to a lesser extent Rawstory.com, an unreliable source. [14] Doug Weller talk 11:19, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

Can you point out which citations? The early one discussing his trip to Africa seems self-serving. I also have some concerns about using his church as a source. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 23:56, 28 August 2022 (UTC)

I also have some concerns about the weight of this section [15] since there is a standalone article on the church itself. I'm not sure what Manning's role is at the church beyond pastor. The article does not mention if he is the head of the church. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 00:37, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

What a seriously terrible article. I'm not defending the pastor or his views, but it's Like Wikipedians can't sleep well unless a bad guy is thoroughly called out as such, with every controversial utterance preserved (so that people can see how bad he is). Has he literally done nothing but criticize and be criticized? It makes Fred Phelps' article look like something out of Highlights for Children. --Animalparty! ( talk) 03:57, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I reduced what I can by removing items cited to weaker sources as WP:UNDUE and extraneous detail about the church that is not about Manning. I am sure that there is more basic bio stuff in the stronger sources, but I don't have time to read them to supplement. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 17:05, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

I would appreciate input at Talk:Hunter Biden laptop controversy/Archive 2#RfC about ownership of the laptop. TFD ( talk) 03:50, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Do we have a policy on listing birth dates for living people? Given how useful birth dates are for identity theft, I think we should only list the year. Example: [16] -- Guy Macon Alternate Account ( talk) 22:24, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

WP:DOB covers it. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 22:26, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! Very helpful. -- Guy Macon Alternate Account ( talk) 22:34, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

The article for Christie Neptune appears to be written by the artist herself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.75.249.152 ( talk) 21:02, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, if so, she should obviously declare a COI, but the article itself strikes me as pretty reasonable with good sourcing. I'll take a bit of a closer look. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 21:09, 30 August 2022 (UTC) ETA: on second look, I confess I am perplexed; can you explain why you think this? The history is somewhat dominated by one user, but I see no reason to assume that is the article subject?

It looks like it was written by Citrivescence, a long term editor with 200+ article creations. Doesn't appear to be an autobiography. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 21:14, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I did write it and I am not Christie Neptune. Citrivescence ( talk) 23:17, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Kim Myers contains a date of birth based on "California Birth Index, 1905–1995. Center for Health Statistics, California Department of Health Services, Sacramento, California."

I removed both the date and the citation, citing WP:BLPPRIMARY, which says, ""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, ..." Another editor reverted the removal with the edit summary, "No good reason to remove perfectly fine sources".

I posted a message on that editor's talk page explaining my reasoning that California Birth Index is a public document and therefore should not be used to support a date of birth, according to WP:BLPPRIMARY. The editor reverted again, with the edit summary "It is a perfectly fine source as several otherpage for people use the californi birth index as well."

I don't want to get into an edit war, so I would appreciate clarification. Should California Birth Index (or any state's birth index) be used as a citation for birth date, full name, or other data in an article about a living person? Eddie Blick ( talk) 02:38, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely not. You are right about BLPPRIMARY. Such a source should never be used. This is a very blatant violation of BLP and should be reverted immediately, on sight. Such a revert usually doesn't count as 3RR per WP:BLP3RR, because that is a pretty blatant violation. Also check out WP:BLPPRIVACY. For many people, birthdates are private, and we can't go around snooping through birth records, court documents, tax records, etc., trying to ferret out that info. We need a reliable source, but even that is not enough. For birthdates we need to find it published in multiple RSs; enough so that we can reasonably infer that the subject won't mind if we publish it too. If this source is being used for other people, it would be nice if the editor would tell us which articles, so we can go remove those too. Zaereth ( talk) 03:53, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm going through and reverting some of their previous additions using the index. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 16:07, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

I just reverted the editor again but it might be good to have a few more eyes watching this article. If this persists we may need an admin to intervene. Zaereth ( talk) 17:54, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Opened a sockpuppet report since they seem to be evading scrutiny. [17] Morbidthoughts ( talk) 19:39, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

NB: These types of records are used far too often on Wikipedia, for living or dead people, to assert birthdates, death dates, family members, marriages, etc., often violating both WP:PRIMARY (asserting facts that have never been secondarily published) and WP:BLPPRIMARY. Too many people want to play armchair biographer and use Ancestry.com to write the definitive biography of someone who reliable sources haven't touched. Showbusiness biographies seem to be especially rife with such misuses of primary sources, which is even more problematic because it's common for showbusiness folks (historic and modern) to conceal or misrepresent their age. I spend quite a bit of time looking at FamilySearch records, and inferred birth dates for a single person might differ based on ages reported on censuses, marriage licenses, passport applications, and death certificates. Picking and choosing which primary source is "most correct" violates WP:OR. --Animalparty! ( talk) 19:11, 30 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you, Morbidthoughts, Zaereth, and Animalparty. I appreciate your feedback on this topic. I'm glad to know that other editors feel as strongly about this topic as I do. Eddie Blick ( talk) 01:08, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, there are a lot of people who feel this way, which is why we have so much of policy dedicated to it. This comes up here a lot, and, unfortunately, a lot of people don't seem to look at the bigger picture to see some of the ramifications of their edits. There's a small percentage of the population who are obsessed with birthdates, which goes far beyond just an interest in astrology or numerology. My sister is one of those. She talks incessantly about birthdates as if they have some sort of magical meaning, although hers is the result of a brain injury. Not that everyone obsessed with BDs is brain damaged, but she wasn't like that before which does suggest that there are certain areas of the temporal lobe and hippocampal complex that can produce heightened emotional responses to them. When you look at it logically, though, then it's easy to realize that BDs just statistical data; not much different from height, weight, or eye color. It's nice info to have --when we can get it-- but in most cases it's not necessary to define the subject and the article will read just the same without it. Zaereth ( talk) 03:00, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

+1 Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:38, 31 August 2022 (UTC)

a lot of Cobretti1 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)'s edits are adding birth dates based on public records via ancestry.com. also [18] is a list of BLPs thats mention california birth index and [19] is one for the texus birth index. Serprinss ( talk) please ping on reply. 08:00, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

• whistle* that's going to be a lot of work to remove. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 22:03, 2 September 2022 (UTC)

Incredible. It will get only worse as Wikipedia gets larger, and people who care leave in disgust. --Animalparty! ( talk) 01:24, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The Page " Kathe Perez"'s References fail to uphold Verifiability (One of Wikipedia's Core Content Policies)

References: 2. and 4. " http://www.speechlanguagepractice.org/" - has no relevance to the cited area as they lack any information regarding Kathe Perez besides a link to 1. and are the same link 3. " http://www.katheperez.com/" - no longer have relevance to the cited area as it now redirects to " https://www.evaf.app/pages/resources" 6. " http://www.asha.org/Members/ASHA-Makes-a-Difference" - leads to a Page Not Found 7. " http://forum.beginninglifeforums.com/index.php/mv/tree/7247/ba3e1065afa5921135efcfa69870ae1d/" - leads to a CAPTCHA that when completed causes a Fatal Error for the website 8. and 9. " https://books.google.com-books-about-professional/" - leads to a Site Not Found and are the same link

I don't know how to edit references, so I will leave this here. Sorry in advance. Sorry if this messes anything up on the page. I don't exactly know what I'm doing. I hope this page gets more reliable sources. Lots of Love my fellow Trans people! <3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.198.41.81 ( talk) 14:08, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

The refs are an absolute mess that's for sure. I've fixed the Google books refs although there's no preview for me so the Google books links aren't very useful. Nil Einne ( talk) 14:43, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Advice wanted at Talk:Lenna#Use of the image in the article. DMacks ( talk) 16:04, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Over at Talk:Destiny_(streamer)#Edit_war, there has been an ongoing discussion about whether it is appropriate to include allegations from transgender streamer Keffals that Destiny collaborated with the stalking forum Kiwi Farms to harass her. The sourcing for this claim is in my opinion not strong. Outside input would be appreciated, thanks. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:46, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I've created an RFC to discuss whether "fraudster" (or something similar like "convicted criminal") should be used to label Black in the first sentence. It's my contention that we shouldn't use labels like this in the first sentence unless the person is primarily known for their crime(s). I'm bringing it up here as it would be nice to have some general consensus on how to handle applying a criminal label to a biography in the first sentence; I found Talk:Martha_Stewart#"Convicted"_in_lead_-_NPOV?, and assume there are other similar consensuses. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:13, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi,

Can we change her current occupation from 'Executive Dean of Social & Historical Sciences Professor of Interdisciplinary Social Science' to 'Vice Chancellor of the University of Sussex' please?

She came into post at the start of August 2022

Many thanks, Charlie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Charlie Littlejones ( talk • contribs) 09:38, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

This entry looks like a personal CV/resume. It needs to be moderated as it has a cut and paste feel from a self-endorsing site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:BCA2:A400:8D5B:5A0D:1DAC:A466 ( talk) 01:21, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Went full wiki-squirrel and did some wiki-butchering and reduced it to the best cuts, with no processed meat. It wasn't actually a copyright violation (which was surprising given the tone of it). The picture may also vanish, as it (unlike the article) does seem to be a copyright violation. Can be closed off and archived now as the issue raised has been resolved. Mako001  (C)   (T)  🇺🇦 14:02, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

A link to Kiwi Farms's domain name has been removed from its article because that site endangers people's lives. However, it has been added to the talk page of the article anyway ( Talk:Kiwi Farms), by a user who originally wanted it in the article, as a comment. It should be removed from there. PBZE ( talk) 08:46, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

This is currently the subject on an ongoing RfC Talk:Kiwi_Farms#RfC_on_linking_to_Kiwi_Farms, so it's probably best if editors post their opinion there. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:36, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

We link to Stormfront in its article, where murders have been planned and called for, and that has been retained after a challenge. Sorry, not exactly getting how Kiwi Farms is any different, could you explain further, I might get it if you elaborate? Mako001  (C)   (T)  🇺🇦 14:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I want to know, because, to quote Pontificalibus on Talk:Stormfront (website), Wikipedia is not censored. To have an article about a website without linking to that site would be absurd. If you have anything to challenge this, I would like a discussion on it. Mako001  (C)   (T)  🇺🇦 14:40, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree that regardless of the result of whether the URL should be included or not (I don't have a strong opinion on the matter) that the result should be consistent with whether or not the Stormfront URL is included. The concerns about including the urls for both articles as you say are basically identical. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Are they though? I haven't yet !voted but a I'm leaning towards excluding Kiwifarms but am unconvinced the same for Stormfront or any of the other sites people have named. My impression from what I've is that Stormfront, VDARE, The Right Stuff are all general hate sites of various kinds. They spread general hate speech like how all non whites should be inferior, should be killed etc. I'm assuming they sometimes attack specific individuals but I suspect these are highly notable individuals. I'm sure Obama is disturbed by some of the crap Stormfront has about him and especially his daughters but even the latter is likely more of a general concern and external concern. I'm sure these websites sometimes attack non notable and barely notable living people but it doesn't seem to be their focus. By comparison, a big part of Kiwifarms purpose seems to be to mock and attack living people most of who seem to be non notable and barely notable living people. Indeed they were originally started to attack one such person and even named themselves after it. Kiwifarms has been linked to suicides because of this. A skim through the Stormfront discussion mentions their use to organise hate crimes including murders (edit: just noticed this as also mentioned above) which is concerning but I don't consider in the same vein. Nil Einne ( talk) 01:34, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Given that their latest provider has kicked them off the service now, and it appears that Moon may be calling it quits, this question may be moot. -- Masem ( t) 01:38, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Having a link to this kiwi farms site does not add to or subtract from the danger of the content found there, let's not pretend that an incoming link from the Wikipedia actually matters one way or another. IMO the only time an outgoing link should be censored is if direct harm could come to the reader, e.g. malware at the URL, or something grossly obscene like Goatse. Zaathras ( talk) 01:48, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

  External links in Wikipedia infoboxes do matter, as they usually end up in the first page of search results and the Google knowledge panel. In that regard, there's a parallel discussion on Wikidata regarding whether the link should be removed from there as well. Funcrunch ( talk) 03:52, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Are we to assume the people (or algorithms) who maintain Google knowledge panels have no agency of their own, cannot edit high profile searches as seen fit, and are at the sole mercy of Wikipedia/Wikidata? Clearly this is not true because entities with neither Wikipedia articles nor Wikidata items can have knowledge panels. And if they are mindlessly suckling the data teats of Wiki with no filters in place, shame on them. --Animalparty! ( talk) 05:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Your colorful hyperbole aside, according to the Google Knowledge Graph entry I previously linked to (and I did check the source on this), "There is no official documentation of how the Google Knowledge Graph is implemented." Funcrunch ( talk) 06:29, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

• Per the principle of WP:NOTCENSORED, we should not simply be removing links because the websites they go to are distasteful, when he have an article on said website. The activity of Kiwi Farms users may be harmful, but the website itself will not kill you. Harm being caused to you requires more than simply opening the website. Facebook and Twitter can be harmful too. I think the only instance where it would be appropriate to wholly remove a link is if it is to a website has malware upon being opened or something extreme like child porn (which both cause direct harm upon being opened, regardless of the user interaction with the users of the site). - Indy beetle ( talk) 17:05, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Brian Stafford (businessman) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, noticeboard editors! I am Julia and I work at Diligent Corporation. Due to my COI, I posted a request for editor assistance at Talk:Brian_Stafford_(businessman)#BLP_concerns. I question whether recent edits to the Personal life section are problematic based on WP:BLPPRIVACY and WP:BLPPRIMARY. More info is available on the article Talk page. I appreciate your expertise in this matter. JHDiligent ( talk) 22:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Your interpretation of policy seems entirely reasonable - I've removed the material concerned. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 22:27, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The birth date listed in the sidebar is incorrect. It is April 10, 1985, which is correct in the rest of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:6a40:3ecb:10b8:3138:8fbc:e653 ( talk)

Are there reliable sources that confirm her birthdate to put it in the article? If not, they should be removed per WP:DOB. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 01:25, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

Henry T, Bradford DOB 13 October 1930 has had several books published and another is about to be released he may not be as popular or sold as many books as Mr Mcewan but he is considerably older 124.169.219.55 ( talk) 05:51, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

@ 124.169.219.55: Can you be specific about which article and content you're referring to? Neiltonks ( talk) 10:19, 7 September 2022 (UTC)

I seriously doubt that an author who is only 91 years old is the oldest published author. That is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence. Cullen328 ( talk) 06:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Should the name of the suspect be listed at 2022 pregnancy of a 10-year-old in Ohio? I have asked to have it removed, but with no success. Please {{ ping}} me when you respond. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 12:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

@ Jax 0677: I am assuming we are talking the suspect accused of raping her (there's a lot of possible victims in that story depending on angle). I would tend to agree that that suspect need not be named even though his name is widely available in many news reports, he's not a public figure and in terms of the narrative for this event, it just needs to be said the suspected rapist was caught and thus validated the story after some tried to whitewash it away. -- Masem ( t) 12:07, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I asked here and at WP:AN for the edits to be permanently removed, but to no avail. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 12:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Holy shit, that is the worst infobox I've seen on Wikipedia. Event type pregnancy, participants... Jesus Christ. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 12:09, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:CIVIL Jax 0677 ( talk) 12:35, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I apologize to the infobox which I commented on, and to the 10 year old girl who was listed as a participant in her own rape. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 12:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I went back and looked at the infobox. Yikes, it should not be in the article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^t@lk 00:15, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any article talk page discussion about this. Am I missing it? I'd like to respond there. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 12:22, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

The info is still in the page history. -- Jax 0677 ( talk) 12:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Jax, Wikipedia:Requests for oversight may get you faster results than anything else you have tried. Include diffs with the request so they can find what diffs contain the offending information. -- Jayron 32 13:14, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd redact this here and now but I can't see where the suspect is named, so I'm not sure what to do, other than WP:G6 the entire article and just leave the last version. Actually, I think I've managed to redact the requested information, citing WP:BLP. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:32, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Does this not fall under WP:NOTNEWS? This could probably be merged with Abortion in Ohio. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^t@lk 00:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022 closed as keep. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 00:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I didn't know that existed. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^t@lk 00:18, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think in a year or so it would be possible to get consensus to roll it into another article. I agree with the notnews, but it's hard to tell when something is recent of it will have any lasting significance. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 00:20, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Template:BLP others asks to inform reinsertions of contentious material @ WP:BLPN i.e. here. Experienced users may help or guide about removal of contentious content @ Talk:2021 Minar-e-Pakistan mass sexual assault#Re–insertion of WP:BLP violation by dif 1109434561

Evaluation and removal request about reinsertions of contentious BLP material un til some consensus is achieved.

