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

Jake Flores ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Some input would be appreciated on if their performance in a pornographic film sourced to the Daily Dot and tweets is WP:DUE. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 21:24, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

That's probably the wrong question to ask since the article includes multiple citations to random podcasts, and Daily Dot is no less WP:DUE than them; more so even. However, the coverage is really over the public conflict between two podcasters. Whether that should be considered BLPGOSSIP? Probably since there's no other RS covering it to satisfy WP:PUBLICFIGURE either. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 23:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, the whole article is the usual borderline notable podcaster cruft. I mentioned the BLPGOSSIP issue on the talk page. I haven't had any time to do a before check, or scour the whole article yet. Just removed the obvious contentious crap. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 23:16, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The citation is focusing more on them being in the adult performance. No attention is supposed to go to the feud or criticism between the podcasters or the people that bullied him for being a sex worker. The article was used as a citation showing that Jake Flores has made contributions to that community and is not supposed to be citing the random podcaster gossip included. I only bring citation because most of the other articles cited on his page have the same level or quality of information buried in internet news tabloids that have the same amount of crud. JeremiahSalvacion2 ( talk) 23:37, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

The more contentious the information the higher the standard of source is required. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 00:13, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

How is the information contentious? Jake Flores has admitted himself that he is a sex worker and has participated in the profession. I would understand if there was debate on whether or not he was involved in the field, however the person that the article is about has directly stated their pride and consent in being involved. Please specify what aspects are contentious or how they are contentious. JeremiahSalvacion2 ( talk) 00:34, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Tristario just did an excellent job of explaining this on the talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 00:38, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the input they had, and also appreciate you linking to it. I just replied to them as well citing the fact that the leak aspect is regarding the right wing bullies that targeted the act and took advantage. The adult performance that he actually did and what I was trying to include is information that Jake Flores is open and up-front about. Hence myself citing his own words. If possible, are there any samples or documents that would demonstrate what needs to be presented? Admittedly I have never had issues with other pages or persons documenting their sex-positivity or pride so I am quite surprised that there is much hesitation for the addition of this info for this page, especially when the information is directly from the performer. JeremiahSalvacion2 ( talk) 00:42, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

I also want to add, regarding the term "contentious" that one of the first lines of information on his page is already contentious and cites information that is not a high standard. The line "Flores identifies himself as politically left" is debatable and the cited information does not even include that detail. Flores frequently identifies as far left, meanwhile his opponents call him communist or "dirt-bag left" which is seen as a right leaning term. The podcasts cited have no detail at all that says this. Meanwhile the information I presented, stating that he has been involved in adult performance and takes pride in this fact, is directly correlated to the cited info, along with being less contentious since it is objective fact contrary to a vague statement claiming their alignment in the political spectrum. JeremiahSalvacion2 ( talk) 00:49, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

This AfC article is completly made by PradeepLogik ( talk · contribs) who imo is an WP:SPA as their only contribution was creating and editing the AfC. There is potentially some WP:COI considering that the article is full of fluffery and the user had the name of their advertising business as their username and was asked to change it. The article barely uses any sources and is full of grammar mistakes. The user account doesn't exsist anymore, so I couldn't talk to the user about the issues. COuld you please look into this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vyvagaba ( talk • contribs) 11:08, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

You can attempt to communicate with the editor at User talk:PradeepLogik. Cullen328 ( talk) 18:14, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Iga Świątek

In the "Iga Świątek" Wikipedia biography, under the "2023: Twelfth title, 50th consecutive week at No. 1" subheading within the "Professional Career" section, there is a statement that reads "Later it emerged that Świątek had launched into a 5 minute 34 second profanity laden rant at start of tournament an off-record conversation that had been captured on tape and leaked onto social media in which Świątek complained about excessively negative coverage of her, the rant included at least 88 obscenities according to the Las Vegas Sun. Swiatek said that she used "wholly inappropriate language" to describe the media coverage of her and she said she was sorry for her choice of words, yet stands by the content of her message."

This statement appears to be entirely false, and internet research of content mentioned in the statement yields no results. The sourced article following the statement from Tennis.com includes no mention of any "profanity-laden rant captured on tape and leaked onto social media." It appears this statement was falsely included, either intentionally or accidentally, possibly because the writer of the statement found a tabloid journalism source that included these damaging comments. I have removed this statement from the "Iga Świątek" biography page, as it appears to be false and may fall within the category of libel. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolskaGola8 ( talk • contribs) 18:22, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Looks like this has been taken care of, and the user who added the info has been blocked. A quick check of that user's contributions seem to warrant some deeper scrutiny of their edits, however, if anyone has the time. Zaereth ( talk) 19:34, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The subject of the article, a college professor, was accused of sexual misconduct by a former colleague and subsequently fired by his employer. Several WP:SPA accounts have been created to remove material regarding the allegations, most recently to remove the word "rape," which is explicitly mentioned in the NBC source. I believe that the article in it's current state adheres to WP:BLP, but I wanted to bring it here to solicit additional input given the nature of the allegations and events. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:53, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:RSSM, the Columbia Chronicle refs may not be the best in the BLP-crime context. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:20, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Given that this was an on-campus event, and given that the school put out an official statement, I think it's a decent source for this purpose. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 11:29, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Gråbergs Gråa Sång. There should be stronger sources for WP:BLPCRIME and by extension WP:PUBLICFIGURE if he is one. What other sources are out there? Morbidthoughts ( talk) 20:48, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The NBC source is the only one I've found so far that details the victim's allegations. I was initially concerned with what appeared to be conceted whitewashing efforts, but on the other hand I'd prefer err on the conservative side of WP:BLPCRIME; perhaps a few sentences summarizing the dismissal along with the reasons but keeping it brief. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem with the NBC citation is that it purposely did not name him. I have shortened the paragraph per BLPBALANCE and added a Smithsonian Magazine citation. [1] However, I am still concerned whether the mention of the sexual assault allegations satisfies WP:BLPCRIME since the Smithsonian citation only mentions he was terminated for violating the college's sexual harassment policies. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 21:18, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Ah, good point; I missed that in the NBC citation. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 21:57, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

If I may reluctantly join in (full disclosure, I knew Weller quite a few years ago, and, well, best to keep it at that). Keeping the word "rape" in the article seems undue, as it would affect anyone's life and livelihood without being applied and adjudicated in court. As a BLP accusation, even if there was personal hurt and evidence behind it, such a blanket statement stands out on the page as if it were a proven fact with a conviction. Randy Kryn ( talk) 22:24, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I endorse Morbidthoughts's treatment of the material here - a brief mention of the complaint, the investigation, and the results are all that are warranted. While I don't think it hurts anything, I don't find the one line mention in the Smithsonian article to be helpful. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 01:22, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is highly biased against Swami Vishwananda especially in the tone of the language used as compared to other biographies of famous people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:22C9:9900:DDD6:9127:D923:9A5E ( talk) 01:16, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Actually we do need some eyes on this one. It looks like this article went through the AfC process. I think, in an order to avoid being too promotional, a number of allegations that offend BLP were included in the article, and more have been added over time. I am largely unfamiliar with the Hindu faith. I think, but am not certain, that the subject is notable. From where I sit now though, I'd guess there's only a handful of reliable sources in this article, and I doubt they support all the contentious claims here - from the lede the subject is called a godman, and there is a controversies section with allegations including theft of Christian relics, "disturbing the peace of the dead", sexual misconduct, and more. All of this is referenced, but many of the links are German, a language I do not know. I don't like to rely on machine translations, so it would be great a German competent editor could help evaluate the sources so we can decide what stays. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 02:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

This musician is in the news today, following the settlement of a court case.

Sources 2,3,4 and 5 of his BLP, which cover the first half of the section of our article related to his early life, are either not reliable, or dead. Other material in there appears to be uncited.

Is blanking of those lines appropriate? -- Dweller ( talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 14:16, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I believe so, yes. This is already cited, so we can probably continue to use anything from there for uncontroversial statements of fact that aren't self-serving. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 14:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Done, thanks -- Dweller ( talk) Old fashioned is the new thing! 20:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Chloe Cole has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.

Question of whether the full lawsuit title, published by a reliable source and inclusive of legal name, should be included in the article. Slywriter ( talk) 20:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

An editor has raised concerns about whether or not a particular parsing does or does not raise BLP issues in the article Jo Boaler. The specific source is here and the relevant portion of the article being summarized is:

Conrad said he spent spring break reading not only the framework but also many of the citations from which the authors justified their recommendations. “To my astonishment, in essentially all cases, the papers were seriously misrepresented” and in some cases “even had conclusions opposite to what was said” in the framework. The misrepresentations of the neuroscience of math comprehension, de-tracking in favor of heterogeneous student grouping, the use of assessments and acceleration call into question the recommendations. Writers, he said, “should not be citing papers they do not understand to justify their public policy recommendations” fitting their perspectives.

The content cited to that source was:

Conrad highlighted many cases where he said the authors of the framework had misinterpreted cited sources, presenting conclusions contrary to the underlying research.

The editor Generalrelative has taken issue with the use of the word many in this content and removed that word twice.

Questions: Does inclusion of the word many raise any BLP issues in the article? Is there a better way to summarize the content of the article that is more in line with BLP policy? Thank you. TheMissingMuse ( talk) 06:04, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify: I am happy with the sentence: Conrad highlighted cases where he said the authors of the framework had misinterpreted cited sources, presenting conclusions contrary to the underlying research.

For a bit of background, it may be worth noting that over the past couple months TheMissingMuse has been re-adding content to this BLP that they had originally added while editing as an IP, and which Primefac had removed as BLP violations before semi-protecting the page. I've been trying to apply a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer here, since I see that there is legitimate controversy among the mathematics community over Boaler's work, but I fear that TheMissingMuse may be overshooting the mark in terms of tone, due balance, and accurately representing cited sources. More eyes on the situation would indeed be helpful. Generalrelative ( talk) 06:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I think it will do you well to WP:AGF. Please speak to any specific BLP issues that you have with the article. If you have any BLP issues with any edit that I've made, either under my account or under the previous IP edits, please address them directly. TheMissingMuse ( talk) 06:37, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I've stated my case at Talk:Jo Boaler#Conrad's criticism. Now let's let others weigh in. Generalrelative ( talk) 06:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this secondary reporting of the criticism is WP:DUE given this is not a peer-reviewed academic journal nor even a newspaper article. Instead, this is a niche education article written by an editor of edsource.org. Not only that, Conrad does not explicitly criticise Boaler. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 07:52, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure peer reviewed academic journals are the minimum bar for BLPs. That said, I don't have a strong send of Ed Source and it's use for BLP. Ed Source is certainly used as a source for other articles and BLPs on wikipedia. But maybe a better source is appropriate for this article. There is plenty of coverage of Boaler from more mainstream sources. For example: The New Yorker also discusses Boaler's role in the development of the CAMF as well as Conrad's critique. Boaler has been working on this for the last 5+ years and there are plenty of references that speak to her role in developing the framework. Likewise there are plenty of sources that cover reception of the framework. One difficult aspect with this article is that editors affiliated with Boaler (and possibly Boaler herself) have been active on the page. TheMissingMuse ( talk) 15:30, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It should be no surprise to expect the WP:WEIGHT of academic criticism to be sourced to peer-reviewed academic publications ( WP:SOURCETYPES). Strive for better sources. Use those sources that focus on Boaler and her works. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 20:02, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

On the contrary, this goes against policy. WP:PRIMARY clearly indicates that primary sources, are not good sources for BLP articles. Rather secondary sources from mainstream publications are preferred. The WP:SOURCETYPES clearly says when available academic sources are preferred. The California Math Framework is not a scholarly work, and as such there is little expectation that it would be covered in a peer reviewed journal. TheMissingMuse ( talk) 20:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Criticism of Boaler (not by Boaler) published or acknowledged in peer-reviewed academic journals are not primary materials! You say she has been at this for 5+ years and there's no coverage of this in academic journals? Even those that cover K-12 education? Morbidthoughts ( talk) 20:45, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Seriously? [2] Morbidthoughts ( talk) 20:48, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