Thanks

Bookku, 'Encyclopedias = expanding information & knowledge' ( talk) 13:24, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

My aunt, photographer Sonia "Sonny" Handelman Meyer, died at 3:15am this morning, September 11th, 2022. She was 102 years old.

I'm a Wikipedia editor, but because I'm related to the subject, my guess is that I can't enter this fact without an external reference. How to proceed?

Thanks in advance! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puroprana ( talk • contribs) 17:55, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Wait until there's an newspaper obituary or announcement and post the link here. Someone will update it. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 20:53, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Not notable. Looks like fancy page of the subject. -- Narrativist ( talk) 16:42, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

• You are free to nominate the article for deletion, but he seems to satisfy criteria 6 of WP:ACADEMIC. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 17:11, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

It would be great if a fresh pair of eyes could look over the article, as there are two major issues with the article. First, I believe the main editor of the article has a close relationship to the subject, and secondly there is a lot of material on there that I don't think should be, but a fresh pair of eyes would be useful. Nauseous Man ( talk) 07:31, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Seems to be a lot of commentary, analysis, and grievances (all considered original research) that are not actually in the cited articles. I don't have time to check every citation, but you are free to remove any text that's is not directly supported by the citations or anything that is only supported by primary sources. The latter makes the article look like a CV. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 18:15, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Having looked this concerning an AfD related to some of the accusations, this comes across as dominated by British tabloid-style accusation and insinuation. I don't know enough to do the cleaning up myself, but I think it could use quite a bit. Mangoe ( talk) 18:50, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that article sucks, but Wikipedians can't resist shoveling crap when newspapers poop it out (even reliable ones). When a "Controversies" section dominates more than half the article, it risks violating WP:BLPBALANCE (and WP:CRITSECTION). True things can be given disproportionate emphasis. Wikipedia is not a newspaper, so should not have 'breaking' faacts like "In August 2022, The Sunday Times reported that Fawcett had not yet been interviewed by the police". Okay? cool factoid, but if it wouldn't be printed in Britannica, it probably shouldn't be printed in Wikipedia. Better to err on the conservative side until investigations are complete: the play-by-play presentation of every new development is unencyclopedic and tedious. --Animalparty! ( talk)

The article is very imbalance but I am not sure if it can be speedily deleted because it has references. I would like to ask other editors to take a look and assess if it is eligible for deletion / reduce to stub. Lulusword (talk) 14:29, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Unauthorized polygamy huh. Well we don't want that. Seriously though, this one looks a bit like a BLP-disaster. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I removed some stuff. Have not checked if refs are WP:BLP-good WP:RS, but my guess is there's more to be done in that area. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:12, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Recent disruption, removal of sourced content and insistence on referring to the subject by first name, which may suggest WP:COI. At any event, I'd appreciate more eyes on this, so as not to go down an edit warring path. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:6126 ( talk) 19:22, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Long standing issue in the lede. [20]

1. Giuffre at 17 is not considered a minor in the UK. 2. He's never been charged or accused of child sexual abuse. 3. The wikilink in there is piped to Age of consent implying she was underage.

As I see it, multiple BLP violations but when an attempt was made at addressing this it's being reverted on sight as a "long standing consensus". AFAIK "consensus" doesn't trump WP:BLP concerning libellous commentary, the BLP issues raised about the removal of such incorrect allegations should be addressed separately and not by simply reverting. W C M _email 07:23, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

As can be seen on the thread on the article talk page, that's not quite the full story. WMC reverted to new text about Giuffre which could also be seen as a BLP issue and certainly WP:UNDUE. I think there's a simple solution: leave the original text sans the reference to child sexual abuse. DeCausa ( talk) 07:26, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Hopefully, this resolves it. DeCausa ( talk) 09:00, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Just to point out the editing history [21], you had two reverts [22], [23] Neither of your reverts identified a BLP concern, which the original editor did in their edit summary [24]. It was reverted a 3rd time [25] again not addressing BLP concerns, which I identified in my own edit summary [26] but citing different BLP concerns. Nontheless it restored text that included WP:BLP violations. As I see it, the summary above is accurate, fortunately there is now an ongoing discussion. How long has that libellous lead been in place? W C M _email 11:40, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't revert you and I reverted no one that raised BLP. But, yes, fortunately I was the one that's put in new wording and removed both the longstanding BLP-issue text and the new BLP-issue text that you restored. I think we're done here. DeCausa ( talk) 12:47, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

[27] and has now been put back by another editor [28] who expresses the opinion that If it's in a reliable source and hasn't been retracted, we can use it. Period. WP:BLPPUBLIC actually requires multiple reliable sources and even then suggests caution in including this sort of salacious allegation. W C M _email 00:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

See discussion here: Talk:Taylor_Lorenz#Defamation_lawsuit_dismissed?

A judge recently dismissed a defamation lawsuit against Taylor Lorenz. That can be seen in this primary source court document, but AFAIK has not been reported on in reliable (secondary) sources. In our article on her we mention the lawsuit, but not that it has now been dismissed. WP:BLPPRIMARY says that we shouldn't use such court documents as sources, but if we don't use it, we have no other source to say that the case has been dismissed, and so can't update our article, leaving it to be misleading/inaccurate/out of date. What should we do here -- ignore the letter of WP:BLPPRIMARY and include the update sourced to that court document anyway? Endwise ( talk) 05:04, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

As I stated on the talk page, this does leave us in a bit of a conundrum. I believe that we are potentially causing undue/unwarranted reputational harm to Ms. Lorenz and the NYT by not updating it in this instance -- perhaps with a {{ better source needed}} template as a bit of a compromise. As Endwise said, this appears to be the spirit and literal wording of BLPPRIMARY colliding. I think that until such a secondary source arises (hopefully one does), we probably need to use this court document/order. I would specify that its use be limited to the fact that the case was dismissed so as to comply with BLPPRIMARY as much as possible while also being fair to the subjects. Right now the article is unfairly ( WP:DUE) stating that it is pending when the case was dismissed by the judge, thus upholding (at this time) that Lorenz et al didn't do anything wrong. This feels complicated from wiki perspective; I don't like IAR around BLP but there is an argument to be made here per BLP that it would be in the subject's best interest (and in the interest of WP:NPOV) in this case to at least temporarily use the source. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:10, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with all of the above. Additionally: as a rule we should strive to avoid driving the news, by covering topics or sources where media hasn’t. But, at the top of the BLP guidance, we are instructed ”the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment”, which I think probably prevails on this. Innisfree987 ( talk) 06:13, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

These sort of cases are always complicated, I have no clear opinion on what to do but I'd remind editors that that isn't uncommon when this arises, this isn't a simple case doing no harm by IAR. There isn't one living person affected, as some other commentators have suggest but in fact two. If we report the lawsuit was dismissed based on a primary source, we're affecting another living individual who is even named in our article. And remember it isn't simply a case of reporting the truth since we're reporting something that for whatever reason, secondary sources do not think matters about either individual. BTW, I would strongly oppose including this if it were only NYT affected. We should never put reputational harm to a large organisation ahead of harm to a living person by reporting something secondary sources have chosen to ignore. In otherwords, to be blunt, whether it's Fox News or the NYT, fuck them, we should not be reporting things about living persons just because their reputation suffers otherwise. I mean NYT is reputable enough that I would be fine with using them as a source on the lawsuit being dismissed. If even they don't think it was enough to report, then we shouldn't either. One factor why sources may have failed to report this dismissal, beyond the fact it seems a fairly run-of-the mill random lawsuit that happens all the time that just so happened to get attention, is that it doesn't sound like the lawsuit is definitely over. The primary source seems to suggest it could be refiled with the error corrected. The possibility the particular error could be corrected isn't for us as editors to judge. In other words, the lawsuit may have been dismissed, but it's not clear yet whether it's over. Nil Einne ( talk) 08:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd appreciate some experienced WP:BLP editors taking a look at Patrick Fabian. The issue is – Should what is basically an "internet meme" get coverage at a BLP article? And, if so, how much?... Fabian has been at the center of a recent internet meme, which has garnered some WP:DE from some IP editors, and a more thoughtful (though IMO WP:UNDUE) recent edit. Thanks. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 12:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Rebekah Jones (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• This page is heavily biased and needs to edited for neutrality and locked.
• It appears to be defamatory/libel.
• This person is currently running for office and this page will influence an election.

Edit to say: A version of the page as of 9/14/22 was made more neutral but it still needs additional protection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.235.73.237 ( talk) 20:59, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

There's some rather heated discussion over how (and possibly whether) to cover a specific incident in Wilson's life at Talk:E. O. Wilson/Archive 1#Ice water incident. Accusations of bad faith have now escalated to a bit of edit warring over a POV template in article space. More eyes would be helpful. Generalrelative ( talk) 15:06, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Do we actually have any contemporary sources documenting the incident, or is this all just sourced from Wilson's anecdote? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 15:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Good question. So far the sources that have been presented are 1) Wilson's autobiography, 2) a 2008 NOVA documentary, and 3) several obituaries from December 2021 which mention the incident in passing. Per the disputed edit, the incident occurred in 1978. A simple Google search for "E. O. Wilson ice-water" and "E. O. Wilson International Committee Against Racism" with date range limited to 1978–1979 yielded no relevant matches –– though of course much that was published at the time has not been converted into internet-searchable documents, so this is far from proof that such coverage didn't exist. But it does appear to be hard to find. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

As another party who is involved in this dispute, I will simply state that I would like to see more eyes on this article as well. I was thinking of launching an RfC to that effect so that actual consensus building can take place. As to sources, if what you mean by "contemporary" being from the time it occurred, there's a Boston Globe story from February of 1978 here: Cooke, Robert (1978-02-16). "Protesters douse Harvard speaker". The Boston Globe. p. 14.. The incident was subsequently mentioned in many retrospectives during EO Wilson and in many obits after his death. Also, the sources so far mentioned are reliable ones. The incident is notable and merits inclusion, and I see no reason why the topic can't be discussed in an NPOV manner. But I'm awaiting consensus before doing the work of writing acceptable text on this incident, and perhaps the larger controversy around Stephen Jay Gould, Richard Lewontin, and Science for the People that surrounded it. Peter G Werner ( talk) 16:24, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh awesome. Thank you for providing that source. Though it doesn't substantiate much of the later details (no ice in the water, no identification of perpetrators), it does show that the event was considered notable at the time. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:42, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Jerry Coyne and others he references suggest that what actually occured was that a cup of water was thrown at him, and the idea that he was soaked by a pitcher of ice water is a later embellishment: ...it seem untrue that a pitcher of ice water was dumped on Wilson’s head at that meeting. That’s a biological urban legend that has been repeated many times. But it’s apparently wrong. The New Atlantis reports the truth: it was a cup of water, and was not dumped on his head:

[New Atlantis] Most memorably, protesters rushed the stage at a February 1978 meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science just as Wilson was about to begin a talk. They chanted “racist Wilson you can’t hide, we charge you with genocide” and threw a cup of water at him (later embellished in legend into a full pitcher of ice water).

[Coyne, continuing] The cup-of-water version is the way I’ve heard it from those who were there, and David Hull concurs (though not Ulrike Segerstrale). Wilson could have clarified this, but I guess Tyson didn’t ask him.

Quote from David Hull on the incident (from the above link):

I must also mention the most famous incident of all. In 1978, at a meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, both Segerstråle and I attended a session on sociobiology at which Wilson was to present a paper. As he began his presentation, a dozen or so members of the International Committee Against Racism marched up onto the stage, chanting: "Racist Wilson you can't hide, we charge you with genocide!" A woman then poured water over Wilson's head. How much water is a matter of conjecture. Usually we are told it was a pitcher of water. Segerstråle remembers a jug. I am sure that it was a small paper cup. One bit of evidence that supports my memory of the incident is that Wilson was able to mop up the water with a single handkerchief. Such are the problems of eye-witness reports.

The Boston Globe Story Peter G. Werner linked merely states that he was doused with water without elaboration. I think given the obvious uncertainty, any reference to the vessel or the fact that it was supposedly "ice water" should be removed. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 16:38, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Hemiauchenia, thanks for doing this additional digging. I hadn't been aware that the story's embellishments had been actively debunked. The main concerns expressed on the article talk page are about encyclopedic tone, not necessarily about whether a version of this incident cannot be added at all. I agree with your overall assessment that the passage should be rewritten to hew more closely to the established facts. I would then consider supporting its reintroduction. Generalrelative ( talk) 16:47, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The source for "picher of ice water" is Wilson's autobigraphy, which is a reliable source. I've gone into more detail on this on the Talk page for the article. While I don't think that detail is worth a whole lot of strife over including, I do want to state that I do not agree that Wilson's self-reporting constitutes an "untrue embellishment." Peter G Werner ( talk) 17:58, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Does BDP still apply here, especially over a 40+ year old incident? Morbidthoughts ( talk) 03:10, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a concerted off-wiki campaign going on to introduce BLP-violating content into the Bald and Bankrupt article. The content involves a single rape trial from 20+ years ago in which the subject was found not guilty. An RfC was held [29] with the result being the content the campaigners wish to add shouldn't be included. The content runs afoul of WP:BLPCRIME and WP:UNDUE. OrgoneBox ( talk) 13:40, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

It would have been better to have got that RFC properly closed by someone uninvolved. But anyway, so far, it looks like everything is under control. Article is semi-protected. As long as people make well-sourced arguments on the talk page, it is best to explain to them how Wikipedia works and encourage them to proceed the right way, even if they have got to it through some off-wiki canvassing efforts. If you are able to identify editors who are leading the campaign, you should warn them against it, and if you need to seek admin intervention, it is best to use email when your case involves off-wiki evidence. Regards! Usedtobecool  ☎️ 15:32, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Hi: The page about Romesh Wadhwani is extremely outdated. Can someone please update it? I work at one of Romesh's companies so cannot do it directly but I am sharing a few notes:

Romesh is the chairman and founder of three companies not listed: SAIGroup https://saigroup.ai/ SymphonyAI https://www.symphonyai.com/ ConcertAI https://www.concertai.com/

He founded STG but does not have an active role at the company today (2022). He left in 2017 to found SymphonyAI.

Romesh was awarded a Padma Shri honor by the government of India in 2020. This is not listed https://www.cgisf.gov.in/event_detail/?eventid=180#:~:text=Romesh%20Wadhwani%20was%20awarded%20Padma,through%20large%20scale%20job%20creation.

Here is his listing in Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/profile/romesh-t-wadhwani/?sh=6a07162c6ada

Some recent external coverage of Romesh, so you don't have to rely on press releases etc.

Forbes: https://www.forbes.com/sites/amyfeldman/2022/01/11/tech-billionaire-romesh-wadhwani-replaces-himself-as-ceo-as-he-considers-taking-symphonyai-public/?sh=2fc52e886d9d

Forbes: https://www.forbesindia.com/article/2022-billionaires/romesh-wadhwani-building-up-and-giving-away/75819/1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Easchroeder ( talk • contribs) 19:45, 10 August 2022 (UTC)

I'm being told that this is preferable. Both The Times and PinkNews quote a BLP as talking about "sex", but PinkNews, an undeniably biased source, also says it is about questioning people's "gender identity". An IP, and later myself, believe that the quote is preferable, but two editors think the PinkNews version is to be preferred in Wikivoice. Both sides have pointed to WP:BLPRESTORE, but a quote seems much safer on BLP grounds, and that the claim supported by PinkNews alone seems pooly sourced compared to the quote that both sources contain. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:48, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you think you could refrain from leaving obviously biased notifications of issues when you are upset? No?

First of all, you do not have "more sources" supporting one thing than another; you have one source offering a longer account and one offering a briefer account.

Second, you are arguing that PinkNews is a biased source without acknowledging the fact, well estaished in RS, that The Times is in pursuit of a clear agenda on transgender issues and is also a biased source.

Finally, for some reason you fail to mention that the version you are edit-warring against is the stable version, and that your CRYBLP rationale has been questioned by three other editors. Perhaps you could collaborate with other editors on a more neutral framing of issues, eh what? Newimpartial ( talk) 23:53, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason why, aside from a brief request by me on your talk page to self-revert, the first discussion on this is happening at BLPN and not at the article talk page? Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:01, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I know from experience that the article talk page discussion will just be the same 3 of us arguing in circles.

This isn't a notification, but a discussion. Lots of them on this page are like that, and hence are not neutral at all.

The Times has an agenda by simply quoting someone? Even if they did have biased commentary of their own - I haven't checked - a quote is the most neutral option.

Only two editors as of this moment have been on the opposing side from me on this dispute, not three. You and Sideswipe9th. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:08, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The Times and The Sunday Times have a well documented anti-trans bias in their reporting ( The Guardian May 2019, Mermaids November 2019, CNN, October 2021, Feminist Media Studies journal June 2022), with criticism for it covering at least the last 3 years. According to the authors of the paper in Feminist Media Studies, The Times and The Telegraph both mobilise this discourse by backgrounding the voices of trans people and instead foregrounding the voices of transphobic so-called “feminists”, denaturalising transgender womanhood, and positioning trans agency as a threat to the rights of cisgender women and the public as a whole. While this is ultimately a discussion for RSN with regards to transphobia in the British press affecting their objectivity and reliability, I would be very hesitant to claim that this quote is the most neutral option. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

The Guardian reports on a controversy but doesn't seem to call them anything in their own voice. Mermaids is an activist group; "they would say that, wouldn't they?" CNN is an "analysis" (a.k.a. opinion) piece.

But all this is beside the point really - if The Times described it as "women's rights" or some other obviously gender-critical biased framing, I would be against that in favor of a quote. The quote is the safest option. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:07, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

That's an interesting nitpicking of the sources independently, instead of assessing them as a whole. And while you could have a point about the Mermaids research piece were it published in isolation, when taken as part of the whole it seems far less a case of something Miss Rice-Davies would say.

Also, CNN's analysis section is not an opinion piece. CNN clearly categorises their opinion articles as such ( random example). You've also left the peer reviewed journal piece unaddressed. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 01:19, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Both versions are imperfect. Quoting The Times summarizing Falkner: "Someone can believe that people who self identify as a different sex are not the different sex that they self identify," she said. "A lot of people would find this an entirely reasonable belief." Note, Falkner did not say she finds this an "entirely reasonable" belief, only that "A lot of people would.." yet both versions present this as Falkner herself finding the belief reasonable. Compare and contrast: "Someone can believe in ghosts. A lot of people would find this an entirely reasonable belief." Both probably true statements. But it doesn't follow that I believe in ghosts.

Quotations can be used selectively and here the quotation has additionally been deceptively ellided. The Times summarizes this as [Falkner] said it was “entirely reasonable” for people to challenge the biological status of women who were born as men. but the quotation they provide only has Falkner saying “A lot of people would find this an entirely reasonable belief." Not the same thing. PinkNews has an agenda but so does The Times. If you want to argue for a quotation then it should be the full quotation. If you want to argue for a summary of the interview then I would suggest the BBC source, also used in the same section which has: The letter followed a Times interview in May in which Lady Falkner, who was appointed head of the EHRC in December, said that women must have the right to question transgender identity without being abused, stigmatised or risking losing their job. Or we could include both the full quotation and the BBC summary, which I would favour. CIreland ( talk) 01:09, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

BBC summary works for me. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:10, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

A source that cuts a quote in a way that misrepresents what was actually said should be considered unreliable for the information in question. It looks like the BBC is the best source. Springee ( talk) 02:23, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I have used the wording present in the summary featured by the BBC, per these comments. Broadly speaking, of course we shouldn't repeat novel interpretations of quotes from biased sources in Wikipedia's own voice; a direct quote would be preferable to that, but we seem to have a usable neutral summary in this case. Endwise ( talk) 03:29, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Em, I've checked the sources used in this edit. The BBC source does not mention Forstater in any way. While The Times source does mention Forstater, it does not in any way support the text the new EHRC chair, mentioned Forstater in her first interview after taking office, citing her as someone "abused". As such, this edit has resulted in unverifiable text into a BLP, and so cannot remain. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:07, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

The PinkNews source somewhat supports the claim of Forstater being abused, though it does not do so in a way that makes it a quotation attributable to Falkner. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:21, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with you CIreland. The full quote is self-evidently an unbiased representation of Falkner's words, and the BBC summary is the only accurate framing out of the three. Clicriffhard ( talk) 03:36, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely agree, the BBC version is the one to cite. JezGrove ( talk) 10:26, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

I refuse to believe that BLPN is recommending that we base our language in a BLP article on a source that doesn't mention the subject of the article at all. JezGrove, Clicriffhard, Endwise, Springee, Crossroads and CIreland, is this really what you propose to do? If so, why? Newimpartial ( talk) 23:56, 14 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah...BBC is not an option here as a sole source, it doesn't mention the connection to Forstater. Imo, we can use the quote from the BBC article but provide context in the previous sentence about the connection to Forstater with the Times article and PinkNews as sources. We're not limited to one source here. Vermont ( 🐿️— 🏳️‍🌈) 01:04, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

You make a compelling point. I was concerned that we were misrepresenting Baroness Falkner's views and unjustifiably portraying her as more sympathetic to "gender critical" viewpoints than the sources suggest. I completely missed that the BBC source, whilst discussing a interview in which Forstater's name was referenced, did not actually focus on that reference but only on the thrust of the interview as a whole. Therefore it needs to be used much more carefully than I initially suggested to avoid straying into novel synthesis. I would also add to that that whilst I would usually consider the BBC the gold standard of news/journalistic sources, they have also been criticized in the recent past by a broad spectrum of organizations and individuals for being too accommodating of reactionary views on trans issues. That should lead us to insist on multiple high quality sources in this subject area but I suspect we would struggle to a achieve that. CIreland ( talk) 20:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial should not have restored PinkNews' false framing of the matter, which as you pointed out above ignored that she spoke of it as something "a lot of people" would consider a reasonable belief, not calling it that herself. That version was clearly rejected above, but was reverted to anyway. I have rewritten it based on all three sources, relying more on quotes to stay on the safe side of BLP. I hope people will keep an eye out for more bad reverts. And there needs to be a more critical eye towards PinkNews as a sole source. This misrepresentation is just one example; they have an issue with their own bias towards people they dislike and seem to settle a lot of libel claims: PinkNews#Libel claims. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:31, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

More libel claims than The Times? I doubt it. And you haven't provided any defense for your inconsistency in preferring sourcing that doesn't mention the BLP subject... Newimpartial ( talk) 10:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I didn't know that the BBC didn't mention Forstater, but in any case, as Vermont said, we can use the quote and the Times and PinkNews sources all together. You still haven't provided any defense for your reverting to a version that was already proven here at the noticeboard to contain a false statement about a BLP simply because PinkNews said it that way. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:39, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Nobody has proven the PinkNews story to contain a false statement, about a BLP or otherwise. That is simply a thing you happen to believe. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:51, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

"Baroness Falkner of Margravine, chairwoman of the Equalities and Human Rights Commission, suggested it is “entirely reasonable” to question trans people’s gender identity" [30] is a false statement on two counts. One, she did not suggest it was reasonable but said "a lot of people" would consider it reasonable. And two, she did not say anything about "gender identity". Crossroads ^-talk- 22:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

The now closed related discussion at RSN does not seem to agree with you that it was a false statement. It's also demonstrably false to say that Falkner did not say anything about 'gender identity', as she said quite plainly Someone can believe that people who self identify as a different sex are not the different sex that they self identify in The Times piece. The narrowing of the definition of the words "woman" and "man" to mean "an adult human of the female/male sex" as part of excluding or denying the entire concept of gender identity is a rather common argument made by anti-trans campaigners within the UK and UK media. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 00:35, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah; this is (and has always been) an legitimate paraphrase with which you have POV disagreement, not a false statement. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:52, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I wouldn't suggest citing the BBC article alone, but given that the cited passage explicitly - and accurately - summarises Lady Falkner's quotes in her Times interview about Forstater and related cases/issues (also cited), I don't share your concerns about the BBC not mentioning Forstater by name. At the same time, I'm not wedded to the BBC's summary if you can source another that's accurate, but the summaries given by Pink News and The Times are both misleading and should be discounted for that reason. Clicriffhard ( talk) 12:43, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Article claims Emma Byrne is romantically involved with Vicky Losada, but the source for this is dubious. The source article presumes the nature of their relationship based on a single Twitter post by Vicky Losada about Emma Byrne, a post that fails to imply beyond all reasonable doubt that the two are in a relationship.

I have removed this for now. -- Malerooster ( talk) 04:16, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

• Torture and castration of a Ukrainian POW in Pryvillia (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could I solicit some opinions as to whether including the name of the alleged main perpetrator is appropriate here? The Insider is a reliable source, but this is just their investigation as, for these purposes, a primary source. -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 03:58, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I would think it should not be included. My concern is that this is a very serious crime and absent some sort of legal proof putting a name to the accused, especially since the person is, I presume, otherwise not notable, is a basic BLP issue. Consider if the crime turns out to be factually incorrectly represented, a hoax, or the wrong person is named. Springee ( talk) 04:20, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Horrible story which I hope is investigated thoroughly. I oppose including the suspect's name at least until there are formal criminal charges, if that happens. Cullen328 ( talk) 04:25, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Cullen. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^t@lk 04:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLPNAME#Privacy of names applies: "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event." It does not provide helpful information to name the suspect, since the person is otherwise not publicly known. Also, there is a problem with the wording in the article ("Bellingcat identified the soldiers involved.") We don't know at this point whether Bellingcat has correctly identified the suspects and can only report it as a claim. The only English language sources I could find that mention any names, such as the Daily Mail, are considered unreliable or deprecated. So naming suspects is undue weight. TFD ( talk) 12:06, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The biographical entry for Herschel Walker is being edited to include quotations on political positions which detract from the editorial neutrality of the entry. Based on Wikipedia's guidance for [ and neutrality|Quotations and Neutrality], these quotations inject the entry with clear political bias. The quotations are identified by the editor or editors as "gaffes" in the introduction to the Political Positions section, and the secondary source references support this categorization. It is not neutral to include gaffe quotes under this section, particularly since most of the quotes do not actually present a clear policy position for Herschel Walker, but are merely confusing statements that are being paraphrased by the editor. The purpose appears to be embarrassment and to present Walker in a negative light. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Glenstorm85 ( talk • contribs)

This isn't a BLP issue as Mr. Walker said these things. This should be discussed on the article talk page. 331dot ( talk) 15:32, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

I added much of that content, which consists of verified direct quotations instead of paraphrasing. Cullen328 ( talk) 18:54, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Quotations, even if verifiable, if misused can violate WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:NPOV ( WP:PROPORTION, WP:IMPARTIAL), e.g. by over-emphasizing negative or controversial material. "But it's true" by itself is often insufficient for inclusion, per WP:ONUS, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, etc. Wikipedia articles on politicians tend to be dumpster fires. Less kindling, less gasoline, and less quotes are probably better choices for any article. --Animalparty! ( talk) 00:19, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

The numerous, numerous reliable sources that have covered Mr. Walker's more bizarre and outlandish claims put to rest any boilerplate reactions of NPOV, Impartialness, etc... Zaathras ( talk) 01:28, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree. Context always needs to be considered in terms of NPOV and the recent political NOTNEWS churnalism about his candidacy should not overwhelm his biography when he is still mostly known for his football career with extensive print coverage. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 17:21, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think "overwhelm his biography" is a stretch, but I do support a trim of his positions, and more summary than explicit quotation. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 17:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

The content about his illustrious football career is appropriately far greater than the content about politics. I fail to see how direct quotations from the subject can create bias, and it would be exceptionally difficult to convey the spirit and tone of his recent remarks to the reader by paraphrasing these quotes. Cullen328 ( talk) 17:48, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Politicians say a lot of shit, and I don't believe there should be that much space devoted to the "political position" of current candidates with no voting records especially if they were inordinately famous before they were candidates. I see this issue at the Mehmet Oz article also. Just because today's journalism covers everything now due to the almost limitless resources of the Internet compared to yesteryears does not mean we should too in terms of balance. *edit conflict* Cullen, I am also concerned about selective quoting in addition to weight. I see too much of this in BLPs when this should be the role of a secondary source rather than a succinct summary befitting of a tertiary medium like wikipedia. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 17:53, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

@ Morbidthoughts, you are edit warring and removing sourced content on a WP:RGW crusade and citing this discussion as a reason. I don't see a consensus here that his gaffes are undue. Andre 🚐 18:59, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You should revert yourself under WP:BLPN because "the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies." There is no clear consensus for these quotes based on this discussion and the article talk page. Just because content is sourced does not mean it's fit for inclusion per WP:ONUS. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 19:06, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