It looks like you are making the same mistake with respect to primary sources. If someone writes something critical of Boaler, that person is the primary source for the criticism. Here is a better search that removes the non-relevant articles: 2019 and after, for "California mathematics framework". You can see four articles linked, none of which are peer reviewed. TheMissingMuse ( talk) 20:54, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

You should read WP:SECONDARY, the part about "It contains analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources.". Why limit the search to 2019 when you say she's been at this for 5+ years. [3] Morbidthoughts ( talk) 20:58, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I've read WP:SECONDARY many times over the years. The situation remains that if there is criticism of a source, the author of the criticism is the primary source for that criticism. Regardless, peer reviewed journal publications are by no means the only sources that an be used for BLP articles. TheMissingMuse ( talk) 21:33, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Critical articles published in peer-reviewed journals are still secondary sources for the purposes of this discussion because they are an analysis and evaluation of Boaler's works; the primary source being the Boaler's writings or the Framework itself. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 21:44, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I have to concur with Morbidthoughts there. If a scientist does a medical study, that's the primary source and we can't use it to support the claims. When a peer-review journal does a critique of that study, that's twice removed, which makes it a secondary source. That's what we want for an encyclopedia, is those peer reviews. Now, it may be that they're opinion/editorials in the strictest sense of the word, but it's the type of opinions we want. Another example would be a movie, which is a primary source. We want movie reviews, which are secondary. Opinions though they may be, they are good sources for those opinions by trusted people in the field. Zaereth ( talk) 23:00, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I think we are far afield from the topic at hand. No one has offered up any peer reviewed source here for consideration. The sources discussed so far are from EdSource and The New Yorker. I think we are all agreed that the EdSource citation is a bit niche for a BLP, and that has been removed from the article. Is there any feedback on The New Yorker cite? TheMissingMuse ( talk) 23:06, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

That's just a response to what you said above, which I found to be a flawed argument. If we couldn't print opinions because they are somehow primary sources for those opinions, we wouldn't be able to print opinions at all. An opinion about a subject is not a primary source for that subject. Secondary sources give analyses and interpretations of subjects, which is exactly what we want. That said, I haven't been following this too closely, but maybe I'll give a deeper look in the New Yorker when I have a bit more time. Zaereth ( talk) 23:21, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

The New Yorker cite is fine if the controversy is recent and ongoing, which would deter journal coverage. From what I understand the framework is still under revision and has not been adopted yet. Does anyone have access to this article which came out today? [4] Morbidthoughts ( talk) 23:51, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

You can get access by signing up and creating an account. TheMissingMuse ( talk) 00:16, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

[Stupid edit conflict.} I had to unindent this because it's going right off the edge of my screen. Ok, I tried the New Yorker link, and all I got was a page that said, "Surely, this isn't the page you were looking for". So that link didn't work for me. Maybe some kind of 404 error? To be perfectly frank, I have no idea what this is all really about, which is why I haven't been following it. The reliability of a source depends a great deal on the specific information that source is providing. By reading this discussion, I am unclear on what specific information (if any) is in dispute, and how that relates to the source(s) in question. Is this all about the word "many"? If so, do the sources use the word "many" (or one of its many synonyms)? Or do they give many examples? Do they in any way say or imply that "many" is a good word to use? These are things I need to know before I can even begin to evaluate a source. Plus I need working links to that source, and preferably diffs I can go check.

It's a common problem when people come here that they don't often explain the dispute too well. It's hard, when you understand what's going on in your own mind, to explain it to others so that they will understand, and the article is a good example of that. For example, we talk a lot about this "framework" without ever once explaining to the reader what the word "framework" even means in this context, so it's no wonder that the article is hard to follow. (Writing is hard work, and I think the biggest problem in math education, having lived through it myself, is that math teachers just don't know how to explain it in plain English; a problem shared by many academics, and Wikipedia articles are often a reflection of that. I was in my 20s before I finally leaned where pi came from, and after months of wading through incomprehensible math books trying to learn trigonometry, I finally got all the info I needed from a single paragraph --in a dictionary-- of all places. Math is a language in and of itself; an alien language that few can translate into English.) Normally, I would just go to the history to see the dispute in action, but even that is full of way too many little edits to wade through, so I really have no idea what this is all about nor how it's relevant to this noticeboard. Zaereth ( talk) 00:28, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Sorry about the link to The New Yorker. It must have been a weird edit fail. I think I've fixed the URL. TheMissingMuse ( talk) 00:43, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

As for the dispute, yes it's primarily about the use of the word many. However, I think the feedback that edsource.org is not a sufficiently high quality source is good feedback. I've removed that source from the article, preferring The Chronicle of Higher Education and The New Yorker articles. TheMissingMuse ( talk) 00:46, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, so I assume in the source you're referring to this line to support the word "many"? "I encountered a lot of assertions that were hard to believe and were justified via citations to other papers. So I read those other papers..." The phrase "a lot" is a synonym for "many", so on the surface it does seem to support that word. But words are meaningless without context, and in this source he says he saw a lot of things in the document that seemed unbelievable, and read the citations concluding they had been misrepresented, but that's all he says. He doesn't actually highlight any of those cases anywhere in the source. So, while I think the word "many" is a perfectly good synonym for "a lot", we really need to rephrase that to better match what the source actually says. Zaereth ( talk) 01:04, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

This was my original point ( here), though Zaereth has stated it more clearly than I did. Generalrelative ( talk) 01:14, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The exact quote from the article is above in the original message, excerpted here for clarity: "Conrad said he spent spring break reading not only the framework but also many of the citations from which the authors justified their recommendations." Regardless, this is a WP:DEADHORSE at this point. I've already removed that source and associated content from the article. TheMissingMuse ( talk) 02:03, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for being amenable to compromise. Your recent changes look good to me, btw. Generalrelative ( talk) 02:11, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah. Exactly. He doesn't actually highlight any of the cases there, does he. I would love it if he did, because then I could go look at them myself, but he doesn't. So saying he highlighted them is not correct. He also doesn't present any conclusion to contradict any of the research, he merely says the sources contradict the document, so that's not altogether true either. It a misrepresentation of the source, ironically enough. I'm not saying that the whole thing needs to be removed from the article. To the contrary, it seems like a simple matter of rephrasing it to match what the source actually says. Perhaps, "Conrad said the authors of the framework had misinterpreted many cited sources." There. Now it says what the source does and no more, plus you get the word "many" in there. Zaereth ( talk) 02:23, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

The primary source does exactly what you suggest. It's a report from Brian Conrad a Stanford professor. TheMissingMuse ( talk) 02:37, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

You mean, the primary source says, "Conrad said the authors of the framework had misinterpreted many cited sources." Well, then that would be plagiarism i suppose, except I've never read this primary source of which you speak. We'd probably have to rephrase it. That was the only suggestion I made. Or, are you referring to my observation that he doesn't highlight anything or make any conclusions? (See? You know what you mean, so the words make sense to you, but to communicate that to others you have to see it from the reader's point of view. See: theory of mind.) If he has a blog or his own personal website, then that's a self-published source. Those are only good for a very limited type of info. In writing an encyclopedia article, we also have to consider due weight and balance, which is determined by a preponderance of reliable, secondary sources. Without that rule, Wikipedia articles would be a dumping ground for every cherry-picked fact and opinion people could find to support their own conscious and unconscious biases. We rely on secondary sources to do any cherry picking for us. We just use what the secondary sources give us. Zaereth ( talk) 02:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I checked the source and it does indeed appear to be self-published. That can be fine in other cases if the author is a subject-matter expert (as Conrad is), but not for a BLP. In any case, TheMissingMuse has removed the content in question and agreed to back away from the dead horse, so it really does look like our work is done here. Let's end this on an amicable note and be glad that we've managed to improve the article, yeah? Generalrelative ( talk) 03:05, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Please see my entry today on the talk page re: recently added details of her divorce settlement which seem to be derogatory toward her ex-husband Quincy Jones - similar info has been added at least once before! User who added it again should be warned. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 21:36, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I have restored your edits and notified the user about this discussion. The sourcing that supported their edits are not reliable sources; one was even circular. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 02:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

To answer the other question that you posted on the talk page, her autobiography was published by Bra böcker, a reputable Swedish publisher that presumably does its fact checking. The main issue is whether we can actually verify the extensive details since the book is not easily accessible as say Quincy's autobiography and the detail could be seen as WP:BLPGOSSIP. Most English RS I could find focus on Quincy and really only mention Ulla as his second wife and the mother of two of his children. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 04:24, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you! -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 11:10, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be a concerted effort, encouraged by the subject himself (see twitter https://twitter.com/DavidHundeyin/status/1638308184094900224?s=20), to remove an embarrassing piece of biographical information relevant to the subject. These have resulted in repeated vandalism on the page by those intent on keeping the page hagiographical rather than factual and neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.46.113.112 ( talk) 07:15, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Can you explain this edit of yours [5] that was not directly supported by the citation and was reverted? Do you have a connection to these people, accusations, or events? Morbidthoughts ( talk) 08:14, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no direct connection to the people or event -- except as an observer. I'm a Nigerian, but the subject -- a prominent online personality -- appears intent on editing his own biography to fit a certain narrative that goes against Wikipedia's rules, hence my interest. The edit is supported by the citation. 98.46.113.112 ( talk) 08:24, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Reread the cited article again: "The James Currey Fellowship in Oxford was actually offered to another writer before being given to Mitterand Okorie." Morbidthoughts ( talk) 18:20, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

Academics bickering on the internet? Shocking and unprecedented. But not really worthy of this noticeboard. Cullen328 ( talk) 08:26, 22 March 2023 (UTC)

I have no knowledge of this person but it seems there are two sides that both want to add/remove content irrespective of the sources. I'm particularly concerned about edits such as this one [6]. I think it would be good if more people could keep half an eye on it. Cakelot1 ( talk) 10:19, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

He is a polarising journalist that's pissed off a lot of people in that country so no surprise there. Thanks for keeping an eye on it. One of them has been blocked. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 18:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

I have been expanding the article with sources that I could find so that his biography remains WP:BLPBALANCEd, and not just about his controversy at Cambridge. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 23:13, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

In the article The Reason I Jump: Poorly sourced and defamatory language regarding Naoki Higashida, the author of the book The Reason I Jump. Calls the book, written in first person, a "biography" rather than "autobiography" without conclusive evidence that the author in fact did not write it. Says the book is "attributed to" him rather than written by him, without conclusive evidence. Cites one critical research source but does not cite many existing opposing research sources.

I tried to correct this language but was immediately reverted by user Nordog. I reverted to my version and received a warning message from Nordog that I was violating the NPOV policy. I added discussion showing how the original violated NPOV policy and I was bringing it up to standards. Nordog did not reply to this point and did not make any changes in the "attribution" language to remove biased point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhipup ( talk • contribs) 19:12, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

"Autobiography" is a subcategory of "biography", so it is not false to call it a biography whether the subject wrote it or not. Given that the authorship of the book has been challenged, we should not be putting it in Wikipedia's voice that NH is the author, but barring further revelation, should also not be put in our voice that he is not. It looks as if Nordog is navigating that appropriately. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 19:20, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm concerned about the text in the article which reads Since Higashida lacks a genuine ability to use either written or verbal language, researchers dismiss all claims that Higashida actually wrote the book himself. That doesn't appear to be found in the cited source attached to the statement. What that source actually says is:

For example, if certain skeptics are to be believed, Japan’s second most widely read author, might not be an “author” in the way that word is commonly defined... But not all readers found Higashida’s accounts entirely persuasive. In a review for In-Mind magazine, psychologist Jens Hellman describes his suspicions...

The source says that some people are skeptical, and cites one such psychologist, but we say in wikivoice that "researchers dismiss all claims that Higashida actually wrote the book himself"? Endwise ( talk) 11:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Heather Rae (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I reverted and redacted an unsourced edit about her ethnicity, but it needs attention as it has been raised in reliable sources. Rae self-identities as part Cherokee, but not Cherokee Nation. [7] [8] Now, her Cherokee descent has been questioned. [9] [10] - however, both these seemingly reliable sources refer to reporting from the New York Post [11] based on claims by an activist group and a blog, which aren't reliable. Earlier edits to the bio removed reference to her being Cherokee. Fences& Windows 19:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If the Guardian is giving notice to the controversy, it is likely DUE even if it was the NYP that first published it. Native heritage is not based on self-identification; it is based on some history of tribal membership. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 22:03, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, while I agree with you basically entirely on substance, just want to note that the question of "Native heritage" or "Native identity" is a complex and debated one. Not everyone would agree that it is simple as official registration. See, e.g., this New York Times article. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 22:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Jamie Margolin (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I have a feeling a few additional eyes on this article can't hurt. There is a discussion about the recent content dispute at Talk:Jamie Margolin. ~ ToBeFree ( talk) 23:24, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Yes, we disagree on this one. Seems like there is a war going. Looks like what constitutes public figure will be dispositive. But here are the sources:

https://www.yahoo.com/video/aapi-activist-climate-activist-accuse-230055269.html

https://nyunews.com/news/2021/10/20/jamie-margolin-emma-tang-sexual-assault-allegations/

https://iapps.courts.state.ny.us/nyscef/ViewDocument?docIndex=kkKx9zgobOECUysUF5dmfA== ReidLark1n ( talk) 23:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

No. WP:PUBLICFIGURE requires multiple RS. NextShark, a clickbait site, is not one of them and the NYU student paper is not adequate enough for it to be well documented. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 01:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

And the DOB was not at all supported - removed. Toddst1 ( talk) 17:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

That is interesting indeed. WP:PUBLICFIGURE "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources...delete it." This almost seems to be journalistic elitism that allows lower level public figures to evade otherwise accurate, extensive reporting from primary sources and secondary sources that fall short of a level of notoriety of New York Times, etc. Legally a public figure is not defamed when the information is a legitimate matter of public concern or related to their status as a public figure. Moreover, who is to say that a student newspaper which cites a plethora of primary sources is not WP:SOURCE? ReidLark1n ( talk) 19:35, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The sourcing is insufficient to support inclusion, as stated above. There was no follow up after 2021 in reliable sources and no public information on the outcome of the suit and countersuit. Fences& Windows 20:20, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Given your single purpose contribution history, ReidLark1n, do you have any connection to Tang? Morbidthoughts ( talk) 21:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

No. Frankly, friend, I would ask why this content was so quickly and summarily deleted if not for someone manicuring a biography for legitimate purposes. I think frankly the people who are deleting the comments so quickly have a connection to the topic of the article, if anything. Was thinking a self proclaimed wikilawyer would know better than to accuse someone and dance around ad hominem attacks. I can understand the technicalities of why it was deleted, but the real reason is because someone is clearly manicuring the article. ReidLark1n ( talk) 22:46, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

And yet uninvolved editors who do not care about the topic agree that the sources cited are insufficient. So perhaps, tone down the accusations Slywriter ( talk) 23:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Michael Pocalyko (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Suicide of Eden Knight (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Could some experienced editors take a look at the above two articles, please? There are a few inter-related issues. A young Saudi trans woman named Eden Knight posted what has been taken as a suicide note on social media. In her posting, she named Michael Pocalyko and one of his associates as having been involved in her return to Saudi Arabia from the US, where she had been living. Based on my reading of WP:BLPCRIME, I'm not sure that these allegations should be included in Pocalyko's article. I tried discussing this on the talk page, but other editors insist that Pocalyko is a "public figure" which seems to be clearly incorrect based on the definitions in public figure.

As far as the Eden Knight article goes, I have two concerns. One is that while many media outlets are being careful by using phrases such as "feared dead" or "alleged suicide", Suicide of Eden Knight unequivocally states that she is dead. It even says "c. March 12, 2023". This appears to be a story pieced together in the media from social media posts and speculation. My second concern is that while this is a tragic event, is this alleged suicide historically significant? Sadly, tens of thousands of Americans die by suicide annually. I understand that this case has momentarily garnered some attention because Knight was trans, but I don't see it having lasting impact. I'm sorry if that sounds heartless. It isn't meant to be.

I would appreciate input from those with more experience in these areas. Thank you. ☰ Hamburger Menu ( talk) 16:54, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi all, as a recent contributor to both pages I thought I'd put in my two cents. The events of the past week have received significant reliable source coverage from both sides of the Atlantic Ocean (including multiple sources which detail the alleged involvement of Mr. Pocalyko). I don't think WP:BLPCRIME would apply since no criminal action is being specifically alleged in the article -- not to comment on the moral implications of those actions attributed to Mr. Pocalyko, but regardless it should be clear that the allegations are, indeed, allegations as reported by properly cited sources. The question about whether or not he is a public figure is a bit of a sideshow but I'd like to note that a prominent businessman, political candidate, and successful novelist would likely be a "public figure" for any one of those three circumstances. I think there was a misunderstanding on that point during the previous discussion.

On the subject of death date, some sources are more cautiously worded than others, but it has been reported that Eden Knight was dead no later than March 13 (when her family posted a memorial tweet). When I created Suicide of Eden Knight I wrote it as "c. 2000 - March 12, 2023" because that was the most accurate I could figure and I noted that she died "on or about" March 12 (since the suicide note may have been pre-scheduled, and the family's tweet was on the 13th, there's theoretically a bit of wiggle room but I'm pretty sure most sources are in agreement it was March 12). Yes, some journalists have written things like "feared dead" but others have gone ahead and said it -- they do the legwork in gathering information, whether it's posted publicly on social media or shared with them by parties with first-hand knowledge.

But the most important issue mentioned is the idea that Eden Knight's death was not "historically significant," by which I think you question the article's notability. WP:NOTTEMPORARY states as follows: "Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of 'significant coverage' in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage." That's about all I have to say about that. RexSueciae ( talk) 19:08, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I have not looked into the sources but a reminder that if is a dispute between sources, we need to "fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources" per WP:DUE. This would generally mean if there are sufficient quality reliable sources which treat her death as unconfirmed and which continue to do so even after any new evidence has emerged which may have caused other sources to treat it as confirmed, we should not treat her death as confirmed in wiki voice. Instead we should reflect in the article that her death isn't universally accepted among RS. While it's generally not our place to debate why sources have did what they did, it seems fairly reasonable given the nature of this case and secrecy and lack of media freedom in Saudi Arabia and also lack of respect for human rights that lead to her situation in the first place, that sources are not willing to trust reports from there, the statements from her family or a pre-scheduled suicide note as sufficient to establish whether she has unfortunately passed. While the circumstances of this case may be fairly rare, it's far from the only time a death has remained disputed, so they may provide some guidance to how best to cover this while also giving due consideration to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Nil Einne ( talk) 11:40, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

So I've looked at some similar wiki articles for guidance -- obviously a lot of them aren't exactly on point, since the circumstances of death are indeed unusual -- but probably the closest parallel is the article on Sarah Hegazi, who died on June 14 and whose death (by suicide) was confirmed the following day by her attorney (which is similar to Eden's death on March 12 and confirmation from her family on March 13). In fact, Eden's death has been directly compared to Sarah's by L'Orient-Le Jour (please note the article is behind a paywall, though I found a kind editor who shared the full text). But I should point out that the question of death date does not rise to the level of a situation where editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period, as the guidelines for the BLP Noticeboard describe. RexSueciae ( talk) 17:50, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think the situation with Sarah Hegazi is particularly comparable in terms of the issues relevant to BLP concerns over their reported deaths. For starters, it doesn't seem any sources dispute Hegazi's death as the OP alleges is the case of Eden Knight. There are probably good reasons for this as Hegazi's lawyer is likely a trustworthy source on her death, but Knight's family may not be for her death. (The date of death issues may be slightly similar although I'd note if we have a source sources trust on her death and who was willing to share some limited details, this source may have shared the date so even there it may not be comparable. Also you'd need to look back to earlier discussions anyway, since if there's no dispute over Hegazi's death and it's been over 2 years, it's not even a BLP issue anymore. But also date of death uncertainty can simply be handle by something like circa or similar so frankly it's not a big issue.) A more similar example might be Chhota Shakeel where I've been told some sources treat his death as confirmed (although I've never looked into these alleged sources myself). While death rumours would be the wrong word to use here, the article would still need to reflect the fact the death is disputed if that is the case in sources as claimed by the OP. There are probably stronger examples where someone's death is treated as confirmed by many sources but still disputed by enough other reliable sources that it should not be treated as definite which would be better guidance. I have no idea why you bring up the last point. This is definitely something suitable to discuss on BLPN as it concerns BLP issues. If you don't agree then please refrain from any article where BLP applies including the article on Eden Knight. Nil Einne ( talk) 21:42, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Nil Einne It's a BLP issue, maybe, but it's a relatively minor one and the only fragment of the original "issues" to have survived. First there was the question of whether any of this should be mentioned on Pocalyko's article, which appears dead in the water (and nobody has chimed in to give feedback on the question, so I think there's clear consensus that mentioning his alleged involvement is indeed allowed). Third, there was the question of whether her death is "historically significant" or will have "lasting impact," a question that I think I answered with WP:NOTTEMPORARY (and nobody has contributed there, either, so I assume my interpretation was correct). There remains only the question of whether she died on March 12, as she declared her intent to do, and while this declaration was widely reported by journalists there has been no reporting that death occurred on any other date. Not every outlet saw fit to say that she died on March 12, but some did, and the ones that did not explicitly list a date of death described her suicide note and its date. Drawing the conclusion that she died on March 12 isn't original research, it's something closer to a routine calculation or to not citing the color of the blue sky. And -- just so we're clear -- we are talking specifically about whether the parenthetical birth-and-death dates in the article's lede are an accurate reflection of the rest of the article, not about the rest of the article, which adequately sources every detail about March 12 and the events that took place on that date. RexSueciae ( talk) 22:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)

Another user has brought up a related issue on the talk page of Suicide of Eden Knight. The article currently says Eli Erlick publicly criticized Michael Pocalyko's involvement in the case, stating that multiple trans sex workers in the D.C. area had privately contacted her to say that Pocalyko had been a client of theirs in the past. Someone said this on Twitter and now it is on Wikipedia as fact. More eyes are required here. Thanks. ☰ Hamburger Menu ( talk) 19:40, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

This one has been resolved (the specific allegation was reported in a single reliable source). RexSueciae ( talk) 22:55, 19 March 2023 (UTC)

I dont think this is true, the DC trans sex working community is super tight knit and are connected thru several orgs that keep bad date lists. If there was more truth to this, these orgs + people in this community would be way more forthcoming. - a DC Trans sex worker. 2600:8806:3105:E500:35E2:6360:70C4:C000 ( talk) 23:56, 20 March 2023 (UTC)

Hey, uh. I just noticed that the OP of this thread was indeffed three days ago for sockpuppetry. So...I think there's not much left to discuss? There appears to be a consensus among good-faith editors as to the contents of the page, all that's left is reverting vandalism if and when it appears (and we had a spate the other day). Can't think of anything else to say. Ping me if there's something I've forgotten. RexSueciae ( talk) 00:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Richard Hudson (American politician) This article violates the biography of living person policy, specifically, the neutral point of view policy. The politician this page is about was recently involved in the congressional hearing of the TikTok CEO. His biography was changed after this hearing, the offending comment being "Richard Hudson does not know how WiFi networks work, evidenced by his question to TikTok CEO during the Congress hearing." The offending comment is not written in a dispassionate tone and exists specifically to mock said person for a statement they made regarding a sensitive political issue. Since the page is partially locked, I can't edit it to correct these issues and would like someone with the appropriate credentials to do so to bring this page into compliance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreenrenegade ( talk • contribs) 04:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

 Done It was vandalism. I reverted it and warned them. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 04:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Terry O'Donnell (politician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dean Davis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ryan Martinez (politician) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• T. J. Marti (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mauree Turner (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi all, there have been a few legislators indicted in Oklahoma and there are very few active editors in the topic area. I just wanted to see if I could get a few other more experienced editors to look over these pages and make sure that WP:BLPCRIME is being followed. I've been trying to help get them into compliance, but frankly its a lot of copyediting for one editor and since BLPCRIME for public figures is pretty important I thought I'd post here for help.