These don't appear to be substantive BLP objections. Herschel Walker is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE and we report what the sources say. The sources have reported extensively on his statements. The material well-sourced and there's a consensus to include the material. The removals are improper. The page is now protected. Andre 🚐 19:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't see the consensus when multiple editors have objected over NPOV vs multiple editors arguing it's V! Morbidthoughts ( talk) 19:27, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Who are the multiple editors (specifically, good faith editors)? I see you and someone who is an SPA who was blocked for edit warring in said article, and neither of you are making a compelling or coherent argument on the talk page, just repeating yourselves ad nauseam PICKLEDICAE🥒 19:29, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Animalparty!, Firefangledfeather (who favoured reduction and summary), @ Iamreallygoodatcheckers: on the article talk page. Along with the original complainant whose opinion is no less legitimate, we all have concerns about NPOV. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 19:37, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

None of those editors endorsed this massive removal of sourced content [31] or even to remove the gaffes. 2 or 3 editors suggested moving the section and reducing the weight, and referring to the section as gaffes rather than positions. By contrast at least 6 editors have supported retaining the section and it is the status quo ante before your major removals, which go beyond even the subject being discussed. Andre 🚐 20:43, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I think the NPOV problem of total removal is worse than the NPOV problem of the status quo ante version, and I'd favor restoration while we work on condensing. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 20:49, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Andre, I'm still confused on whether those position quotes are meant to be examples of gaffes since they follow the initial gaffe statement. To be clear, I don't mind the gaffe summary. Just not sure if the summary should even be in that section or is more appropriate in the campaign section. My position is to remove any picking and choosing of quotes. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 20:52, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You'd like all quotes removed from the policy section, or specific ones? The quotes included are what reflect his political beliefs on the subjects and paraphrasing them may lead to users contesting the paraphrased paragraphs. As others have mentioned you're welcome to elaborate and expand further on those beliefs with reliable sources. Hey man im josh ( talk) 21:10, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, Morbidthoughts, while I am sympathetic to some degree, some of these quotes really did garner reliable source coverage as quotes. Given that, I would probably lose the abortion-related quotes in favor of a brief summary, but it strikes me that we kind of need the "bad air" and "young men looking at women" quotes. As ever, reasonable minds may differ, and happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 21:13, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, what josh and Dumzid said and everyone else. Morbidthoughts, you've been around for a while and you have a bunch of edits, so I assume you know that these are topics to be discussed on the article talk page, not the BLP noticeboard. If you want to address some good faith workshopping of the section I suggest you close this thread and we can talk about the exact phrasing of the quotes or what section they should be in. Instead you've removed about 4kb of material all of which has sources and some of which is directly from the candidate's mouth, despite probably a clear consensus to keep it, and at least an active discussion that wasn't tending toward removing it, and you requested page protection WP:WRONGVERSIONed User:Deepfriedokra [32]. You seem to be SOAPBOXing this and I suggest for a start, you close this thread. Andre 🚐 21:15, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I did not engage in any picking and choosing. When I wrote the content, I did a thorough search in reliable secondary sources for coverage of his stances on political issues, and neutrally summarized what I found. As I have said several times, if someone can find reliable independent sources talking about his views on issues that is free of perceived gaffes, then certainly that should be summarized and included. Cullen328 ( talk) 21:20, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Cullen, you didn't make this edit, but it shows the problem of picking and choosing quotes that may not be notable. [33] It synthesises two quotes and comes out weird without proper context. In the NY Times article, the second quote follows and is in support of why "he called for more money to promote adoption and to support single fathers and single mothers" but that context is missing from the section. I would even argue that the omitted context is more important than the picked quote. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 00:01, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@ Andrevan: If the version I protected is status quo ante, could you please note this at the RfPP thread? -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 21:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I mean, I thought it was, -- Deepfriedokra ( talk) 21:22, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is, I think the RFPP thread already archived. But yes, it absolutely was. Andre 🚐 21:24, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Cullen, the issue that I read the section is if you preface the section describing he frequently makes gaffes, then you provide quotes that only serves to reiterate whatever issues that have been already summarized in the previous sentence; are they supposed to be gaffes? Why are those specific quotes important enough to focus on? Based on Dumuzid's examples, I understand Walker's comments about the futility of the act due to the shared global air space while the suggestion of a department of investigating "young men looking at women that's looking at social media" is completely bizarre. But as Andre suggested, individual edits may be hammered out in article talk page discussion. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 21:25, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

I encourage you to read all the cited sources and search for coverage of the matter in other reliable, independent sources to see whether you can find coverage that provides a different or more nuanced view of things. I did my best to neutrally summarize the sources that I could find. Cullen328 ( talk) 21:51, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Do you have any opinion on whether the gaffe intro sentences should be moved to the campaign section? Morbidthoughts ( talk) 21:54, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

Reading through what is being argued about, thre is almost no reason to include the quotes when in nearly all instances the Wikitext summarizes it. Eg in the second on abortion, the summary text is doing the job that the quotes and awkward and unnecessary. He's not being obtuse or overly descriptive in the given quotes that make our summary a problem. The only one that might be required is the one about the IRA bill, because there I don't know how you'd summarize that logic about trees. Masem ( t) 23:16, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

You don't summarise that, but Cullen omitted [34] some context from the source [35], "It’s possible Walker might have been referring to a provision in the law that allocates $1.5 billion to the U.S. Forest Service’s Urban and Community Forestry Program." Without that context, of course the quote would seem nuts. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 02:14, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I have inserted that context into the article for BLPBALANCE. [36] Morbidthoughts ( talk) 23:58, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I've already participated in the talk discussions at the article. I think (1) The of direct quotes in the article are gaffes, and described as such in all RS. Hence, presenting them as policies is a NPOV and BLP violation. Furthermore, the quotes do not reveal policy stances of Walker and his campaign, and we should just paraphrase his views as RS has done. (2) Walker's gaffes definitely need to be mentioned in the article in some capacity since they are widely covered in RS. A well written paragraph should discuss his gaffes and be introduced into the campaign section. (3) I don't really like the policy section. It's looks bad. I think his policies just need to be summed up in a paragraph or two rather than a million subsections.(4) I'm not trying to make any accusations of bad faith, but it's a little concerning that the only BLP I know of that presents gaffes as policies to make the candidate look dumb is the BLP of a black man. Cheers, Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^t@lk 23:36, 8 September 2022 (UTC)

There are six subsections and six is not a million. Hyperbole can be effective in rare contexts but not when debating the content of an encyclopedia article, where accuracy is important. The biography of his opponent Raphael Warnock has eight subsections on political positions. Are you saying that is too many for Warnock? I added the introductory gaffe language in response to concerns from another editor that the quotations taken in isolation lacked context, and that the context is that Walker is prone to gaffes. I deeply disagree that my purpose is "to make the candidate look dumb" and that is because he is "a black man". That is false. Simply bring forth coverage in independent, reliable sources that portray Walker as articulate, insightful and thoughtful on policy matters, and we can incorporate that into the article immediately. Cullen328 ( talk) 00:48, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Warnocks political positions section isn't great for the same reason, but at least it's more developed. Walker is not an articulate speaker, and I'm not saying he is. I'm merely saying the comments are gaffes and thats it. I don't think the introductory paragraph you added is justification for presenting the quotes inappropriately. I didn't say the purpose is to make them look dumb, but that's obviously the effect. We don't treat other politicians who are gaffe prone in this way, and I don't understand why Walker appears to be an exception. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^t@lk 01:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think there should be no limit or recommended number of subsections. It just so happens that most of Herschel Walker's coverage is about some of his statements, which explain his views in a pretty kludgy way. It's pretty shocking to see that you think it's concerning that Herschel Walker's article quotes him in a way that makes him look bad, and that to you is a racial concern. Nevermind that Warnock and Walker are both from the same background. How about Joe Biden's article? In late April 2009, Biden's off-message response to a question during the beginning of the swine flu outbreak, that he would advise family members against traveling on airplanes or subways, led to a swift retraction by the White House. The remark revived Biden's reputation for gaffes. Confronted with rising unemployment through July 2009, Biden acknowledged that the administration had "misread how bad the economy was" but maintained confidence the stimulus package would create many more jobs once the pace of expenditures picked up. On March 23, 2010, a microphone picked up Biden telling the president that his signing the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act was "a big fucking deal" during live national news telecasts. Seems like we feel fine quoting him and making him look a little dumb sometimes when he mis-speaks. And I know you've edited this article too, but you didn't seem to have an issue. Maybe it's not the race. Andre 🚐 01:32, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Iamreallygoodatcheckers, please name two or three other notable politicians who are as gaffe-prone when discussing policy as Walker, and let's compare the coverage of their gaffes. Failing to accurately and thoroughly cover his policy comments would be the real NPOV violation. The article has much more detail about each individual one of his seasons of college football before his NFL career than it does about his political positions as a candidate for one of 100 seats in the US Senate. I have heard of recentism, but this looks like anti-recentism, which is totally new to me. I do not think that it is proper to deny our readers accurate, well-referenced, neutrally written information about what Walker has actually said about the issues. Cullen328 ( talk) 01:59, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Most politicians have made gaffes of some sort. Just to name a few Trump, Biden, Pelosi, and Bush Jr. These are all treated differently than Walker Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^t@lk 02:10, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Certainly, coverage of Trump's policy pronouncements combined the gaffe element with commentary about the substance of his policy positions. But what he said about his various policy innovations received intense coverage from countless reliable sources and discussion of all of that is included in many Trump related articles. Yes, Biden, has a history of stuttering, occasionally stumbles and sounds strange for a few seconds. But if you listen to Biden discussing Policy A ten times, he may stumble once but be coherent and consistent the other nine times. Pretty much the same is true of George W. Bush. He spoke awkward many times, but if you listened to him speak over and over again on any specific issue, it was pretty clear where he stood. As for Pelosi, her gaffes are trivial in the context of a nearly 40 year career in Congress. You could read thousands of articles over the decades discussing how Pelosi talks about policy, and only a miniscule percentage of those sources would refer to gaffes or misstatements. She is highly competent and well Walker is . . . come to your own conclusions based on his record and what he says. Our readers deserve that information. Cullen328 ( talk) 03:22, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Bushism is an entire article about gaffes by GWB. Andre 🚐 03:23, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Andrevan, so with Biden's article we mention his gaffes in an appropriate manner. We contextualize it, and call a gaffe a gaffe. You quoted it, The remark revived Biden's reputation for gaffes. We don't mention every fumble he's made in political positions section of his article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^t@lk 02:07, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The Herschel Walker article does the same thing. And those Biden "gaffes" from 2009 and 2010 are minor as hell. It's hard to do Walker justice because he's really one of the most word salad politicians, probably from his struggles with disability and mental illness. Andre 🚐 02:09, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you should strike the comment speculating that a BLP has a brain disorder without evidence. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^t@lk 02:13, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

[37] [38] [39] [40] [41] Andre 🚐 02:14, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

[42] He wrote a whole book about it. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 02:16, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Speculating that his mental health is "probably" linked to his "word salad" is a BLP violation and OR. His mental health is also just irrelevant to this discussion and shouldn't have been brought up. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^t@lk 02:21, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The source that ScottishFinnishRadish just posted makes the same connection that I just made. It refers to, ormer football players suffering from Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, a brain illness caused by repeated hits, which the NFL acknowledges afflicts up to a third of its former players. Regardless, it could only be OR and BLPvio if I put it in the article, which I didn't. I simply pointed it out. The article as written just quotes him and lets the reader just try to figure out what he meant or what he was talking about. Andre 🚐 02:24, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Do any RS tie Walker to CTE because dissociative personality disorder wouldn't normally explain the word salad issue or gaffes. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 02:29, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Read just one sentence into the source that I'm quoting from. To be clear, I am not saying that Walker has CTE. There’s no way, at present, to determine that. But it’s difficult to watch Walker in his few public appearances and escape the conclusion that he is suffering from some form of cognitive decline. Consider this brief and indecipherable statement, posted on Twitter: "Build back better. You probably want something written, like law of the land, stating all men are to be treated equal. Oh! We have the Constitution. So you probably want to put people in charge whose gonna fight for the Constitution. Just thinking. God bless you." Or the way a recent friendly interview on Fox New gradually descends into incoherence. Or his August 2020 appearance on another right-wing platform, which devolves into a completely insane endorsement of an anti-COVID product that does not exist. Simply put: Walker does not appear able to speak, or think, beyond a set of memorized talking points. Andre 🚐 02:31, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

Even though I probably agree with that opinion given my observations of Walker since his playing days, it's still opinion (at most RSOPINION). This discussion reminds me of the Jameela Jamil conflict where the dispute was over laundry listing all the inane things that the actress said about her health with concern that it was implying she had Munchausen [43] Morbidthoughts ( talk) 02:51, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

We didn't add this to the article though. My point was that it's difficult to paraphrase some of his more incoherent comments. Andre 🚐 02:54, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm in the same boat as Firefangledfeathers. It should really be summarized, rather than quoting, but until that summary is done I don't see it as a huge problem to keep the quotes in place. It's not great, but it's not blpvio. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 02:19, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

So in reading the discussion is there consensus to remove the more mundane non-gaffe quotes that are already summarised in the article (usually preceding like the examples Masem gave)? If there is consensus to keep the gaffes in quotes because there is no way to paraphrase them, so be it. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 02:38, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think so, no. Andre 🚐 02:44, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I really think a lot of neutrality problems can be rendered moot by considering the gaffes he has made wholly separate from his political statements - or at least should be deemphasized over his positions. As I said above, most of his positions can be summarized without his quotes, gaffes or not. Then a separate section to highlight a few of his gaffes that have been noted by secondary sources would be fair. The problem is that by including his gaffes intermingled among his positions, it is very much a mocking tone in Wikivoice and should not be written that way. Masem ( t) 04:33, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I truly fail to see how accurately and neutrally incorporating direct quotations from a Senate candidate without any type of cherrypicking can possibly constitute a "mocking tone". If the candidate's own freely chosen words create that sort of tone, then surely that is the responsibility of the candidate, not the responsibility of Wikipedia editors who neutrally quote and summarize what reliable sources say about his words. I would also like to point out that nobody has contested the accuracy or the neutrality. Nobody has been able to say that any quote was inaccurate, or that on such and such a date in such and such a location, Walker delivered a speech consisting of coherent policy points A, B, C and D, and that content was deliberately excluded from the article. Where are such sources? I certainly hope that no editors are trying to use Wikipedia to protect Walker from the reasonable conclusions that readers may draw from what he has repeatedly said, and what he stands for in his own words. Cullen328 ( talk) 06:50, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

The section on his politic views starts with the assertion he makes many gaffes. And then proceeds (with the added material) to include many statements that are gaffes. Even if that's not intentially mocking, it comes out like that, as it prepares the reader to look at his quotes in a humorous or demeaning light.

It is not that we can't include the gaffes, but they should be separate from outlining his positions. His positions can be articulated without neither his coherent quotes nor his gaffes. But certainly him making gaffes should be a section and giving a few examples (like the IRA/tree quote), but that needs to be separate from political positions. Masem ( t) 13:46, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with Cullen328. Regardless of whether you want to tweak or change the article to improve it, it's not a BLP issue and this noticeboard thread continues to lack a rationale for a BLP issue. It is not an NPOV or a BLP violation to factually state that the individual in question has made many gaffes and then go on to quote him directly. The same thing happens on the Joe Biden article. As to exact question of how the gaffes should be treated in terms of sections or whether some quotes should be summarized, that should be discussed on the article talk page and this thread closed. Andre 🚐 14:11, 9 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with Masem's and Iamreallygoodatcheckers's take on this. If a specific gaffe quote doesn't actually establish a political position because it's completely word salad, they should be separated from that specific section and just listed as an example of his many gaffes somewhere else. If it turns out that he can't formulate a coherent response on a position or subject, perhaps he's just winging it and a specific position doesn't exist for that topic without non-gaffe evidence. There is a general consensus that his gaffes should be included in the article rather than wiped out, but multiple editors have argued for reduction of quotes (gaffe or non-gaffe) to maintain balance which is a BLP issue, and there is no consensus to keep everything as it is right now. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 18:39, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I have a serious problem with trying to dismiss this as a BLP issue. It's not neutrally organized which is a requirement of any BLP article. The focus on the gaffes in the midst of the political positions is basically treating the positions as laughable, which is not an impartial stance. Editors have to put themselves in the shoes of the BLP and ask themselves if they feel the writing is appropriate. Yes, a BLP would take offense at the gaffes, but that's something that can't be ignored, but then weakening their political statements by ready-inclusion of the gaffes is something that is being introduced by Wikipedia ediors, and must be fixed. Masem ( t) 18:53, 10 September 2022 (UTC)

It will get fixed...AFTER the election is over. This isn't the first time that editors have done this to BLPs based on their clear political biases, which is too bad. -- Malerooster ( talk) 00:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Come on. We're not dealing with a person here who had an occasional gaffe--this man's politics is mostly made up of gaffs, or so reliable sources say. We do not have any kind of equivalence with Joe Biden's or whoever's gaffes, and claiming there's an anti-COVID spray that the FDA approved but no one knows about it, calling it a "gaffe" is actually being kind. Here's just one of those rare BLPs where there's very little not-negative to say in the political section. Drmies ( talk) 00:12, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a difference between a gaffe (taken as used here, saying one thing when he implies another due to something like a brainfart or spur of the moment mistake), and an extreme or far-fetched political position that he otherwise stands behind. The latter is of course what has drawn some attention to him, but he has also made numerous gaffes that, at selected times, has made his message hard to figure out. But they are two very distinct concepts, and attempting to treat it as one is definitely against BLP/NPOV. Masem ( t) 01:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Drmies. "Gaffe" is actually far too charitable a description of his many statements, though RS have called them this. I don't really care if we call them "gaffes," "statements," "positions," or whatever else. He said those things, and reliable sources talked about that, so those things belong in the article, and there's no BLP violation. It's style quibbling. It just so happens that most of his statements were about his positions, or views, or whatever. BLP doesn't say you can't say anything negative or anything that makes someone look bad or look foolish. That's an extremely maximalist interpretation of BLP, which is mostly to protect people from vicious attacks like libels and that sort of thing. If you're a WP:PUBLICFIGURE and RS report you making public gaffes on your political views, that belongs in the article. Andre 🚐 01:57, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

BLP absolutely does say we are to protect BLP from being made to look more negative than what sources give, and this is a fundamental problem when we are a tertiary source... WP editors nearly always want to include the negative but not necessary balance out the positive, so we are making these articles too negative relative to what RSes actually say. Yes, the RSes talk about his gaffes, but they don't like group them all together to make it a laundry list of every gaffe, which absolutely makes him look worse than the RSes say. So we have a responsibility to be far more careful with how we present material here. Masem ( t) 02:27, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The benchmark is that the article should express exactly the proportion of negative to positive information as reliable, published sources do, in proportion to the extent that prominent and reliable sources express said negative or positive information. So a BLP about a public figure with a lot of controversial statements is going to have a more controversial biography given the reflection of said statements in reliable sources. The idea that we need to zero out the negative-positive value to 50-50 is not correct, in my view, NPOV doesn't say we need to both-sides reality, NPOV says we need to be neutral in hewing very closely to the weight of reliable sources. If reliable sources say it and it meets standards for meaningful, relevant, encyclopedic material, we get to say it. Especially if it's a quote and not even a Wikivoice description of anything controversial: it's literally just letting the BLP speak for himself. Nothing was an allegation, or an opinion, or a controversial claim. Andre 🚐 02:34, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

This isn't a DUE/false balance issues, its how the message is being put across, which is a tone and neutrality issue. I don't see sources readily trying to make him look like an idiot because of his gaffes, there's separate discussion of his gaffes from his political positions and that's what we should reflect too. Masem ( t) 03:17, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

If Walker gets elected (and he's leading in the polls), the gaffes will just pile on but at least the actual political positions would flesh out over 6 years. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 01:49, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The race is a statistical dead heat and a tossup. [44] The recent poll that showed a narrow lead for Walker was within the margin of error. Andre 🚐 02:00, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

This is not a BLP issue, not at all. The article accurately presents exactly what he says on the campaign trail. Points: 1) The weird things he says are in response to policy questions or issues. 2) These things have to be quoted exactly; there is no way to paraphrase them. 3) These are not “gaffes,” which would be things like a slip of the tongue; these comments are the best he can do at coming up with a coherent comment on a subject; and 4) his comments are usually so incomprehensible or so far off base that it is one of the most constant things about his campaign. In other words, our article is presenting the candidate exactly as he is, based on his own words and on widespread neutral reporting. If there are particular quotes that people want removed, for reasons which they will have to explain, that is matter for the article talk page, not here. -- MelanieN ( talk) 02:48, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Uh, we have actual sources that call them "gaffes", so that no, we cannot treat them as "coming up with a coherent comment on a subject". Taking that attitude onto a BLP is a BLP problem which is what is underlying this here. -- Masem ( t) 02:58, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

If we had other examples where he makes coherent or consistent comments on the same subject, then yes, the things we are talking about here would be gaffes or slips of the tongue or something. And if we did have such comments from him, we would certainly include those comments as his true position. But since these quotes are ALL we have from him on the subject, we have to report them as his positions. -- MelanieN ( talk) 03:06, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

Sure as long as the positions are reported in reliable sources, we should report them. But the need for quotes is highly questionable. Take the abortion quote. The source is from a NYTimes article which expresses his position against a near-total ban on abortions in its own plaintext, so the quote is unnecessary to include.

We definitely should have a section on his gaffes and that can only be demonstrated through a few quotes, certainly. But we should not be flooding the political position section with quotes just because they were also called out as gaffes, when we have RS articles that speak the position directly in a manner that requires no interpretation to summarize. Masem ( t) 03:16, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

The title of this page is wrong, her name is Sabrina Pretto, plus there is a photo attached to the page of an Alberto Pretto, who no longer exists.

Sabrina herself has highlighted this issue for me, that until I made some important chages last night, there were details that she had never given persmission to be disclosed about her. Sadly, I am unable to change the title of the articel and the photo that comes attached to this page. However, it is potentially libelous and certainly distressign for Sabrina. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamanthony ( talk • contribs) 09:33, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Looks like a case of WP:DEADNAME. I'll move the page. Although it seems that Pretto still uses the Alby name in certain contexts. Lard Almighty ( talk) 12:44, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I have moved the page but also restored the content removed by Jamanthony. Pretto was clearly notable under her previous name, and therefore the references used to support much of her early life use that name. Nothing we can do about that. Lard Almighty ( talk) 12:53, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for moving the page, Sabrina and I certainly appreciate that much. I and she later, will confirm that she never goes by the name Alby in any circumstance. As for the information I had previously deleted, I am saddened to hear it's been changed back, this was to protect Sabrina's privacy. Can I add that yes, in an earlier part of Sabrina's life she had a succesful ballet career, but we're NOT really talking about a public figure here, so can you please remove the connection between Sabrina Pretto and Alberto Pretto, it's distressing. Jamanthony ( talk) 15:50, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

The name Alby has has been removed from the article except for two references to the Albypretty line (although in this source she acknowledges that she was once known as Alby). So that is no longer an issue. Wikipedia contains articles about notable people. Whether Pretto is notable can be debated, but there is certainly plenty of coverage of her career as a dancer and fashion designer out there. Notable people do not have to be "celebrities"; they just need to have done notable things as recorded in reliable sources. This seems to be the case with Pretto, and she has given several interviews discussing various issues around her past and her transitioning, so I don't see any issue around privacy if Wikipedia is merely referring to things that Pretto herself has said. Lard Almighty ( talk) 16:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, we understand and thanks for your efforts to reach an understanding. We accept that yes, there were some articles that did discuss her transiton that indeed we now can't get away from now, horse has already bolted, so to speak. By the way, looks like Sabrina is unable to join wikipedia, I guess because she has a page, I imagine; anyway, speaking for her, the fact that it still says "born Alberto" is a problem, to put it in her words "it burns". I think that her feelings need to be respected here. We have decided however that if there's no way of getting around this, the best solution maybe to take the page down all together. Jamanthony ( talk) 16:20, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Having an article does not bar one from having a Wikipedia account; plenty of editors also have articles about them. So that is not the issue. Whether or not the article is removed would be a community decision based on Wikipedia policies. Unfortunately feelings don't come into it. Lard Almighty ( talk) 16:25, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, so it's probably Sabrina's IT skills letting her down. Fair enough, I'll report everything back to her, either way, it seems that we've got no way of fighting this, a communtiy decision? not even sure what that means and I imagine we can't do anything about that. I must admit that the way we feel is that there's a lot of people who seem to think they know her but then she knows herself and we don't think it's right that she has very little control over this. Thanks for the help anyway Jamanthony ( talk) 16:32, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

a community decision means that this project works by group consensus. Discussions are had on the article's talk page and then content is added or removed when there is a consensus to do so. Please read WP:CON. -- Malerooster ( talk) 17:46, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Please could uninvolved editors chime in at Talk:Prince Andrew, Duke of York#Child Sexual Abuse. Thanks. DeCausa ( talk) 20:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

A misplaced report at WP:AN brought my attention to Beatrice de Graaf, where editors have been edit-warring over what is either the inclusion of dubiously-sourced plagiarism allegations, the removal of undue promotionalism, or both. See article talk and history for more. — David Eppstein ( talk) 19:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

The Donald C. Bolduc article was mentioned in another context. I was previously unaware of this article but the lead looks like either a big NPOV or BLP violation. It opens by accusing a senate candidate of being "far-right", a term that doesn't appear in the article body. I think this is particularly concerning given our linked definition of far-right includes things like white supremacy. Springee ( talk) 13:06, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Wow. Check out the linguistic markedness. At present there are:

• 14 articles beginning with the phrase "... is an American far right politician".
• 2 articles beginning with "... is an American conservative politician"
• 2 articles beginning with "... is a conservative American politician"
• 1 article beginning with "... is an American right-wing politician"
• 1 article beginning with "...is a far-right American politician"
• 0 articles beginning with "... is an American far-left politician"
• 0 articles beginning with "... is an American liberal politician"
• 0 articles beginning with "... is a liberal American politician"
• 0 articles beginning with "... is an American left-wing politician"
• 1 article beginning with "... is an American progressive politician"

This risks pushing the concept of "left/liberal is normal, right/conservative is other". At least when it comes to party affiliation, labeling is more egalitarian:

• 223 articles beginning with "... is an American Republican politician"
• 209 articles beginning with "...is an American Democratic politician"

And, quite refreshingly, 11,272 BLPs begin with simply "...is an American politician". --Animalparty! ( talk) 07:43, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

The term far right is ambiguous and pejorative and therefore should only be used where its meaning is understood through context. For example, the following statement would be fine: "The demonstration was planned by the members of the Ku Klux Klan, American Nazi Party and other far right groups." We know from the context what is meant. There is no context however when we say that so-and-so is a far right politician.

This discussion arose partly because of a discussion about how to describe a politician who is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America. Fortunately, there is an unambiguous and non-pejorative term for their ideology: democratic socialist. They even use the term themselves. OTOH, there is no term to describe the ideology of the KKK.

TFD ( talk) 09:58, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

These findings are not unexpected. I take it you're unfamiliar with the vast literature on asymmetric polarization in the United States? Simply put, in the U.S., there are more far-right politicians (candidates, nominees, officials) than far-left ones. Neutrality ^talk 20:59, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

It's also possible with a media that largely leans in one direction they are more likely to use "far-right" to describe someone with whom they don't agree as "far" vs someone who is equally far but in a direction with which they are generally more sympathetic. I will say, I look at that and I'm encouraged that we are only looking at about 20 articles with such labeling. That doesn't negate the issue TFD raised regarding the ambiguous definition. It allows sources to use a Motte-and-bailey defense when people question such labels. Springee ( talk) 22:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Surely that's more due to the fact that American politics is skewed to the right anyway, compared to the global norm? There's practically no-one in mainstream American politics (i.e. high level elected politicians) that would be described as "far-left" in the rest of the world. Incidentally, I've just read those 14 articles described as "far-right" and, well, I don't see a problem with that epithet for any of them - some are blatantly obvious, and all are sourced. Black Kite (talk) 22:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure. First, I'm not sure the claim regarding US vs World is always legitimate vs just relative to status quo. But even if we include that, remember we are dealign with media in the US reporting on the US. Let's assume we have a 20pt scale from 10Left to 10Right. If the US average is 4Right, well then a person who is 5Left is 9 points from nominal while a "far-right" candidate can only be 6 points right of center at most. It would seem in such a case the 5L candidate is "far-left" in context. Perhaps they are arguing the tail from center is longer on the right. But is that true or is it just that people who are writing about this are more likely to be left. My web searching zen isn't working but I recall a study that said something to the effect that many of the issues ascribed to the right are also on the left but that researchers are simply more interested in studying "the other side". (I'm sure that is a poor summary of the actual study). I mean to a large extent this makes sense to me. Wikipedia has traditionally had a disproportionate number of articles on topics that people who happen to like to work on Wikipedia find interesting vs what perhaps an impartial, uninvolved scholar might recommend. This article might be describing the research but I think it was released sometime during Covid vs before [45]. Note: Even if true this can not be used to violate NOR. However, we can use it when deciding how to handle the information we have. Springee ( talk) 22:44, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

I concur with Neutrality's comments here. It's also fairly clear that there's more politicians who have received a lot of coverage that they would not have got if they were run-of-the-mill politicians, having got this coverage specifically because of their extreme far-right views (and thus have earned this label, much like the examples in the search) than those with extreme far-left views in similar positions. It makes sense to call those described as "far-right politicians" when they're getting that much coverage solely on the back of their extreme views. And indeed, as said later on in that chain, it's partially because American politics skews right. Also, of the far-right politicians listed, it includes members of far-right militia or politicians with ties to them (Mark Finchem, Janice McGeachin, Paul Gosar, Dorothy Moon), those who have echoed Q-Anon conspiracies (MTG, John Gibbs, Doug Mastriano), outright neoconfederates (Michael Peroutka), those who promoted eugenics (Russell Pearce), up as far as outright white supremacists (Steve King). As mentioned by Black Kite, I don't think it's unreasonable to call them far-right. If there were reliable sources detailing politicians of the left doing similar - being members of extremist militia, echoing far-left conspiracies - I'd say the same, but there evidently isn't. Ergo the reason we don't have "far-left politician" on American political articles is... well, because it would be WP:FALSEBALANCE. ser! ^{( chat to me - see my edits)} 19:52, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