Also, TLDR on the scandals: O'Donnell is charged with a few different things, but primarily conspiracy against the state for allegations that he helped change state law to help his wife inherent a tag agency. He was stripped of leadership last session, but is majority whip this session. Davis has been arrested twice, once in 2019 and another recently and at least one editor has confused the two. Marti is friends with Davis and kinda connected to both arrests. Martinez is facing a DUI charge. Turner has not been charged with any crime, but was censured by the legislature. Davis was censured yesterday but I'm not sure articles have been updated to reflect that. TulsaPoliticsFan ( talk) 16:32, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

BLPCRIME is satisfied because these politicians are WP:PUBLICFIGUREs with what seems like extensive coverage. However, there are some WP:BLPBALANCE issues with Davis & Marti. There really should not be much coverage about Davis, if any, in Marti's article given his limited involvement (being present for the arrest and bailing Davis out). The controversy is about Davis. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 17:37, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

The date of birth for Drew Afualo is supported by a reference that is an instagram post. The post doesn't say that it refers to the poster as it refers to a "Baba Yaga" that isn't mentioned anywhere in the article. I've removed the DOB once as {{ failed verification}}, but an editor (who has a history of WP:SYN related to dates of birth) has restored it asserting that this vague instagram post is sufficient.

A WP:DOB of a living person requires a higher standard for inclusion than mere existence of a reliable source and I can't see how this reference in any way cuts it. Additional eyes requested. Thanks. Toddst1 ( talk) 17:33, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll admit that I read this thinking "there's no way this passes BLP"—but I'm not so sure. The context of the Instagram post ("Thank y’all so much for the birthday wishes", "thank u...for making today so special") suggests she's talking about herself. She calls herself "Baba Yaga" on her Tiktok profile, which both Daily Dot and Bloomberg mention. Is that synth? I guess? Woodroar ( talk) 17:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I think that is textbook WP:SYNTH. Toddst1 ( talk) 19:40, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's "textbook synth", it's common for the subjects of articles to be referred to by different names, and seeing what sources say about the subject of that article under those different names isn't usually regarded as synth.

In this case I would err on the side of caution just because of the very slim possibility she isn't talking about herself and because she isn't making that totally clear. But I also don't think that including the birthdate here would be any significant policy violation Tristario ( talk) 04:22, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Technically yes, but in this particular case, I think it's good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:08, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The problem I see there is that we're assuming that everybody celebrates their birthday on the actual day. I don't, and I know many other people who don't. I celebrate it on the nearest weekend that I have off work. I might take an extra day or two off and make it a long weekend, but it's never the same from year to year and never on the actual day, and if I left such an Instagram post it would in no way indicate my real birthdate. Just the day of the celebration. Zaereth ( talk) 19:09, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

"Baba Yaga turned 26 today", I don't see any ambiguity. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:21, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, well, I didn't see that anywhere in Woodroar's statement. I can't access Instagram, Tiktok, or other such sites from my location. 19:34, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Here is the full text:

Baba Yaga turned 26 today & she don’t know how to act 🤓✨ Thank y’all so much for the birthday wishes, I’m so overwhelmed w love my heart could literally burst 😭❤️ & thank u sm to my family & Billy for making today so special … only we could try a horror escape room, and not only laugh the whole time but not even make it out lmfaooooo I love you all so much. 1 more year around the sun, means 1 more year of making men miserable .. & that’s on mf period hahahaha #Oldiestagram Edited · 79w SEPTEMBER 18, 2021

Toddst1 ( talk) 19:48, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi, this is an incredibly narrow and, to my mind, inappropriate invocation of SYNTH. Even without the context that she refers to herself as Baba Yaga (or, for that matter, the fact that Baba Yaga is a fictional folklore figure who doesn't have a birthday), anyone reading in good faith past the first five words can clearly tell that she's talking about her own birthday. This very clearly fulfills DOB guidelines , which I already explained in this edit summary, so the fact that this has even been brought to a noticeboard is pretty ridiculous. Invisiboy42293 ( talk) 22:15, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Your chronic synthesis of birth dates is why we're here. WP:DOBs require strong sourcing. Toddst1 ( talk) 01:41, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

There is also the fact that because we can tease her DOB out of this post, it doesn't follow that we have to put it in the article. DOB:s are not gold to be mined, is my opinion. But consensus will be what it will be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:40, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see it as teasing or gold mining - any reasonable person would see "X turned 26 today! Thank you for the birthday wishes!" and understand it as someone referring to themselves in the third person by a nickname. Invisiboy42293 ( talk) 19:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Also if you really want to be precise about it, there's this tweet from the same day a year later explicitly stating it's her birthday, and this tiktok from the same day where the caption explicitly states that she is "27 today". (All of these are verified accounts btw.) Given that she's proclaimed her birthday and age on multiple social media platforms two years in a row (not to mention the many RS sources in the article that give her age), I feel confident in saying this isn't a privacy issue for her. Invisiboy42293 ( talk) 20:06, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

For the purposes of compromise, I would suggest either using the TikTok source (since it's more direct) or keeping the current source but adding an efn noting that she often refers to herself as Baba Yaga. Invisiboy42293 ( talk) 20:10, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the tiktok source is fine, don't see an issue with that. I do agree with some comments others have made that there isn't a compelling need to be including birthdates in articles. The sourcing here is fine now, but I think it's better to stick to only including birthdates where it's very unambiguous that it belongs in the article Tristario ( talk) 23:30, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

There is a dispute at Talk:Julian_Assange#Is_a_hacker_in_lead, the lead sentence says he is a hacker when he currently faces major charges on that count. It is true he was convicted of hacking when young but I think good context is needed as per WP:BLPCRIME. NadVolum ( talk) 12:47, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

correction because good context is needed, he only has one conspiracy charge thats hacking related and its the most minor charge he has

Julian Assange#Hacking, programming, and early activism In his twenties he plead guilty to 24 hacking charges, the case made him one of the most famous hackers in Australia in the 1990s according to RSes and Wikileaks Softlemonades ( talk) 20:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

While a 1996 conviction for hacking is likely due to the lead, it seems hard to justify in the second sentence of the lead even before Wikileaks is mentioned. Honestly, that lead has far too much play by play content rather than a summary. His 1996 conviction, unless it is related to Wikileaks, should be background content of the lead rather than the second sentence. It likely shouldn't be in the first paragraph of the lead. It certainly isn't a defining characteristic of Assange. Springee ( talk) 13:44, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It was in the second paragraph before, but another editor moved it to be in chronological order and clearer. [12] Softlemonades ( talk) 13:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

(for example)

• Peter Pilz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Nina Hagen (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Oh Hyun-kyung (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Inul Daratista (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

@ Kjell Knudde: has created Category:Sex scandals by country and populated it with many subcategories, which are now being applied to numerous articles, including a heterogenous group of BLP ones. These people are now being categorized as "sex scandals," which seems at best taxonomically incorrect, but additionally, the people so classified include everything from convicted sex offenders, to victims of release of pictures of them without their consent (e.g. Oh Hyun-kyung), to people condemned for allegedly inappropriate dancing (e.g. Inul Daratista. It also seems questionable as to whether this is really a defining characteristic for all of these individuals. This is moving fast so it needs more eyes on it, even before a potential listing at WP:CFD. -- Jahaza ( talk) 00:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

People should never be categorized in subjective categories, period. Masem ( t) 00:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Their talk page suggests that this is not a one-time thing. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 00:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This looks like a category that is going to be a BLP problem. Why would we want it? Where is it defining of a person? It could make sense for articles about a scandal itself but should probably have a note that it cannot be used for people nor should it be used for organizations even if they have an associated scandal. Thus it would apply to Tailhook scandal but not Tailhook Association. Springee ( talk) 13:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks as though there are plenty of entries in the subcats to Category:Scandals which are a person or organisation who was involved in a scandal, and I'm not convinced that any of them are appropriate – e.g. I can't see how "one teacher was convicted of indecent assault of a pupil" is enough to make "sex scandals" defining for Wellington School, Somerset! Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 14:07, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

http://espresearch.com/wp-content/uploads/letter-russell-targ-to-wikipedia-about-remote-viewing.pdf

/info/en/?search=Russell_Targ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.213.218.221 ( talk) 17:59, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

And? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:17, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Targ wrote a reply to the biased profile about him. None of his comments or responses are in the profile. He has not even been allowed to the respond to the claims against him. That is not proper. 98.213.218.221 ( talk) 11:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

the article about Targ is unfair to him, potential slander or liable. It does not even give his response, though he wrote a letter to Wikipedia addressing it. 98.213.218.221 ( talk) 11:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, see this page. 98.213.218.221 ( talk) 11:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

no legitimate publisher would publish something like this without giving person chance to respond 98.213.218.221 ( talk) 11:13, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

What is in the article that is not sourced, or poorly sourced? Some specifics would help. Additionally, we need reliable, secondary sources covering any response in order to include it. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 11:14, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it fair, reasonable or appropriate to condemn this guy in an unbalanced pejorative manner? Then, he replies to the accusations, and his response is ignored? Negligence. 98.213.218.221 ( talk) 13:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This article is mean-spirited and outright insulting to the guy. At the least, his reply should be included to add balance. 98.213.218.221 ( talk) 13:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

his response to allegations about his work certainly qualify as credible, there are secondary blurbs and so forth that applaud some aspects easily found, as well 98.213.218.221 ( talk) 13:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

this what you get without professional objective editors, literal insults of people - and no refutation allowed, it is ignored 98.213.218.221 ( talk) 13:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

what are the rules about insults? Are they allowed? 98.213.218.221 ( talk) 13:42, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

ridicule is encouraged and disrespect to others, as well 98.213.218.221 ( talk) 13:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

here is a secondary source pertinent to one point at issue, see chapter 3...Karl Popper (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy) 98.213.218.221 ( talk) 13:47, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Why do you keep responding to your own comments? It makes it very hard to follow. This is all very vague anyway. Are you expecting us to read your mind? (Pun intended.) "Insulting" and "mean spirited" are very subjective statements. Some people are just overly sensitive and have low self-esteem, and are insulted at every turn, whereas someone who has high self-esteem and is comfortable with themselves is virtually impossible to insult no matter what you say about them. If you wan something changed, we need specifics. The article looks pretty neutral to me. I mean, there is a fair amount of criticism of his work, but that's to be expected. In science experiments it's all about repeatability, and if people are unable to reproduce those experiments then they are usually discounted as flukes. Whatever the case, we need specifics about what you want changed. Zaereth ( talk) 13:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

did you read the letter to Wikipedia he wrote? The link is included and on his website 98.213.218.221 ( talk) 14:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

overly sensitive? Ha, text repeatedly denigrates dude 98.213.218.221 ( talk) 14:12, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

shall I make a list of all the insults? Words applied to him include careless, deception, exaggerated, unsupported, pseudoscience, no credible evidence, outsmarted by cleverer...the article is wholly one-sided, all-negative and no-positive, per remote viewing 98.213.218.221 ( talk) 14:19, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It is wholly unfair and ignores his refutation, which adds a second injustice to the original wrong, in science, both sides are presented, not just one side of a matter 98.213.218.221 ( talk) 14:22, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

ridicule is not part of the scientific method 98.213.218.221 ( talk) 14:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't know much about this subject, but I know biased, non-objective copy, this is clearly biased and not objective. In addition, it is pejorative, to boot. Good work. 98.213.218.221 ( talk) 14:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

some people may be more sensitive, they should not be insulted in the article about themselves and then have their reply ignored. At the least, their reply should be included along with the supposed insults, you are disingenuous, it seems, to say what you say, I think 98.213.218.221 ( talk) 14:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I suggest adding the text of his letter to Wikipedia in the copy verbatim to correct this matter. 98.213.218.221 ( talk) 14:43, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Nope. Didn't read any letter. If people have a case to make, I usually expect them to make it here rather than sending us off on some wild goose chase. Your argument is based on a fallacy called appeal to emotion, and therefore is unlikely to convince. We deal in secondary sources here, and to be honest I don't have much interest in this, except maybe in trying to help you better make your own case. The words you find insulting are taken out of context, and most of those are simply quotes from other scientists as far as I can tell. None of these seem to be ridiculing the subject, and I don't see what you find insulting about them, although ridicule happens often in science. Take Alfred Wegener, for just one example. When he came up with his theory of plate tectonics he became the laughing stock of the scientific community, and if Wikipedia existed back then we would reflect that in his article. If the article is off balance, then you need to find sources to counterbalance it. That said, since you seem more interested in just talking to yourself rather than proposing any specific changes or providing sources, then I'm just not interested in following up on this further. You've indented so many times it's gone right off the side of my screen. Zaereth ( talk) 14:54, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

If you didn't read his letter, you have not considered the evidence and are ignorant of this matter. He might well be too sensitive, in more ways than one, but it seems unlikely. Nonetheless, his letter should be quoted verbatim to balance out this unfair article. 98.213.218.221 ( talk) 15:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not interested in primary sourced "evidence", and we don't quote subjects unless those quotes are found in reliable secondary-sources. I don't know if he's too sensitive or not, but you seem to be coming off that way, and seriously, it's not helping your case. You haven't really made any case, nor given any specific changes you'd like made, and, contrary to the subject's belief, I can't read your mind and I doubt anyone else here can either. I've given all the advice I'm going to, so it's up to you to take it or leave it, but I'm telling you from experience that your current approach is not going to get you anywhere. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth ( talk) 15:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It should be noted that Targ's letter dates to 2014. This has been discussed before, and no convincing Wikipedia policy-based arguments were put forward which justified the sort of substantial rewrite of out coverage that Targ is asking for. We are under no obligation whatsoever to include content from the subjects of our biographies, and the article appears to accurately reflect scientific consensus regarding Targ's claims. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Kris Jenner (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) page is semi-protected. Any references to Caitlyn Jenner are removed or otherwise not allowed. This violates the policy outlined here Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Biography#Gender_identity Nonnormal87 ( talk) 14:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

@ Geraldo Perez: You seem to be a party to this discussion. ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 14:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The two most recent substantive discussions on the talkpage ( Talk:Kris Jenner#Caitlyn Jenner and Talk:Kris Jenner/Archive 1#Wouldn't it make more sense to be "Caitlyn Jenner (then Bruce)" rather than "Bruce Jenner (now Caitlyn)"?) have by my count seven registered users and two IPs arguing on the basis of MOS:GENDERID that we should refer to Caitlyn Jenner, and Geraldo Perez arguing against that on the basis of some unspecified discussion from the archives. It looks to me as though as both local consensus and wikipedia's guidelines are firmly on the side of using "Caitlyn Jenner". Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 15:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Village pump (policy)/Archive 121 § MOS:IDENTITY clarification where the issues surrounding how to refer to Caitlyn Jenner was raised and extensively discussed. Kris Jenner is the subject of the article under discussion and primary consideration in a BLP article is consideration for the subject of the article. Other people matter, of course, but when there is a conflict consideration for the subject of the article should be primary. There is a notice at the top of the article talk page that states "Care must be taken to ensure that a new reader who knows nothing of the subject is not given a misleading impression of Kris' sexuality". Identifying the person she was married to as a woman does that. As noted in the RfC and in recent comments on the talk page, Caitlyn Jenner specifically, and this matters for MOS:IDENTITY concerns, disclaims that Bruce Jenner is a deadname, is proud of her accomplishments using that name, so has no issues with her previous name used when appropriate. The article at Kris Jenner appropriately uses both names in context. The article is a balance of concerns and treats both people with proper consideration. There is no reason to change it.
To add - it is not true as stated in the remarks at the start of this discussion that "Any references to Caitlyn Jenner are removed or otherwise not allowed". Examination of the article itself shows otherwise. A wholesale removal of any mention of "Bruce Jenner" is what is being opposed. Geraldo Perez ( talk) 17:28, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This page, about an Onlyfans celebrity, included a real name and birthday, without a source. I moved it to draft for WP:BLP reasons, and it was moved back with the addition of this, which only established that there is a company sharing the name of the Onlyfans account, and that that company has a director with the name given in the article; but a real connection between these breadcrumbs seems to be missing. Is this sufficient as a source to include the name (never mind the birth date), or should they be removed and rev-delled? Fram ( talk) 14:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I've deleted the edits under RD2. The Wordsmith ^{Talk to me} 17:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Thanks! Fram ( talk) 17:57, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&cs=0&q=Who+is+the+black+singer+in+TSO%3F&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiWgtaYyoH-AhWojYkEHYbfDMAQzmd6BAgEEAY

altho TSO has had and has numerous African American member over the years Chris Caffery is not one of one of them — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.41.4.242 ( talk) 16:50, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

We have an article on Chris Caffery, and one on Trans-Siberian Orchestra, a band he has played in. Neither seem to suggest that Caffery is an African American. If there are sources elsewhere that suggest this, I'd have to suggest that they are mistaken, but that isn't an issue for Wikipedia. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:36, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Those Google bubbles are frequently incorrect. As we have no influence on those, the only thing to do is to click the feedback button at the bottom right of the bubble and press the inaccurate option. Curbon7 ( talk) 20:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Patrick Stübing is currently at AFD (submitted by me) as I believe it's a WP:BLP1E. The discussion was relisted and would be nice to get more people familiar with the BLP policy to look in at it. Maybe I am wrong about it. - Who is John Galt? ✉ 16:13, 18 March 2023 (UTC)

AfD ended, BLP kept, renaming remains a possibility. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 12:16, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

RMF here

haunting isnt it 2603:8000:54F0:7CD0:55D1:8ECD:BE7F:239E ( talk) 02:34, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

• The article has now been re-named to “ Cases of Stübing v. Germany”. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:59, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

2012 Delhi gang rape and murder (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

1990 Punggol rape and murder (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mandai burnt car murder (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kallang Bahru rape and murder (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Rape of Dini Haryati (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Yesterday, Justanother2 ( talk · contribs) moved 5 articles, all falling under WP:BLPCRIME without any discussion or talk page notification. All of their moves follow the same trend (remove descriptiveness or the word "rape" from the title).

For at least one of the articles, 2012 Delhi gang rape and murder, there has been already multiple WP:RM discussions over the last few months and the current title has been decided based on consensus. Per WP:BRD, I reverted it, left a talk page notification, and requested to discuss on Talk page before making any changes.

They moved the page again without any talk page discussion or consensus, and only left a short message on my talk page. If I read it correctly, their argument is just that they find it 'inappropriate' and so it should be changed, something not supported by any policy afaik.

I am not very experienced in WP:BLPCRIME so cannot judge the other articles (and none of them have any discussions on title). So bringing it here so more experienced editors on the topic can weigh in with policy. We're not at 3RR yet, and this isn't necessarily "urgent", but it'll still benefit from more eyes.

Soni ( talk) 12:48, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think I misspoke and said BLPCRIME when it's more in the realm of WP:NCRIME. As far as I understand, it's still under BLP, so bringing here. Soni ( talk) 12:50, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Update : Two more reverts, which brings me to 3RR I believe. They left another user talk message but refuse to actually discuss the policy, and refuse to engage on article talk, their own talk page or here. Since I cannot make any more reverts, requesting another uninvolved user to look into this, thanks. Soni ( talk) 13:05, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how the titles or articles violate WP:BLPCRIME or WP:NCRIME or fail WP:BLP in general. It isn't necessary to identify a particular policy but just saying the titles are inappropriate is not enough to start trying to understand their reasoning. There seems to be consensus for the current titles so they should be warned about disruption and blocked if they continue and can't engage properly with others. NadVolum ( talk) 13:58, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

There is an RFC at Murders of Abigail Williams and Liberty German on whether to include the suspects name that may be of interest. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 18:19, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I am a friend of Kevin Brown Team GB Discus Thrower, he asked me to update his achievement on his Wikipedia page. I have just spent a good while pulling it all together and after several changes I was happy with how it was worded. I tired to add an image but didn't realise I couldn't use the image address and when I published I got a note afterwards saying all the changes had been removed becasue I hadn't added a reference, well the reference was from Kevin himself.

I went to edit it only to find the whole pages which i had been publishing as I went on had disappeared and I am peeved to say the least. I understand the last change but the previous ones with the text updates were ok as they were showing as I had put them together. Can this be republished minus the image as I do not want to go through the entire process as it has taken me a while to do this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7C:E2A7:6B00:3913:8ECE:C633:3455 ( talk) 13:43, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

• Hi - as your message said, the changes were reverted as they did not have a reliable source to back them up. Unfortunately, as you will see from reading the page I linked, someone's word of mouth is not enough to source something however reliable a person they may be - it needs to be from a secondary source and able to be linked. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 13:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  So can you please help to advise me on this, do I need to go back to Kevin as he is the individual, he also suffers dyslexia which is why he asked me to help him. Does the changes need to come from him then. Also I spent a while putting together what Kevin sent me and then made the changes on his page. Can this be sent to me please so I don't have to re-write the whole thing as I have already spent a lot of time on this. The data I added was factual and gave a lot more insight into the Athlete and his work in helping to raise money for charities and athletic performance and records of achievements. Surely this is something that Wikipedia would want to see. 2A02:C7C:E2A7:6B00:3913:8ECE:C633:3455 ( talk) 14:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

You need citations to a reliable independent source for any text, you can't just quote him though you're allowed a very little if he has said something about himself on the web or article somewhere, see WP:SELFSOURCE. For images though you can put up a picture which is your work or for which he sends along an email - Commons:Commons:First steps goes into the process. NadVolum ( talk) 14:42, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Is it possible to get the re-worded changes that I entered sent to me please before they were reverted,I will then send them to Kevin and ask him to confirm that he agrees with this and even get him to contact direct or through Team GB maybe. I just don't want to lose all that work I entered earlier for him. 2A02:C7C:E2A7:6B00:8F65:347A:279E:B492 ( talk) 15:34, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Does this help: [13]? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:44, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Thank you appreciate that, now I just need to find a way to get the references required and I have sent this across to Kevin. Is there any way that the individual can either contact or indeed request the change be carried out for him by Wikipedia as the process of adding the image is confusing to us oldies and I know he is keen to get his profile updated as he still participates in the Masters representing the UK. 2A02:C7C:E2A7:6B00:BD84:84BC:FAD0:4946 ( talk) 20:53, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Kevin sent me a load of images with his medals and the story behind them and added this onto the email You can use this email as confirmation that what you have written is nothing but the truth,

Most of the proof is in my office, but I’ve got a few things here that I have taken some pictures as an attachment on this email

Wikipedia is very welcome to contact the athletics Federation

My full name is kevin brown date of birth 10th of September 1964

I hope that helps you can give them my mobile number and they can contact me for confirmation any time 2A02:C7C:E2A7:6B00:BD84:84BC:FAD0:4946 ( talk) 21:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Hi there. I'm sorry, but you seem to be misunderstanding us. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means we get our info from WP:Secondary sources. For more on what that means, you can click on the blue link I just provided, but what it basically means is that we use things like newspapers, magazines, books, etc. We don't interview people or accept their emails as sources. That's what newspapers and magazines do. For very limited types of information, we may possibly be able to use a personal website or social media site, but that's only for a tiny number of specific things. What we really need are those secondary sources, though. We can't use any of the things you want us to. Zaereth ( talk) 22:06, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Zaereth is quite correct. A WP-article about Kevin Brown (discus thrower) is supposed to be a summary of published, independent WP:RS about him. The article is not his social media. No good source, no content. If he has world records, the WP-philosophy is that an independent WP:RS will have noticed it and bothered to write something about it. If not, we'll wait until that happens.