So where in our definition of far-right, one that is linked to in the lead, does it mention objections to the way there 2020 elections were handled? If someone is "far-right" because they think Trump was cheated in 2020 why is that not in the definition of far-right? Conversely if that is what makes the person far-right then why wouldn't we say that instead of a label that could falsely tie them to white supremacy etc? Why the need to put this subjective, imprecise label in the opening sentence vs later in the lead where it can have some level of explanation? Springee ( talk) 20:26, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

If someone is "far-right" because they think Trump was cheated in 2020 why is that not in the definition of far-right? Nobody has said this? And I've already explained several times, both on the Bolduc talk page and now on here, why I feel this descriptor belongs in the opening sentence, as well as the political positions connected to it being in the body. ser! ^{( chat to me - see my edits)} 20:39, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I dislike the somewhat sneaky link to Radical right (United States) found in Bolduc's lead (as well as Dorothy Moon and some others), and it's concerning that many of the 14 "far-right" instances above fail to mention "far-right" outside of the first sentence (I note also that most are current or recent political candidates). Regardless of whether or not (some, many) reliable sources verifiably call someone far-right, at the very least it often resembles agenda pushing, cherry-picking, or just ugly markup here on Wikipedia when accompanied by a half-dozen footnotes and crammed into the first sentence, and would look silly in almost every other context: "Joe Schmo is an American Jewish^{[1][2][3][4][5]} politician". "Susie Lane is an American conservative^{[1][2][3][4][5][6]} dentist." Unfortunately, shoehorning in modifiers and footnotes has become virtually standard practice on Wikipedia, as if there's a race to put loaded terms between "is a" and "occupation" as early as possible. Sources can be found calling anybody a variety of things (liberal, conservative, centrist, accomplished, infamous, radical, controversial, etc.). It's entirely possible to summarize the political affiliations and extremity of one's views in a lead's second or third sentence, while striving to ensure articles begin in a somewhat uniform, straigthforward and unbiased manner. The intro to Amanda Chase for instance could read "Amanda Chase is an American politician who serves as a member of the Virginia Senate. Known as one of the most far-right members of the state senate, she...". I hardly think something like that is whitewashing. The same information is conveyed without the appearance of trying to mark or "other" a person from the start. --Animalparty! ( talk) 06:08, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I have never liked putting these loaded descriptors in the first sentence, and notice how 5 of the 14 people with the descriptor are running for office right now. We don't really even call actual far-right politicians far-right in their first sentence, see Adolf Hitler, Benito Mussolini, etc. But as soon as at least 3 or so greenlit newspapers at RSP call a miscellaneous Republican such it gets put right in the first sentence. Also, the only time their political ideology is mentioned, is if its far-right, never if it's merely conservative or liberal. It's better to just introduce that they've been described as this later on in the article with good context because ultimately they are serious claims. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^t@lk 14:55, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

That provides no rationale other than "it's better". We all know these labels, which are very broad and prone to various interpretations by RS and our readers, are problematic. How would you feel about something more specific for the lead, such as "election denier" "seditionist" "conspiracy theorist" or some of the other dominant descriptions in RS accounts of his candidacy?, e.g. here here etc. etc. etc.+ SPECIFICO talk 21:01, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Those terms are arguably just as broad and problematic as far-right. My opinion on descriptors has evolved overtime, and now I really don't see how packing in descriptors in the first sentence is an improvement to an article. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^t@lk 02:17, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

That's what sources say. And they don't say it just incidentally or in passing. They have articles about the nutballs the guy peddles. Some version and some wording about that dominant narrative is useful and informative for our readers. BTW trotting out 2 fascist dictator despots who were politicians only until they won power and thereafter were anything but politicians -- talk about over-broad use of language! Really. SPECIFICO talk 02:38, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I ran the quoted descriptions through a Google Incognito search and got similar results:

• "American far right politician": 10,900 results
• "American conservative politician": 3,610 results
• "conservative American politician": 3,910 results
• "American right-wing politician": 3,510 results
• "far-right American politician": 3,650 results
• "American far-left politician": 2 results (and removing the hyphen returned 1 result)
• "American liberal politician": 3,680 results
• "liberal American politician": 2,740 results
• "American left-wing politician": 764 results
• "American progressive politician": 1,320 results

Of course, Google search results include a variety of reliable and unreliable sources, but in this case, Wikipedia does appear to mirror online content in general. Woodroar ( talk) 20:20, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see Bernie Sanders described as a far-left politician. Why is that? Thriley ( talk) 20:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Because he evidently isn't one. Reliable sources are aware of this and don't describe him as far-left. ser! ^{( chat to me - see my edits)} 20:46, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I concur with Iamreallygoodatcheckers and Animalparty's comments above. I have never really been comfortable with any sort of descriptor of this nature being included in the first mention of BLPs like these. I don't think it reflects particularly well on the site and our NPOV policies. Though I certainly can see the argument that we follow the sources, it does seem to be a bit undue to mention it in this fashion (and my politics are most certainly not right-leaning, fwiw). Ultimately I think that likely a larger discussion with those related Wikiprojects is needed to gain a consistent consensus on this matter, though. Connormah ( talk) 20:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

• My 2 cents: I have always held the firm belief that we should not attribute a political ideology preceding the word "politician" in the first sentence of the lede. I find it cheap. Instead, I find it far more useful to describe further in the lede how these figures are far-right. We don't "tell" that Hitler was a far-right politician, we explain how he was a far-right politician, as is the purpose of an encyclopedia. This recent trend in AmPol articles of ascribing a political qualifier in the first sentence of the lede with no further detail is quite frankly gross. Curbon7 ( talk) 21:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

  Gross in the biblical sense, yes. Labels are problematic. What specifics should we put up top for this BLP?

I think per MOS:FIRST we should keep "far whatever" and related characterizations out of the first sentence. Just give the name, when born, nationality, that they are a politician, and what office they hold or are running for. Thus, to pick another example, instead of Marjorie Taylor Greene (born May 27, 1974), also known by her initials MTG,[2] is an American politician, businesswoman, and far-right[3] conspiracy theorist[4] who has served as the U.S. representative for Georgia's 14th congressional district since 2021.[5] as the first sentence, just say that she's an American politician who has served as the U.S. representative for Georgia's 14th congressional district since 2021. End first sentence. Then describe the subject's background, politics, beliefs, etc after that. Wasted Time R ( talk) 00:10, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Agreed. Also see MOS:IDENTITY which says, “Use specific terminology. For example, it is often more appropriate for people or things from Ethiopia (a country in Africa) to be described as Ethiopian, not carelessly (with the risk of stereotyping) as African.” The term “far-right” is too ambiguous by itself. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 01:31, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

My issue is that so many of these current GOP figures might say things in support of January 6th or that Biden didn’t win the election fairly, but are otherwise standard ideologues who will vote for the usual Republican causes. People like Balduc aren’t anything close to British National Front or other far-right party supporters. Thriley ( talk) 17:24, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Mitch McConnell, Lindsey Graham, House Minority Leader McCarthy have all claimed that Biden’s election was illegitimate at one time or another. They aren’t labeled far-right. Thriley ( talk) 17:28, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

That's because they're not far-right. Election denying (though it goes in tandem often with far-right politics) evidently isn't being used to designate anyone as far-right. ser! ^{( chat to me - see my edits)} 18:11, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

So what makes this one far right? Is he suggesting trying to increase KKK membership numbers? Is he pushing for white supremacy teachings in school? Is he just taking a harder line on opposition to gun control and abortion rights (well opposition to them). If we can't say and the article doesn't tell us then perhaps there is an issue using the label without justifying why. I mean, it would be one thing to have that label somewhere in the body. However, if it's the opening claim then the article better be almost fully and obviously about the traits that define him as a far right politician. Springee ( talk) 02:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Because reliable sources describe him as such. ser! ^{( chat to me - see my edits)} 08:43, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Which totally ignores that they may not be experts in the field. It ignores the variable definitions of the word. This is why I advocate for an attributed statement that media sources describe him as far-right without a link to a definition that wasn't proved by the media sources. Note that the BLP concerns take priority over a desire to put something in wiki-voice. Springee ( talk) 10:33, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

And who better than anonymous-editor "Springee" to make the judgement that someone writing and/or quoted in an obviously RS-compliant sources is not an "expert in the field"?? I mean, the WP:OR content in this section is really -- impressive... Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 14:42, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Please FOC, not the editors Springee ( talk) 15:55, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Stay in your lane, which most certainly is not second-guessing the expert level of journalists employed by sources deemed reliable in the Wikipedia. ValarianB ( talk) 14:44, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Are these writers people we would consider to be experts in the area of political science? Attribution avoids that issue. Springee ( talk) 15:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

I personally think using "far" anything should be avoided unless there is a set standard. Currently, the standard is based on whatever news media outlet you are reading/watching at the time, and that consider someone "far" whatever based on ideological reasons. I can imagine it's a real conundrum for the RS policy-making crowd on WP. Especially when you consider, in the US at least, it permeates all the major networks: NBC, FOX, CNN, NPR, on and on and on. Objectivity has gone out the window in the US media, and is a knot too tangled to untie. But I digress. Ditch ∝ 19:34, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

It's a really weird stylistic habit that a chunk of Wikipedians have developed that once you notice it, you can't unsee it. Across the entire political spectrum up to a certain point, they write normally. There are obviously tons of media sources calling these people socialist, liberal, libertarian, conservative, and everything in between, but you don't see people weirdly cramming this as early as grammatically possible into their articles. You don't see Bernie Sanders is a democratic-socialist[5][6][7][8] American politician... or Liz Cheney is a conservative[1] American politician where [1] is a list of like 10 news articles that called her conservative somewhere. I'm all for identifying people's political positions per RS, but the style is not consistent and comes off poorly to the people that are (ostensibly) trying to be convinced or informed. Crossroads ^-talk- 23:29, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, what Crossroads says is what I've observed as well. As I suggested above, the first sentence should just be a simple factual identification of who they are. Surely the opprobrium, RS'd though it may be, can wait until that sentence is over. Wasted Time R ( talk) 23:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

This is long long standing problem since at least around 2014, where there is a directed effort to make sure labels that describe the extreme conservative views, which clearly are against the positions of left-leaning media outlets, are placed as early as possible in an article, with the claim that's a primary descriptor that needs to be there. BLP and NPOV all state we need to write impartially and dispassionately, and thus the rush to include this type of langauge in the leading sentence works against that, even if media sources routinely use that term. It can wait a whole sentence, or later in the lede, as to explain why the label or term applies. As others have noted above, we don't rush to label anyone on the left in this fashion, and even as a more general taken, the party membership of most elected officials are not included in the first sentence. This is part of why WP is so broken, because there's a fair number of editors that feel they need to write this way, in a WP:RGW approach, that we need to follow the tone and mantra of left-leaning sources which is currently geared to expose those BLP that they believe are doing harm, but that's not aligned with BLP or neutrality policy. There is nothing harmed by waiting a whole sentence to get to these "juicy" details, and that improves the tone tons without any type of information loss. -- Masem ( t) 00:16, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of the lean of sources, the pile of them being cited usually don't use the desired term right in the first sentence like the Wikipedia article does. And many of these same outlets still refer to "conservatives", "liberals", "socialists", etc. It's that there is a significant contingent of editors who sincerely believe that anything less than maximal prominence for certain terms and not others is whitewashing when it comes to modern American politics. We almost always have less weird leads for historical fascist leaders. I don't know how we fix this. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

There needs to be some kind of way to establish a guideline discouraging this practice. Do we do RfC's here? Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^t@lk 02:33, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Such an RfC would need to be carefully drafted, carefully argued, and widely advertised. And this is because not only will you get some AmPol editors insisting this is totally fine and normal, but also passing editors who are not at all familiar with the problem and who will be inclined to just say it's a matter for local consensus. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:00, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I agree it would be difficult, but these repetitive discussions are a big use of editor time on more or less the same issue over and over. A consensus even for keeping such labels out of the first sentence would help. If you have any ideas about how to launch such a discussion and RfC, that would be a valuable contribution, IMO. SPECIFICO talk 13:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:FIRSTBIO supposedly is meant to make that first sentence clean, but there are two points that create conflict ( #4 and #5)

• One, or possibly more, noteworthy positions, activities, or roles that the person is mainly known for, avoiding subjective or contentious terms.
• The main reason the person is notable (key accomplishment, record, etc.)

The first of these would seem to clearly stay away from contentious terms like far-right, even if it is well supported. The second though is what those wanting to include the term come back to, "This person is really only known for being far-right!"

Personally, I think the second bullet above needs rewording. You do not need to get to why the person is notable in the first sentence, but there should be a good indication of their notability by the end of the first paragraph. That also gives breathing space to actually use attribution on labels or the like without trying to overload the first sentence with that. Masem ( t) 12:23, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Also to add, you can find decently good examples of a neutral lede (where subjective terms, no matter how well supported by sources, are held off) looking at creative persons - artists, actors, musicians, etc. Tom Hanks may be one of the most beloved actors backed by numerous sources, but that's not forced into the lede sentence; lede paragraph, sure, but that gives us room to write about why that applies, just as we should be writing about why a far-right label applies in AP2 areas, and not just rote repetition. Masem ( t) 12:30, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Another issue is that the some of the younger and less experienced journalists at regional news organizations and even outlets like CNN are undoubtedly looking at the Wikipedia articles of people like Bolduc before writing their own article. I’m sure most here are aware that major outlets sometimes publish sentences and sometimes even whole paragraphs paraphrased from Wikipedia. Is there at least one major article somewhere that details his major positions and shows how they fall into contemporary far-right ideology? Or are we just stacking brief mention upon mention and putting it into Wikivoice? Thriley ( talk) 00:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Biography of Living Persons - Marie Yates

This article contains multiple clumsy factual inaccuracies, and critical omissions and is based on biased, dead, or non-existent references, therefore violating the biographies of living persons policies.

The entry is only in the interests of the Art Dealer/Client who is responsible for its content as they are in possession of a few very early artworks by the subject which are presented for sale on one or two of the entry’s (working) links and which only function as a marketplace.

There is no point in taking this entry to pieces line by line as there is hardly anything which can be used, according to Wikipedia’s Guidelines. As a whole it is therefore an extremely unreliable source of information on its' subject, and needs to be removed.

The subject has previously appealed for help with this but Wikipedia"s Editors have failed to correct it. Any help would be much appreciated by the subject, who has been told to stop trying to rectify it themselves by the Editors, due to extreme age and a lack of the skills.