Images are nice to have in articles, but WP is very careful about copyright, and the copyright holder is generally the photographer, not the subject. So if you want to make an image of Brown available for WP-use, take one yourself with your own camera, WP:REGISTER (it's free) and upload it with the process that starts here. OR, persuade another photographer to do that. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:50, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

For example, sources like [14] [15] don't "count" as WP:RS, see WP:SPS. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:55, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

In Talk:Julian_Assange#Is_a_hacker_in_lead @ Softlemonades: keeps asserting Assange is a hacker in a way which I believe violates WP:BLPCRIME and wants to stick that into the first sentence of the article despite there being an ongoing case against him. I put a short description of what he did in as a second sentence and removed the contextless label in the first sentence but they are not satisfied diff. They insist it is reasonable because they have RS saying he is a hacker and because of he himselff saying so. However his organisation denies it and he only said he was a hacker when describing what he was convicted for. They also say all RS say he is a hacker despite my showing RS saying it is an allegation that he is a hacker rather than a journalist. They also say there is evidence of him hacking, that is in an RS but with one anonymous source the lead author has published at least two very damaging things about Assange which are definitely untrue citing anonymous sources. They assert they have a consensus but that was previously and they don't now. They insist they are not acting against BLPCRIME by going on and on in the talk page despite having no new suggestions since being asked to stop. I believe doing so goes against the first sentence of WP:BLP 'Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, and project pages.' Could somebody please explain to themthatsoliphisms about hacking not necessarily referring to a crime and other such stuff simply does not stop a reader assuming that a label as a hacker without context will be assumed to refer to the current case and it is just wrong in the first sentence? NadVolum ( talk) 12:17, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

1 They assert they have a consensus but that was previously and they don't now Editors in favor: Softlemonades, ValJean, Slatersteven, Kcmastrpc. Editors against: NadVolum, Cambial Yellow, Jtbobwaysf. Consensus is still to include it

2 However his organisation denies it His organisation also admits it. As a teenager he became Australia's most famous ethical computer hacker. After referrals from the United States government his phone was tapped in 1991 and he spent 6 years in court. He hacked thousand of systems, including the Pentagon and the US military Security Coordination Center. [16] NadVolum also brought up that the source of the denial isnt reliable Would you trust someone on something big if they tell a lie on something small? Talk:Julian_Assange#Asked_for_an_ambassadorship

3 They also say all RS say he is a hacker I never said all. But I did say that the RSes continue to say hes a hacker this week, like The New York Times. The documentary insists that the computer hacker, who’s accused of publishing classified government documents, is the victim of a smear campaign. What exactly those smears are, the film declines to specify or debunk. [17]

4 I put a short description of what he did in as a second sentence The conviction does not cover his admitted hacking activities, he plead guilty to 24 counts of hacking related to Nortel and Australian companies. None of it had to do with the Pentagon, MILNET, or any of the other activities hes described or that are covered in RSes Julian_Assange#Hacking,_programming,_and_early_activism

5 despite having no new suggestions since being asked to stop Ive suggested alternate language like has been after NadVolum said the problem was the word is but then NadVolum had a problem with the past tense, too.

6 NadVolum already raised the issue at WP:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Putting_is_a_convicted_hacker_in_the_first_sentence_when_there_is_a_current_case and didnt get any support. Softlemonades ( talk) 12:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The simple fact is that Assange has long ago reached celebrity status, so BLPCRIME doesn't really apply in this case. He actually falls under the exemption to that rule, which is PUBLICFIGURE. Celebrities have a much lower expectation of privacy --by law-- than a private citizen. There may be other arguments against the use of this term, although none have been presented here, but BLPCRIME isn't one that is likely to hold water. Zaereth ( talk) 13:32, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Just to clarify, in certain subcultures being described as a hacker isn't considered a negative label. I've objected to labeling him as a "convicted hacker" though, as I have concerns with "convicted" giving weight to the accusations of criminality with what he is most notable for (wikileaks). That being said, if given a choice between, "convicted hacker" and nothing, I'd side with nothing. Kcmastrpc ( talk) 13:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I dont think it needs to say "convicted hacker", that was a compromise suggested. I think hacker is good and includes all the meanings. Assange talks about hacking things but he also describes what I think hacker subsculture is By now, the computer work was taking up a great deal of my time. I was beginning to get the hacker's disease: no sleep, bottomless curiosity, single-mindedness, and an obsession with precision. Later, when I became well known, people would enjoy pointing out that I had Asperger's or else that I was dangling somewhere on the autistic spectrum. I don't want to spoil anyone's fun, so let's just say I am – all hackers are, and I would argue all men are a little bit autistic. But in my mid- to late teens I could barely focus on anything that didn't seem to me like a major breakthrough. [18] Softlemonades ( talk) 13:41, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:BLPCRIME. The bit saying 'A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.' is not covered by public figures. Also see WP:LABEL about contentious labels. The label is denied. He did do hacking in the past - we can mention that as Wikipedia is not covered by Australia's laws about expunged crimes. That also does not label him in a way that prejudges the current case. What Softlemonades talks about just above is him describing doing hacking when young. NadVolum ( talk) 13:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Have a read of WP:BLPCRIME. Now your arguing with the people you wanted an opinon from. Great

A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law He plead guilty to 24 counts and we can use his own words about hacking the Pentagon

expunged crimes ^{citation needed} His lawyers had some of the documents unsealed. Theres a lot that wasnt covered in the court case, like the Pentagon hacking, that Assange has talked about publicly and wasnt charged or expunged Softlemonades ( talk) 14:01, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

He is currently accused of a crime. A reader will assume 'hacker' as a label refers to his work with Wikileaks and the accusation by the US. It isn't a question of 'hacker' 'convicted hacker' or 'nothing'. I removed hacker from the first sentence and put in ' He was convicted in Australia for hacking in 1996' as the second sentence but seeming that isn't good enough for Softlemonades. NadVolum ( talk) 14:11, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Why will the reader assume that? I'm a reader and I didn't assume that so its not true but I'm interested in knowing why you think it is. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 14:48, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

You say you have a number of friends who call themselves hackers but are not criminals. Might I suggest you are not a typical reader? Most people's ideas of hackers will come from films of their incredible skill hacking the Pentagon in five minutes, hospitals being held to ransom, and and Window's patch Tuesday. NadVolum ( talk) 17:02, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

But Assange *did* hack the Pentagon, if thats what they think in this context that is entirely appropriate. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

That was when he was a teenager thirty or so years ago. It has nothing to do with what he is charged with now which relates to his time with Wikileaks. It is wrong to label him as a hacker and especially not in the context of being accused of it. If he committed a murder thirty years ago then it would be inapproprioate to label him as a murderer whilst he was accused of another murder. At most the right thing to do is say he committed a murder thirty years ago. NadVolum ( talk) 17:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you joking? If a convicted murderer was being tried for a separate murder there is absolutely no way we would remove murderer from the lead. If they were being retried for the same crime you would have half a point, as it stands you have no point. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:52, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

No I am not joking. I really do believe as BLPCRIME says 'A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.' Labelling them as a murderer in Wikivoice, especially in the first sentence without any context, when they are accused of it rather than just saying they committed a murder in the past is telling people that the person is guilty. NadVolum ( talk) 19:59, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

The person is guilty. That remains true no matter what happens in the second case. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 20:03, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Not of the murder he is currently accused of. That murder is in dispute. Saying is a murderer in that context in Wikivoice without specifying what murder yoyu're talking about is labelling them as guilty. Did they commit the murder a person asks and looks up Wikipedia. The person is a murderer Wikipedia says in the first sentence. It is the sort of stuff one gets on the web but it is very wrong and quite repellant and sophistry does not make it right. NadVolum ( talk) 20:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

They're a murderer either way... That remains true no matter what happens in the second case. No matter what happens in the second case the lead is still going to say "murderer." Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 20:50, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Hopefully it would say something like 'Xyz committed murder thirty years ago date or his age when he did abc' instead if we follow WP:BLPCRIME and WP:LABEL. In Assange's case we have headlines like Journalist or criminal: Julian Assange, notorious for leaks of US secrets, faces computer hack charge which shows talk about hackers may not be criminals so it's fine to stick it in without context is simply not true. NadVolum ( talk) 23:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

Regardless of any of that... Assange. Is. A. Criminal. Hacker. Convicted in 1996. That will remain true and verifiable no matter what the outcome of these pending matters is. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 01:52, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

The context is the article and the section called Hacking, programming, and early activism. Leads arent meant to explain controversies for a persons life, but they should introduce them. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies.

For Julian, the hacking is more than just his conviction. So we dont have to say hes a hacker, but if we dont give the simple, general description then we need to say more than just "he was convicted in Australia" because even he and WikiLeaks admit he did a lot more than what he plead guilty to.

Example The Time Julian Assange Hacked the Pentagon Julian talks about it and article says the statute of limitations expired. They say the US contacted Australia, but Australias investigations were over local things like Australian National University Softlemonades ( talk) 13:20, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Assange isn't notable for crimes he committed as a teenager. There is no legitimate reason to put this in the first sentence of the lede. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 14:27, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Assange isn't notable for crimes he committed as a teenager. He began hacking as a teenager but they were crimes he commited as an adult, and his admitted hacking goes beyond the crimes he was convicted of. They were also what first made him famous. But I agree its not what hes most notable for now. Softlemonades ( talk) 14:35, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm not interested in what you 'agree with'. Assange isn't notable for hacking, and inclusion in the lede is undue and prejudicial. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 14:37, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Assange is one of the world's most famous hackers, thats true no matter what your opinion of the term hacker is. How does "A hacker is a person skilled in information technology who uses their technical knowledge to achieve a goal or overcome an obstacle, within a computerized system by non-standard means." not describe Assange? This is of course putting aside the point that a whole bevy of WP:RS use the term to describe Assange, its definitely Kosher from a BLP standpoint. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 14:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Leaving aside that this topic appears to have two camps of opinion warriors who would rather eat their own toe than give the other an inch the term hacker is not innately or universally derogatory. I have a number of friends who refer to themselves as hackers and none of them is a criminal (one even works in public security). I note that nobody on team "don't call Saint Assange a hacker you ho" has gone over to Hacker to give it a complete overhaul. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 14:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

It can also mean a person who commits criminal activities. If a person comes to the article from something saying the US accuses Assange of hacking they'e hardly likely to assume your meaning! Are you saying I had a very slanted pro Assange mindset when I put in 'He was convicted in Australia for hacking in 1996' instead of just is a hacker in the first sentence? NadVolum ( talk) 15:55, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you saying I had a very slanted pro Assange mindset when I put in 'He was convicted in Australia for hacking in 1996' instead of just is a hacker in the first sentence? A version of that had been there for a while. I could argue about my Rollback meaning I didnt have a view but just let it go Softlemonades ( talk) 16:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Isn't Assange both? He was convicted of the criminal sort of hacking as well. If a person makes such an assumption despite nothing like that being said then they lack basic reading comprehension and we need not concern ourselves with them. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Your absurd, groundless and pointless mischaracterisation of the participants in the discussion and their position neither furthers the discussion nor advances your position on the topic. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:10, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Julian Assange and its talk page are a toxic cesspool. The top ten editors to the talk all have over 300 edits, that is absurd. Its a sewer and its the same editors shitting in that sewer day after day and then bathing in it. This ridiculous talk page discussion only makes sense in that context, it would not have been escalated here from a normal or healthy page. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:20, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I’m glad you got that rhetorical flourish off your chest. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:24, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Methinks the lady doth protest too much... You've made 361 edits to Talk:Julian Assange, is that figure correct? It appears to be by far your most edited talk page [19], no? Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:30, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

So? Cambial — foliar❧ 16:33, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Lol Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Enforcement/Archive315#Softlemonades Cambial Yellowing, I picked up on one slightly older warning to indicate that this is an ongoing problem. That's what "inveterate" means. That I p-blocked you and not the others is precisely because it has become clear to me that you cannot edit neutrally etc.--as opposed to those you keep fighting with. Anyone can look through the archives of ANI and ANEW to find that this is not a new thing. And you could have protested my p-block, or even my later warning, but your only response for that block was this--in keeping with how dismissively you treat communications, warnings, and notifications. You also never responded to VQuakr's rather detailed ANEW report, which resulted in that p-block for WikiLeaks. -Drmies As for Cambial Yellowing, I'd love to hear an argument for why their combative approach to editing doesn't necessitate an indefinite block. - HJ Mitchell Hemiauchenia ( talk) 18:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

What’s the old Thatcher quote? - “I’m always encouraged when people attack me personally, as it means they have lost the argument.” You managed to do so without even engaging with the debate – impressive, in its own way. Cambial — foliar❧ 21:40, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

To paraphrase Ian Hislop "If that's a personal attack, then I'm a banana". It's pretty rich of you to complain about personal attacks, given that you called Doug Weller a lying cunt and a piece of dogshit. (this is mentioned in the above AE post). Hemiauchenia ( talk) 21:53, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Who is complaining? As I already stated, it’s encouraging as it indicates a realisation that the argument is without merit. Your failure to say anything whatsoever about the subject at hand is also telling. Cambial — foliar❧ 22:38, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Copied from my reply above: While a 1996 conviction for hacking is likely due to the lead, it seems hard to justify in the second sentence of the lead even before Wikileaks is mentioned. Honestly, that lead has far too much play by play content rather than a summary. His 1996 conviction, unless it is related to Wikileaks, should be background content of the lead rather than the second sentence. It likely shouldn't be in the first paragraph of the lead. It certainly isn't a defining characteristic of Assange. Springee ( talk) 14:46, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Copied from my reply above to be complete It was in the second paragraph before, but another editor moved it to be in chronological order and clearer. [20] Softlemonades ( talk) 14:49, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

'Chronological order' is an absurd justification for inclusion of anything in the lede sentence of a biography. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 15:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

This is talking about the conviction, which had been in the second paragraph before it was to the second sentence of the lead like Springee said and the diff showed Softlemonades ( talk) 15:31, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that moving it from the first sentence to the second sentence corrects the issue? Springee ( talk) 16:15, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Im just giving the history. The conviction was in the second paragraph. Then it was moved to the second sentence, where it is now. Andy thought it was moved to the lede sentence for chronological order by another editor, but

I didnt explain the edit right and they didnt look at the diff 21. The edit isnt about the first sentence, and chronological order was never a justification for inclusion of anything in the lede sentence Softlemonades ( talk) 16:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

As AndyTheGrump says, Assange is not notable for a hack in Australia in 1991. His Wikipedia page was created in February 2010. The first part of the lead is to establish article subject’s notability. This isn’t part of subject’s notability, so it ought not to be in the first paragraph. As to whether it should be mentioned in the lead: that’s a value judgement which should be based on how often this is raised in RS that discuss Assange and his work. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:21, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Two points:

1. I can accept adding "He was convicted in Australia for hacking in 1996" as the second sentence instead of "hacker" in the first sentence.

2. NadVolum does not understand PUBLICFIGURE. Conviction and truth or falsity are totally irrelevant. Contrary to what NadVolum writes above, accusations, investigations, and arrests are indeed covered by PUBLICFIGURE. That's why that policy exists! If any negative information, false accusation, conspiracy theory, rumor, libel, or arrest, etc. is mentioned in several RS, PUBLICFIGURE tells us how to include (not to exclude) mention of those things, even if terribly false and libelous. (This keeps us on track to fulfill our obligation to document the sum total of human knowledge. Such things are part of that knowledge.) The public has heard of these false accusations and may wonder if they are true. Wikipedia refuses to memory hole and cover-up the issue and provides a service by providing the facts on all the sides of the issue mentioned in those RS. Failure to mention such negative information violates BLP's PUBLICFIGURE and is a disservice to a person who is falsely accused in the media. The negative in junk media is usually what makes a lasting impression, whereas an acquittal or debunking in reliable sources is barely noticed. Wikipedia steps into the breach and sides with those who are falsely accused.

Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 17:25, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I have not objected to reliable reporting on him. I have objected to saying something that is disputed and is the subject of BLPCRIME in the lead sentence in Wikivoice. I can accept your point 1 as well - that's what I did! NadVolum ( talk) 17:45, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

Ok, here's my take. First and foremost, the article is awful. I only read the lede, and the lede is awful. It's basically another article written out as a timeline of events, which makes it very hard and monotonous to read. That's not meant to be an insult, but, rather, some constructive criticism. Adhering to a strict chronological order is not usually the best way to convey information, simply because our brains don't work in a linear fashion. Different aspects of a subject may (usually) overlap chronologically, and sometimes the order of events is not very important at all, depending on the subject. It far better to divide a subject up into different aspects and order those by level of importance, and use chronology more as a secondary system. It's just easier to read and follow that way, and you'll find it reads a lot more like an encyclopedia article that way too.

Next, the lede of any article doesn't need that much detail. It should be written like a summary, but in this article it's like all the boring details from the body are being jammed in there. That, also, makes for some boring reading. All we really need there is the gist of it. The lede should be written at a sixth-grade level. The first sentence should be a simple equation that best sums up the subject in as few words as possible. It's ok if the first sentence is somewhat vague, because it's only a starting point. It provides the very basic context for the next sentence, and so on. It's important to begin with what the subject is, and save the wheres, whens, and hows for after you have some context in place. Chronological order is only as important as it applies to the importance of the six basic questions, and that order is determined by what the brain needs to build context. "What" is always the first.

We all have our personal biases, and that greatly affect how people assemble these articles. Technical and scientific articles often have an academic bias, and are written so that articles are often only understandable to other academics or people with a lot of background knowledge of the subject. Take the mirror article, for example. For the longest time it began with long-winded and tedious explanations of specular reflection, and then others coming along complaining it's too technical. It's not necessary to begin an article with the deep science. To the contrary, it's best to start out simple and provide context for further information, and divide up a subject by it's most notable aspects rather than adhering to strict chronology. There's too much wikilawyering here about why this should go in and not that, but what we should really be discussing is how to make that mess better. Less detail, more summary, and put stuff in a more logical order so it flows nicely would be a start. Zaereth ( talk) 18:23, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree with all of that Softlemonades ( talk) 19:08, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

So do I. But as noted above it can be a bit toxic. The discussions have got considerably better though over the last year compared to what it was like before despite the evidence of this discussion, so who knows? perhaps there is hope for a nice Wikignome to come along and tidy it all up. I'm certainly not qualified, perhaps we should see what GPT-4 can do with rewriting it and sign for it in the history ;-) NadVolum ( talk) 19:29, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

I glad you are able to find some common ground. That's a step in the right direction. I don't know much about the subject, but as a general thing we have much more leeway with celebrities than we do with non-celebrities. We can discuss ongoing trials and allegations in a way that we shouldn't with the average Jo. While we can't in any way affirm nor imply they might be guilty until a conviction is secured, we can still report them provided we are still adhering to V, NPOV, DUE, and all the other policies. In general, however, people often put too much emphasis on getting their pet info right at the top, or as close to the top as possible, in the mistaken belief that the top is the best place for it, but that's completely backwards and achieves the exact opposite of the desired effect. That's what's called the ironic processes of thought control; trying too hard to achieve one goal produces exactly the opposite effect. I just call it flat-Earth thinking, because things are rarely as they seem from our limited perspective. Writing is not as easy as it looks. We have a lot of policies about what should or shouldn't go in an article, but not much on how to actually write them. I guess an analogy that people might understand is a joke. You have to begin with the set-up which takes us into the delivery before getting to the all-important punchline. You can't start with the punchline unless you're Groucho Marx, and Wikipedia should not be a collection of one-liners. Cohesion and flow are very important. Zaereth ( talk) 22:51, 29 March 2023 (UTC)

In the second sentence of the current article, it mentions Assange's 1996 conviction for hacking. There have been several attempts to add "is a hacker" or "has been a hacker" to the first sentence. And to add "guilty to 24 hacking charges" to his infobox. The article seems to have other, more pressing issues. I do not understand the obsession with something that no longer strongly defines Assange, even if it ever did during his teens. Senorangel ( talk) 23:28, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think Softlemonades is like this, I think they may just be rather obsessive with their edits, but there definitely are people who hate Assange and would like him to serve this life and the next in some hellhole prison in constant pain. The case very much depends on his being shown to have engaged in hacking as in for instance Journalist or criminal: Julian Assange, notorious for leaks of US secrets, faces computer hack charge.

Top judges use Wikipedia when writing their decisions, a major new study has found. shows that sticking their POV in Wikipedia may well go towards satisfying their aims. NadVolum ( talk) 23:44, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

That study was on articles on individual legal cases considered to have precedent, not on biographies of individuals. It also only applied to judgements given by lower-level courts, with it found to have no effect on higher level courts. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:55, 30 March 2023 (UTC)

You believe therefore biographical articles wouldn't influence them? Or a jury? I'm not altogther keen on such an experiment put perhaps a study can be devised. And a high court judge is not a lower court judge. It was the supreme court and appeal judges where they found little influence. NadVolum ( talk) 00:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Juries arent supposed to be reading articles about the subject at all. Thats why jury selection and jury sequestration exist Softlemonades ( talk) 13:53, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

And it is against the law to chain up a firedoor in a theatre so people can't get out when there is a fire. NadVolum ( talk) 19:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

The lead needs WP:TNT. It needs to summarise the article and wiki link to the right sections, not try to re create his biography in a few paragraphs. Can we agree to that? Softlemonades ( talk) 13:57, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd like a nice wikignome who is has made other articles readable come along and do it. And no links to sections. Sorry I don't think you're it. NadVolum ( talk) 19:12, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

And no links to sections. I thought you might want the context

Sorry I don't think you're it. I wasnt going to say that. I was going suggest starting a topic about it on the main Talk page. If you have a Noticeboard you want to bring it up at, we should Softlemonades ( talk) 19:38, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

See WP:LEAD 'The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic'. It should be written so it is reasonable without reading other bits for context. Putting in a citation for 'hacker' or putting in a link are neither good enough. NadVolum ( talk) 19:54, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes it should stand on its own, Im not arguing text, I dont know why you are. Im just suggesting that the community can work on it Softlemonades ( talk) 20:05, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm arguing it because I know that it is extremely hard to divert you from your path. Just look at where I removed that rubbish picture but you have it back in again. Is it really anything much to do about anything? Is it worth putting in the rather long article? The context of this discussion if you will look back at the title fromm a long time ago might indicate why I'm arguing text. NadVolum ( talk) 20:14, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

Youre arguing something Im not because Im hard to divert from my path?

but you have it back in again I didnt put it back Softlemonades ( talk) 20:49, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

You argued for it going back in. Anyway this has nothing to do with the topic of this discussion if it is not about hacking so we should stop taking up time here. NadVolum ( talk) 23:37, 2 April 2023 (UTC)

I didnt bring up Putting in a citation for 'hacker' or putting in a link are neither good enough. But I was trying to find a solution to the problem you came to here about, based off @ Zaereth's suggestion. But you want to argue so I agree we should stop here Softlemonades ( talk) 01:08, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