The subject does have a personal website which has a very large collection of live information references which could be tested and used by Editors, and the link is available through Google by just typing the name of the entry. Longonpete ( talk) 09:34, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

• Hi Longonpete, and thank you. If I understand you correctly (I'm trying), you are saying the article needs to be deleted because it serves only a promotional purpose. Well, the article isn't obviously promotional, so that's not going to be a reason for deletion. Now, the article is in terrible condition, and lacks proper secondary sources, but a quick search through Google Books suggests what it needs is just a bit of work by a good-faith editor. You are welcome to help out. Drmies ( talk) 00:32, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

So, 1E is often a tricky proposition, but I think one could argue that it applies here. Looking at this version, before all hell broke loose, shows just how little coverage there is for this bit actor who, besides the sordid affair, had one little part in a Jurassic Park movie. Drmies ( talk) 00:25, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The person just barely passed N:CREATIVE, but I think the conviction is far too much detailed. Since the victim is not notable themselves, its better to summarize the basics in a sentence or two. -- Masem ( t) 00:27, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I've cut it down, and sorted the infobox which said he was convicted on 27 counts when in fact only one charge went to trial. Neiltonks ( talk) 08:03, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

The BLP Ariel Fernandez has been vandalized on September 17, 2022. It seems there has been a huge edit warring on this page but consensus was finally reached. Now it has been vandalized again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CiSherman ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Major content changes were done without consensus. The picture and books by the subject were deleted without consensus. CiSherman ( talk) 17:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Vandalism, and then discuss on the article talk page. Removal of content isn't 'vandalism', and neither is consensus required to edit articles. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a brand new account, probably another Fernandez sock. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 17:42, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much WP:DUCK. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:29, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

So much duck that they're now blocked for ban evasion. — C.Fred ( talk) 19:52, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to follow up on this, with a broader policy question. Here is my supposed vandalism, regarding those books: [46]. (I'm intentionally focusing here on the book list, because the photo is still being discussed at the article talk page, and editors are examining some broader issues, unrelated to BLP.) I think it's pretty obvious that that sock mischaracterizes it. But I want to ask what other editors think about how such edits relate, specifically, to the BLP policy. (I think I already know what the answer is, but I'd like to get some uninvolved feedback.) Setting aside all other policies, guidelines, and editing norms, and focusing just on BLP, does BLP require that we consider what the page subject might want, when deciding whether to include what the page subject might regard as favorable content? Although BLP obviously prohibits a variety of negative content, does it also encourage providing additional positive content? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:26, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Has anyone suggested that an article being a BLP is a reason to provide 'additional positive content'? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:31, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

The socks have, so yes. Although some other editors have implied it in other contexts, there hasn't been any non-sock objection on the article talk page. I do take that as evidence that BLP is not interpreted to do that, but, as I said, I want to check what uninvolved editors think. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Your interpretation is open to question, if you take my neutrally-worded comment regarding the merits of including Fernandez's books in the article as agreement with your removal. As I said there "Whether we include specific content or not needs to be decided according to relevant Wikipedia policy. Not according to the whims of individual contributors. This is not a CV, and inclusion of a subjects works in biographies tends to be based around the extent to which such works have received significant commentary in independent sources.". On the whole, biographies of scientists and academics tend, as a matter of course, to discuss their written works, because creating such works is very much central to their profession. The activities of socks should have no bearing on any decision as to whether we include such content. None at all. Ever. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:58, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'll take that as a comment that, no, BLP does not encourage providing additional positive content. Thanks. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:04, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

No, it doesn't encourage it. And nor does it encourage removal of appropriate article content. Or making decisions about what is or isn't appropriate dependent on the activities of socks. That simply shouldn't be a factor for consideration. Doing so is a violation of WP:NPOV. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:15, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

As I said, I was asking about what the BLP policy says, not what anything else says. (This is, after all, BLPN.) So, if BLP does not require inclusion of the book list in order to please the page subject, then it follows logically that BLP, specifically, does not explicitly forbid removing it, which is part of what the sock raised at the beginning of this thread. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:37, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP states the obvious. Explicitly. It says that articles must adhere to WP:NPOV. Removal of content because of a spat with socks is self-evidently non-compliant with WP:NPOV, since we are supposed to be basing content on reliable sources. Which don't include Wikipedia sock-puppet investigations, never mind vague talk-page speculation about the motivations of anyone who posts on Talk:Ariel Fernandez. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:46, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

So are you saying that my edit summary here: [47], is a BLP violation? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:50, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

A BLP violation? I doubt it, given that 'socks' could mean anyone (and quite possibly does, given the tendency of trolls to watch Wikipedia noticeboards looking for opportunities to add to the drama). I would however suggest that if you are going to argue that something is WP:UNDUE, you keep the supposed activities of socks out of the discussion, since such issues should have no bearing on what is or isn't due. That depends on sources, not Wiki-drama. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:57, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm confused by your reply. Here is the edit summary: Looking at page history, these were mostly added by the socks. It varies a lot whether we list publications for academic BLPs. Here it seems WP:UNDUE for such a short page, also WP:NOTCV). By "socks", I was referring to the checkuser-confirmed socks, rather than trolls, so I didn't mean "anyone". Of the three sentences of the edit summary, it sounds like you are agreeing that the second and third sentences are BLP-compliant, especially as regards UNDUE, although you also say that edits should be based on sources, and my UNDUE argument was not explicitly source-based. But are you saying that the first of the three sentence in the edit summary was a BLP violation, because it referred to the socks? -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:08, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

How about getting back on topic... AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:14, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

That's what I was trying to do. The helpful reply below by Firefangledfeathers addresses the question that I actually asked. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:22, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I had to re-read that like five times to understand what you were trying to ask. That answer is no. Your edit summary is not a BLP violation. Sock are not article subjects. Your original question is based on a flawed premise, that is, that BLP policy is separate from all other policies. Policy is all interconnected and intertwined with each other. Policy is like one giant equation. We can't talk about this in terms of just BLP policy, because that would be like talking about E=MC² without the "E" or the "M". Your question relates to BLP policy in as much as BLP says we need to strictly adhere to NPOV policy, which is what Andy has been saying. Zaereth ( talk) 19:38, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

I understand and appreciate what you are saying, thanks. About the "flawed premise", though, I recognize that all policies are in force together, and not in isolation. That's not anything special to BLP. But I wasn't uncertain about NPOV or other policies. I was asking specifically about BLP, because I felt like I had been hearing contradictory things and wanted to make sure that I did not misunderstand. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:44, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, it occurs to me that I cited UNDUE in that edit summary, and that's a section of NPOV. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 19:55, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This discussion has been very helpful to my understanding, and since the issue of policies acting collectively has been raised, I want to point out that there are some nuances to that. In part, BLP and NPOV work together. Presenting a BLP subject in a POV way is a violation of both policies, and thus, does fall under the purview of BLP. No question about that, no argument from me.

But consider this. Fernandez is particularly noted for a kind of protein structure called a dehydron. Let's suppose for the sake of discussion that there are a group of fringey conspiracy theorists somewhere who have a bogus theory of dehydrons. They are completely unconnected to Fernandez, and perhaps there is even a source in which he finds fault with them. They have some kind of fringe, pseudoscientific theory that dehydrons were released from some lab, and are being used to brainwash children. Now let's say some POV pushers come and try to insert that into our page on protein structure (without any mention of Fernandez). That would, quite properly, be reverted on NPOV grounds. Content issues might get discussed at the Fringe Theories Noticeboard. No one would regard it as a BLP issue. If the POV pushers then went to the Fernandez page and put in the same material (without saying anything about Fernandez himself), they would be reverted on the same grounds. It would be a POV problem, but not a BLP one.

The place where BLP and NPOV intersect is specifically where BLP subjects are presented in a POV way. But just because a POV issue shows up on a BLP page, it is not automatically grandfathered into the BLP policy. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 18:35, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

"does BLP require that we consider what the page subject might want, when deciding whether to include what the page subject might regard as favorable content?" No. We're supposed to be reasonably kind to article subjects, but that doesn't give them extra influence over what goes in the article. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 19:03, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for that. I suspected that this was the case, but I wanted to make sure that I wasn't making a mistake. Much appreciated. -- Tryptofish ( talk) 17:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Doreen Granpeesheh (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A newly created account has twice removed a paragraph from Granpeesheh's biography ( removal one, removal 2), relating to Granpeesheh's participation in the film Vaxxed. As far as I can tell, the content is well sourced, verifiable, and compliant with the relevant policies ( WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:BLP). Two of the sources used are books on the anti-vaccine movement, and support Granpeesheh's participation in the film as well as her commentary on "detoxification". The quotation "not detoxifying from the vaccinations" can be sourced via both the film and the work by Metwally. I've attempted to engage with the editor at their talk page, however they persist in maintaining that the content in the article "is not factual". I'd appreciate it if another editor could review the situation please. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 21:54, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I persist because I've seen the documentary and you have not, obviously. I'm not challenging her participation. The books on the anti-vaccine movement have nothing to do with Dr. Granpeesheh. She has her own book with her own views. The author is taking words of the documenter, Andrew Wakefield, and insinuating Dr. Granpeesheh said them. There is enough misinformation in the autism community and it's reckless to say one of the top experts said "vaccines cause autism" when she has never said that. Provide what time/minutes she said anything like that or provide a transcript. Pointing out Andrew Wakefields views and that see made a simple "appearance" is a far cry from "Dr. Granpeesheh agrees and said vaccines cause autism". Hopefully we only get responses from people FAMILIAR with the documentary. Jessehutch19 ( talk) 22:04, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

I've reverted it back. From what JessHutch19 has said it seems like he's genuinely confused about the sourcing, so hopefully my edit summary there will clear things up. GordonGlottal ( talk) 00:07, 13 September 2022 (UTC)

I too agree the paragraph should be removed. It is sourced, but in a very strange way. I would describe it as a cherry-picked quote, provided without any context or history. This was a poorly made documentary film, with widespread condemnation of it's message and it appears likely now that the filmmaker presented interview snippets out of context. Further it is just strange that this random quote is the only and primary part of Granpeesheh's biography page, when it is known she has made significant contributions to autism treatment and knowledge.

There are multiple Wikipedia guidelines. A statement should be sourced, and this statement is sourced. However other Wikipedia guidelines state that living person biographies require special care to avoid defamation and slander. Those guidelines required the quote be given context and background so the reader can properly understand. MarsTrombone ( talk) 18:31, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm going to assume good faith and presume it's a complete coincidence that the paragraph that Jessehutch19 removed is exactly the same one that you removed a number of times, which is the reason that you are partially blocked from Granpeesheh's article. Black Kite (talk) 18:45, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Granpeesheh is not a vaccine expert nor even a medical professional or scientist. She's a psychologist and she has no business making statements with medical claims. Given she has no medical expertise, the filmmaker should not even have interviewed her on this subject. The entire film is riddled with disinformation and is pure quakery. The film was produced 2016, when less was known, and my take is that she was speculating on potential causes. But the reader is left with a lot of unanswered science questions. Recent podcast interviews with Granpeesheh indicate she is OK with child vaccinations. In the context of medical claims, living biographies and neutral POV, the general guideline is to simply not include the content at all, especially if it can be misinterpreted. MarsTrombone ( talk) 02:00, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Provide sources if you want to make the claim that she retracted. If so I would support adding that to the page. In response to the last argument, I previously edited the paragraph to add explicit language to deter any reader from believing the claims are true, and I don't think that it's possible to be misled by the current version(?) . GordonGlottal ( talk) 03:41, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

Biography Questions for the community. There appears to be editor confusion on the use of primary, secondary and self-published source material for the Granpeesheh biography. Can we get community clarification? It is widely and well understood that reliable secondary sources are preferred WP:SOURCE for any article. A careful reading of the Wikipedia guidelines indicate that primary and/or self-published sources may NOT be used "as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article". Note the 'unless' clause. This would make sense because a subject's early life, education and aspect's of their career can often only be sourced from primary source interviews and/or written material directly from the biography subject. Second, WP:BLPSELFPUB explicitly endorses using self-published material IF "it is not unduly self-serving...there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity; and the article is not based primarily on such sources" 19:30, 22 September 2022 (UTC) MarsTrombone ( talk)

In the diffs below,

1. 23 September 2022 Multiple BLP violations of WP:SUSPECT based on arrests and accusations were wrongly restored, As far as I can see none of these individuals were convicted.
2. 23 September 2022

Popular Front of India (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I believe the above reverts have restored content that are blatant violation of WP:BLP, but the other editor believes these are not BLP Violations. Before proceeding to revert the same, I wanted second opinion from uninvolved editors if these are WP:BLP violations or not? (Smaller bits of above diffs. Diff 1, Diff 2, Diff 3) Venkat TL ( talk) 14:11, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

With a subscription to Ancestry.com, anybody can find out when they were really born. Joanna was born on October 20, 1936, [48] Lucy on May 5, 1940, [49] and Carly on June 25, 1943. [50] Those are the facts. Check the 1950 census and the facts line up. [51]

Somebody said you can't cite birth and census records on a BLP. Sounds more like a guideline than a rule. The article for Lee Grant includes an Ancestry link to the same publicly accessible birth index the Simons are listed in. Why pretend ignorance when the true dates are ascertainible?

Countless public figures have tried this ruse. To use a famous example, 1958-born Madonna claimed 1960 early in her career, and several almanacs and articles published in that era shaved two years off her birthdate. Yet only 1958 is listed on Wikipedia. The standard of listing every previously published birthdate in a BLP, as if nobody can ascertain the correct one, seems to be a selective practice. Ysovain ( talk) 04:42, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

For Ancestry.com, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. If it is being used as a source for BLPs, it shouldn't be. For census records etc, see WP:BLPPRIMARY. WP:RS and WP:BLP are fundamental to how Wikipedia works. They are not 'guidelines'. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 04:53, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

For a bit on "why", see WP:DOB. They're in no way mandatory. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 06:21, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

To restate what I said at ANI - (if) there is enough doubt about a birthdate ... we should probably be leaving it out of a biography completely; here, for example is an image in Vanity Fair that says (Joanna Simon) was 11 in 1950, which doesn't fit with either 1936 or 1940. I note that Carly's birthdate is in doubt as well, and I can see claims that Lucy was born in 1940, 1943 or 1944 (and the photo just mentioned doesn't fit any of those three either - someone who was 8 in 1950 was born in 1941 or 1942!). We repeatedly have this problem when celebrities adjust their age or other personal details - if reliable sources report what they say, then the reliable source is reporting an unreliable one. See, for example, Amanda Tenfjord, who claims she was born in Greece despite the existence of a birth record from Norway. Black Kite (talk) 06:52, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

There is a dispute at the DYK nomination page Template:Did you know nominations/2022 Carlsen–Niemann controversy over a Tweet which was recorded verbatim at the above mentioned Carlsen-Niemann controversy article (see [52] for the version containing the Tweet). Quandarie has rejected the DYK nom on the grounds that the copy of Carlsen's Tweet violates WP:BLPSPS, specifically "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article". Others, including AviationFreak and Jochem van Hees, have argued that this Tweet doesn't apply, since it is not directly used as a source of material, but simply to illustrate material concerning that Tweet which is sourced to independent secondary sources. They also cited Covfefe as an example of another article that uses a primary source referenced Tweet not in an article about the person who Tweeted it, but that was rebutted on the grounds that the Covfefe Tweet did not contain direct allusions to any BLPs, while Carlsen's Tweet directly referenced himself and (as secondary sources have explained) could be interpret as indirectly implying things about another BLP Hans Niemann.

I've removed the Tweet for now, to err on the side of caution, but it would be useful to have some input from experts in BLP policy to determine whether it really is a breach or not. Cheers  —  Amakuru ( talk) 12:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Generally speaking, there's no problem including a link to a tweet as an additional source to something already sourced to secondary sources so that readers can check the tweet directly if for some reason they wish to. Note that it is important that it is only an additional source, in other words, you should be able to remove the link to the tweet and the entire text will remain sourced. If you are including a tweet to cover something which secondary sources do not mention, this is problematic. And exception where I would be cautious about linking to a tweet even if it only functions as an additional source is when although we do not mention it, the tweet does include additional information that secondary sources have ignored. Nil Einne ( talk) 13:46, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Hello! I'm Quandarie, the nomination's DYK reviewer. Just for clarification: when I conducted the review, the article quoted the entire tweet word-for-word in a tweet block sourced to the tweet itself – that's what I raised concerns about.

I believe Amakuru has temporarily removed the tweet block pending further discussion about these concerns. Here's a link to the current revision at the time of the review. Thanks. Quandarie16:02, 2022-09-23

I don't understand what this argument is about. I wouldn't consider myself an expert in BLP policy, but I would consider this to meet WP:BLPSELFPUB, #1 #3 #4 #5 are easy met. It is important to point out the significance of #2 here: it does not involve claims about third parties; As long as we are not using Carlsen's tweet to suggest either of Neimann was cheating or Carlsen believed that Neimann was cheating, because both are not claimed in the tweet, we should be fine. 0x Deadbeef 14:53, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Hiya. I wanted to quickly clarify: the policy you're citing is for sources written by an article's subject. Carlsen, in this case, isn't the article's subject – that's the reason the tweet was considered an issue.

The relevant policy reads, "Never use self-published sources [...] as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." Thanks. Quandarie16:02, 2022-09-23

Huh? So Magnus Carlsen isn't the subject of the article "Carlsen–Niemann controversy"? 0x Deadbeef 16:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

This is a phrasing issue, since the lead of WP:BLP clearly states that: "This policy applies to...material about living persons in other articles". Generally, references to "article subject" or "subject of the article" in the policy should be read as "living or recently dead person mentioned in the article." In this case, Carlsen and Niemann are both covered and a self-published source by either cannot be used by itself to back claims about the other. We would not be able to use the tweet to sole-source that Carlsen accused Niemann of cheating, but we might be able to use it to sole-source the fact that he withdrew from the tournament. This is academic though, since we have many high-quality reliable sources that analyze and provide context for the tweet in question. As long as we can use those sources without relying on the tweet and are careful in providing and describing any claims and denials, there is no issue, since we are now relying on the secondary sources. In such cases, it is then common to also add the self-published source as a citation, mainly to make it easier for readers to read it for themselves. I will however, second Nil Einne's comment that if the primary source makes claims not covered by the secondary sources, then it may be better to exclude it, but it would not apply in this case IMO.---- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 07:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Articles about evidence-free insinuations about a living person

Starting a subsection to separate discussion of the tweet from the article in general. Hope nobody minds. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:56, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The Tweet was also quoted/screenshotted in its entirety by many other sources such that I don't know if there's a big BLP issue with that. The article, in general, however, throws up BLP red flags, but I'm not sure what to do about it. We have a high-profile person repeatedly insinuating, without actually articulating the accusation, that someone else cheated. There is no evidence at all of cheating except that the person had admitted to cheating in an online tournament in the past. Now we have the world's richest internet troll amplifying salacious, evidence-free joke/speculation that the subject cheated using vibrating devices in his anus. A couple publications then picked that up. So we have a lot of coverage of something we can probably consider a crime for BLP purposes, taken to a sexual place, based on absolutely nothing other than winking allusion by a world chess champion whose streak of not losing was broken in an upset. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:13, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Absolutely - I think the best we can do is to explain the whole situation, give context, etc. to make it clear to the reader that the allegations/insinuations/whatever are unfounded (as much as RS coverage permits us to). In the (in my opinion) more likely case that Carlsen has little to no evidence of Niemann cheating, there will likely be coverage to that effect and we can add it to the article to better convey that idea. Carlsen has heavily implied in interviews that he will have more to say after the Generation Cup, so we will likely know of any evidence or lack thereof with more certainty at that point. AviationFreak 💬 14:31, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Part of my point is that BLP generally leads us to avoid having entire articles about unfounded allegations/insinuations that a living person committed a crime (I'm assuming that cheating when money is at stake falls in that category, at least in spirit), except in the most remarkable of situations (very high-profile allegations against presidents, for example). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 14:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

That may be true for some articles, but in this particular instance I don't think it's accurate to say that the entire article is about Carlsen's allegations/insinuations. They all relate back to each other, but Carlsen's withdrawal from the Sinquefield Cup and one-move-resignation are both still unheard of and might get SIGCOV even without the "insinugations". This may not be the case for other situations in which we see allegations of wrongdoing, but in this case the insinugations are not the only thing of note. AviationFreak 💬 16:25, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

If its notable its notable, even if its a pure conspiracy theory. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

It's almost impossible to discuss the events that have happened without mentioning the accusation of cheating. As long as we are very careful to say "X accused Y of cheating...", add any claim from Y that cheating did not happen (eg this is a case where MANDY absolutely does not apply), and place that accusation in context for events downstream of it, we're fine. If all that was there, without any further impact, was the accusation of cheating, we should absolutely not include it. Masem ( t) 16:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

It seem akin to any one of the various "celebrity accused of sexual misconduct" incidents that makes it through a couple news cycles. In those cases, we might mention it in the article about the accused, accuser, and/or event where it took place, but the bar for creating separate articles focused on those allegations (especially when it's all insinuation, and nobody has even made such an allegation) is very high (more than just notability). This article sailed through AfD on notability grounds, but it seems like BLP and NOPAGE deserve special consideration. YMMV. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 16:57, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that until this is something proven and has lasting impact on the chess world, this should be limited to a paragraph or two in the accused's article. I feel this fails NEVENT or BLP in light of WP:GCONT and WP:CRIT (both essays but generally have consensus), and that AFD really needs to be rerun on those terms. Masem ( t) 17:12, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

It is akin to those incidents, which when notable have pages. See Joe Biden sexual assault allegation. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:19, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

As above ...except in the most remarkable of situations (very high-profile allegations against presidents, for example). That's an allegation about a president. The standard certainly isn't simple notability; it's much higher. Just in the MeToo era there were how many allegations? I mean, first off we're not even dealing with allegations but insinuation here, but how many of those that remained at the level of allegations but never went to trial have stand-alone articles? It takes something more than allegations happening (a criminal case, for example) or sustained, expansive coverage over the course of several months about the highest profile people (as the Biden example) to get over that [abstract] hurdle. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. We're too focused nowadays on reporting on "news" and not looking at the enduring impact of such news, to the detriment of being an encyclopedia, particularly in areas like this. Maybe something larger will come of this, but just because there's a short term burst of coverage doesn't make it a notable topic on its own, per NEVENT. The BLP and "don't write separate articles about controversies" elements also support merging that back to one of the BLP articles. Masem ( t) 17:48, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

"The standard certainly isn't simple notability; it's much higher." You keep saying this and on a personal level I agree. Its just not supported by our existing policies and guidelines, it actually appears to be the opposite as far as I can tell. Notable means notable, not "notable... but" Also note that when the world's richest person wades into a controversy as has happened its going to rapidly become notable, thats going to be true no matter what historical period we are talking about. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

WP:N discusses the matter, moreso at WP:NEVENT. We are interested in enduring coverage, not a short term burst of coverage, which is exactly what this article is based on. Add the policy requirements of BLP, and that would imply the need to merge this. Masem ( t) 17:52, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Do WP:NEVENT and WP:NOTNEWS really apply in a world where "serious investigative journalists" routinely report on Twitter beefs between hiphoppers and viral TikToks about a Starbucks order?

I mean, you never know when a Kardashian's bikini body is going to turn into an enduring news story for the next 500 years, so you might as well cram them all into independent Wikipedia articles. Elizium23 ( talk) 22:55, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

It's undoubtedly newsworthy and a notable part of Carlsen's career. This Guardian story mentions the "‘cheating’ furore" but not the currently unproven allegations that Niemann had radio controlled anal beads or whatever.-- ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 18:14, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

It's sufficiently covered that there's no reason to include that in Carlsen's article, its the standalone article on the matter that's troubling. Masem ( t) 18:17, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:War crimes in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine § WP:CRIME and WP:BLPCRIME considerations. — Goszei ( talk) 07:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

This BLP was deleted in 2020 ( Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alex Belfield (2nd nomination)) as the bio of a non-notable journalist (which at the time, he most definitely was). Since then, he's been convicted of stalking four people including a BBC journalist and sent to prison. This trial was, inevitably, well-covered by the press. The article has - somewhat unsurprisingly - been recreated recently, but of course it is now basically an article about a crime masquerading as a biography. My thought is that, if it is to exist, it should really be "Alex Belfield trial" or similar. Thoughts? Black Kite (talk) 06:27, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Black Kite I would be inclined to delete this article per WP:BLP1E unless another editor can make a convincing case that he was notable before his recent legal problems. Cullen328 ( talk) 06:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

If it is kept, I agree that it should most definitely be renamed. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 06:40, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Cullen. WP:BLP1E would seem to apply. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 12:35, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Sent to AfD. Black Kite (talk) 14:24, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

In your discussion of John O’Neill you present him as founder of Vietnam Vets for a Just Peace. In fact, my role in it was in discussion of the charge that US vets in Vietnam were claimed to be willfully murderering Vietnamese people and that the Communists were the heroes in the war. This issue many of us had been arguing and debating from an historical perspective since 1964 at UC Berkeley. Our concern was with the pro-Communist and Communist ideologues. We set our private lives on hold to study and promote debate on the Vietnam War. Personally I had an abiding faith in open debate since the 1964 FSM at UC Berkeley. We opposed the New Left misrepresentation of so called “prople’s democracy.” Thus, ax Vietnam became an issue that invariably would involve us all, alone with no organizational structure, I advocated for OPEN DEBATE where contending views could confront eachother.

I found it amazing how misrepresented was US Gov foreign and domestic policy as well as polluted by Historical inventions by the New Left when making its case, and always from an historical perspective. My career was in healthcare and neurosciences. I despised political diatribes from NOTH sides of American politics. So. I sought to promote “meaningful dialogue” between contending positions since UC Berkeley. I found that this debate approach was far preferred in general over mass protest. As the Vietnam War unfolded, I felt a duty to drop all other focus, research and linguistic skills to focus on understanding why we std there and what if means. My studies produced a conviction that nationalism was under attack by Internationalism led from Moscow throughout the Third World as the weak side of Democracy and Capitalism. Thus, no efforts at democracy and economic opportunity can succeed without first protecting the freedom of Third World nations. Through to 1980s that was my mission while developing a medical and neuroscience research career. I NEVER was associated with any political party.

I only spoke and debated on the Third World struggle between the Free World vs Moscow’s imperialism. To me the Soviet sustained war in Vietnam Vietnam was part of Moscow’s attempt to encircle China so as to depose Mao and replace him with Moscow’s man Liu Shaochi. In that context, after China cut off Soviet land and rail supply of Hanoi, forcing all the weapons used in South Vietnam to come through ocean transport from Vladivostok after the Chinese blocked land routes, proves the strength of the Moscow-Hanoi ties. The rest of the case Is made through historical and intel analysis. Bruce Kessler was a close friend of mine. When he enlisted in the Marines to fight in Vietnam, I understood why he did it. Upon his return he took umbrage at Kerry’s claims. It was a common idea to test the perspective of most returned vets by creating VIETNAM VETERANS FOR A JUST PEACE (note to polarized perspective in the title because we were seeking views) so that vets can have a forum where those who paid the price can debate and seek consensus wherein the dominant views can be debated or expressed in accord with Vietnam Vets Against the War.

There is no doubt that, to the end of the war, clear that, to the end of the war in 1975, MOST vets did not see themselves as wonton murderers “baby killer” but rather as defenders of South Vietnamese national self-determination as agreed in Geneva (the fate of the called for 1956 plebiscite was one of the main topics discussed. But h Ed record showed that the New Left was determined to prevent debate and discussion of the facts. The number of people who anted that dialogue entailed the majority of students snd vets. During the Republican Convention in Maiami where Nixon was nominated for a second term. We spend largee Ed parts of every day in dialogue with thd Viet Vets Against the Wsr in Beth fraternal discussion. John Todd, a vet blinded in Vietnam was given time to speak for Viet Vets for a Just Peace. Neither the White House nor the Republican Party funded of directed the group. Everything done in the name of Viet Vets for a Just Peace was put forward as a general position challenging Viet Bets Against thd War to debate the facts and promote responsible public education.

That White House officials made claims about Mr O’Neill in no way indicated that he had anything more than person drive for this cause. Bruce Kessler did all the administrative work while all the others INDIVIDUALLY were devoted to MEANING DIALOGUE and DEBATE of the facts. The amorphous character of VVJP was deliberate to reflect thd variety of views on Vietnam. All we wanted was academic quality historical debate and policy discussion between invested people. Indeed, at the White House meeting with the President there was much discord except on the issue of whether the efforts of the vets was “babies killing” or stopping Soviet attempt to dominate Asia as key to its anti-Mao campaign, Paul McNellix and other leaders and debaters for VVforJP played no administrative role, they only sought debate and dialogue. Alas, once again. with thd end of the war in dee we fear. VVJP dissolved but the efforts to promote dialogue on Vietnam continues. What is most sad is that the slander which VVJP never flung at Vietnam Vets Against was reciprocally never engaged in by Vietnam Vets Against the War against VVJP.

For example, during the Republican Miami Convention, the VVJP vets spent most of their time in the Vietnam Vets Against the War encampment in discussion and debate about thd war and thd nation’s future. In thd final analysis, it turns out that Kerry is the only member of both groups who ever exploited his Vietnam War experience for political career purpose. But our only criticism of him is that he never engaged in meaningful dialogue on the Vietnam War. Yet, many sought to denigrate the Vets seeking dialogue as stooges of the Nixon Administration. Yet, few of Kerry’s vets ever exhibited doubt and disdain for VVJP. Even O’Neill often admitted that his first exposure to VVJP was in my home in NYC where he met Bruce Kessler, a Democrat and founder of VVJP. By the time O’Neill joined the Ehite House VVJP had lost contact with him, the inevitable consequence of a unity of purpose— MEANINGFUL DIALOGUE— without any administrative of ideological exclusion. In fact, some Vietnam Vets Against thd War associated with BOTH organizations openly. 69.113.94.4 ( talk) 14:41, 24 September 2022 (UTC)Moved here from BLP talk page. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 15:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

It's hard to pull actionable items out of that wall of text, but I do think John O'Neill (political activist) could use some BLP-related review. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 16:05, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Cyber Anakin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Some eyes on Cyber Anakin may be helpful, especially this discussion Talk:Cyber Anakin#A mountain out of molehill?. An IP has said on ANI they are adding or preserving content because the article will otherwise be "boring for readers" and while the stuff they are adding seems sourced, I think it's enough to cause significant concern. Nil Einne ( talk) 02:14, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

For context, links to article talkspace discussion and ANI discussion. 45.136.197.235 ( talk) 02:22, 25 September 2022 (UTC)