• Bwahaha! In the real world (not FBI HQ), "hacker" is the opposite of a pejorative, and carries a lot of "street cred". Still, we shouldn't use "hacker" in the first sentence, purely because it isn't precise enough. Just like Horse Eye's Back said: there are ethical and criminal hackers, and every shade in between, so we can't be encyclopedic unless we're precise. And since the first lead paragraph is meant to be a 40,000 ft bird's eye view, such precision doesn't belong there. I'd put it at the beginning of the second lead paragraph, so it's at the beginning of the chronology. I'd phrase it as something like: "In his teens, he was a notorious hacker, and targeted various organizations linked to the U.S. military" (though this deserves copyediting). And the charges obviously don't belong in the infobox, because they're not remotely why he's notable. DFlhb ( talk) 00:30, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  I like this general solution except the word "notorious". I feel like without strong RS support that's a WP:LABEL and should be avoided. Just removing "notorious" would work, but I think the ideal is something more like "He was convicted of hacking...". Loki ( talk) 01:04, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  Definitely; could be toned down to "notable" or "well-known" (and I got "notorious" from the already cited Sydney Morning Herald, but you're right it would need to be attributed). I'd avoid focusing on the conviction, purely because AFAIK it happened in his early twenties, so we couldn't say "teen", yet most of his hacking did happen in his teens, so I'd prefer that last point be explicit. DFlhb ( talk) 01:10, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I too dont mind the term hacker by itself, but I disagree with the undue weight of "convicted hacker" (or maybe notorious is used now, whatever) The 'conviction' was so trivial he received no jail. The current formulation is pejorative. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 04:32, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I think he was twenty when he was discovered - they took about five years before the court case. The law grinds slow. Young adult I think would be fine. I think DFlhb is out of date about people's feelings on people who infect computers with viruses and demand money. And 'street cred' as in 'the acceptance and respect of people who live in poor city neighborhoods. the tough neighborhood where he earned his street cred' is not something one wants when facing a charge. NadVolum ( talk) 07:11, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

Anyway hacker is inappropriate when it is very likely he has never done any computer intrusion or given any actual help with it whilst with Wikileaks never mind about the evidence being rather weak. NadVolum ( talk) 08:00, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

I also agree with "Anyway hacker is inappropriate when it is very likely he has never done any computer intrusion" as it seems to be used in the pejorative. The crazy over the top response to this term tells us it is controversial. Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 08:34, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

The subject for this BLP is relatively unknown and the page is not viewed particularly often. However, it appears that there have been several improper edits by both the subject of the article and a freelancer hired to edit articles on their behalf. It is quite clear that there are conflicts of interest and violations of the BLP on this article, selected to portray the subject in an unduly positive light.

For several months there have been comments on the talk page regarding Wikipedia:Wikipuffery (see: Talk:William_Sachiti) - many of which appear to have been made by the subject of the article (again, see the Talk page), which alerted me to potential impropriety.

A freelancer ( User:ARKGJL) notes on their profile that they have been hired to write material for an affiliated organisation (the Academy of Robotics) - this user had also been reverting "unflattering" changes to William Sachiti page. On their talk page it is notable that the freelancer has been warned about conflicts of interest in the past. Until this afternoon (when they were challenged), the freelancer had not declared their conflict of interest with Sachiti and continued to add material that portrays the subject in an unduly positive light (i.e. Wikipuffery and violations of the "Tone" section in the BLP policy), as well as removing verifiable and appropriately-sourced material that portrays a more balanced view of the subject. IntentionalModifications ( talk) 17:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Because this BLP is so unknown, traffic to the page is nearly non-existent. I stumbled across it merely by accident. Once there, however, it was quite clear that this was either a subject generated article, primary sourced, OR, or a first attempt at a non-notable BLP. The cited sources speak for themselves. Age aside, the listing of achievements and credentials are not what they seem. I have placed the page up for AfD but both editors, who I still suspect of either SP at at the very least COI, have voted: "keep". I think more eyes need to be on this article and AfD. Cited sources that sound impressive but do not link the BLP in anyway provide too much filler and puff-writing. Most sources are directly from the BLP's website. If this is found notable enough to keep, it will need a very good scrubbing down for inclusion here at WP. Perhaps there is a major miscommunication in translation from the Spanish article: [21]? Maineartists ( talk) 13:03, 1 April 2023 (UTC)

• Update. Per discussion on Page and AfD Nicolas Isasi, I have scrubbed and done a major overhaul. Still the article is left with primary sources with content that only mentions the subject. No significant coverage by any secondary or third party source. Nothing at all outside of Argentina. Could still use another set of eyes. Thanks. Maineartists ( talk) 13:30, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Please respond at the RfC here. Thank you. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 14:27, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

In this interview with Office Magazine, when asked "How do you channel that level of energy in your songs and performances?" Leray answers "I got ADD, so it’s natural." User:Benmite has used this to source the statement "Leray has stated that she has attention deficit hyperactivity disorder" (with a wikilink to attention deficit hyperactivity disorder). I believe that this violates WP:BLP, in that the terms "ADD" and "ADHD" are often used to describe oneself in a casual way, rather than to assert a medical diagnosis of Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. I'd appreciate third opinions from the community. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. It's the same with birthdates sourced to twitter, except in this case we're talking about the need for MEDRS level sources. People just don't talk very literally, and it's a leap to take a statement that is quite often used figuratively and interpret it in the most literal sense. Unless we have some damn-good RS that is making that leap for us, or he clearly makes that connection himself (ie: I was diagnosed with ADD by a doctor...), I wouldn't touch it with a ten-foot pole. Zaereth ( talk) 01:27, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

There's some policy or guideline about this but can't find it at the moment which affects things like religion or medical conditions or being trans. Basically it should only go in as a category or other label if it is a WP:DEFINING characteristic which has been noted on in reliable sources. NadVolum ( talk) 10:16, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm of two minds on this one. On one hand, certain labels like ADHD, OCD and Bipolar are often inaccurately self-applied to describe behavior rather than the actual disorder. On the other, if a BLP subject says something like "I have autism" or "I have a broken leg", we usually take them at their word unless there is a specific reason to doubt them. Saying it in wikivoice is questionable, but if we were to attribute to her and say something like In an interview with Office Magazine, Leray stated that she has ADHD that should be in line with the expectations of WP:BLPSELFPUB. The Wordsmith ^{Talk to me} 16:05, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I believe this is a reasonable compromise. Does avoiding wikivoice include:

• Not categorizing the article under any ADHD category?
• Not wikilinking the ADHD article?

Cheers, Kcmastrpc ( talk) 16:17, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

A wikilink in the sentence would seem reasonable for readers who don't know what ADHD is, but I don't think the category is warranted per WP:DEFINING unless it is discussed and given prominence in secondary sources. The Wordsmith ^{Talk to me} 16:22, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Unless this is some defining characteristic of the subject, then what exactly is the point of including it? At best, it seems like a passing comment that can be taken as trivia. At worst, it may just be figurative, as in "I'm easily distracted by shiny objects". I know a lot of people who talk like that all the time. Now, if the subject was giving in-depth interviews about this or using their own experience to promote ADD awareness, or something of that nature, then adding it would make more sense, but otherwise I don't see the point. Zaereth ( talk) 17:26, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I see your point, but I'll also note that people who legitimately do have ADHD are very often ignored or accused of faking, so it can be tough to know what is right to do. Overall I think that if a BLP subject feels like a detail about their personal life is important enough to mention in an interview, it wouldn't be out of place for us to mention it in their Personal Life section barring any other issues like an overly long and detailed article. The Wordsmith ^{Talk to me} 18:44, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Most things in most articles are not defining characteristics of the subject; WP:DEFINING is a much higher bar than the threshold for inclusion! I don't have any particular opinion on this case, but "it isn't defining" and "it is trivia" are not the same thing. Caeciliusinhorto ( talk) 20:45, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I think I agree with Zaereth here. As well as the possibility they are saying it figuratively, there's also considerations of privacy, I don't think saying something in passing in an interview is necessarily good enough to be including medical information that could reasonably be regarded as personal on someone's wikipedia page. I would want something that is more clear here Tristario ( talk) 22:48, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

I'll post this down here rather than inline since it's probably going to get lost otherwise. I think User:NadVolum is thinking of WP:BLPCAT above, the part of BLP which deals with categories. It states that "Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources which applies to all categories.

However the part NadVolum seems to be thinking of which requires" the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability" limits itself to "religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation". IMO it's reasonable to include gender identity in this even if it isn't covered strictly speaking. But I'm not sure if we should really be covering medical conditions in this without expanding policy after discussion at WT:BLP.

There is additional guidance for "categories that suggest a person has a poor reputation (see false light)" but this is intended for things like criminal categories and stuff like that. I'd argue it's unreasonable to say most medical condition categories should be covered by this. This includes stuff like obesity, HIV or schizophrenia, no matter that people may sometimes perceive some conditions negatively. The only areas where I can see this arising would be something like antisocial personality disorder or especially paedophilic disorder but it seems very rare this would ever arise and I don't think we should have categories including people with such diagnoses for those point blank.

Note that I'm not saying this means we should include the categories willy-nilly if we mention a medical condition in the article with reliable sources, simply that BLPCAT provides very limited guidance at this time.

Nil Einne ( talk) 11:09, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

I found the rbit I was hinking of: Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity,_gender,_religion_and_sexuality#Disability,_intersex,_medical,_or_psychological_conditions win which point 1 says "People with these conditions should not be added to subcategories of Category:People with disabilities, Category:Intersex people or Category:People by medical or psychological condition unless that condition is considered WP:DEFINING for that individual. For example, there may be people who have amnesia, but if reliable sources don't regularly describe the person as having that characteristic, they should not be added to the category." NadVolum ( talk) 16:41, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

So, recently an IP removed "far-right" from Kristina Karamo, with an edit summary: Removed far right, slanted view point. Never see far left. And frankly in the US at least, it's extremely true. Like by a factor of 100 20. (Note I haven't counted how many of these are not living people.)

• Category:Far-right politicians in the United States
• Category:Far-left politicians in the United States

Even if most of the far-right ones are dead and it's only a factor of 10, to me this feels like a problem w/re BLP policy. Valereee ( talk) 13:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I agree, it's also extremely time consuming from an editorial standpoint as literal books-length discussions have been promulgated across multiple BLP talk pages disputing the use of the "far-right" label. FWIW, it's over-use in modern media has diluted the term to meaning almost nothing at this point. RE: "Opposes abortion" == "far-right". However, we can't control how the media spins and we want to be really careful here re: censorship or policy making for something that is, at face value, a trend that will likely boomerang at some point. Kcmastrpc ( talk) 13:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Those two categories are inherently problemic, as there are no global nor stable definitions of 'left' and 'right'. This keeps being a problem across a lot of Wikipedia articles. -- Soman ( talk) 14:57, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I don't think we should censor. I do think we might want to think about which RS we're using for that term. If right-of-center RS aren't calling a politician "far-right", maybe we should give it more thought.

The categories are just a symptom here, I think. They're just what I thought of as a way to take a look at what we're calling people. Valereee ( talk) 15:00, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Anyone written about should have their views clearly and unambiguously delineated, good or bad. Shortcut labels should be banned from the Wikipedia lexicon. Slywriter ( talk) 15:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I think you need a sufficiency of sourcing for the label. I added the label in Wikivoice to Itamar Ben-Gvir recently as there are plenty sources using it. Still got diluted to "His political position has been described as far-right". If there is no agreement on someone like that being right wing, then one can't expect agreement for anyone. Selfstudier ( talk) 15:35, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

The difference is that "far-right" is a measurable, identifiable political continuum. While, at least in American politics, "far-left" is largely a pejorative. The two are not comparable, and if someone is running around deleting comment on the basis of "Never see far left", then that is disruptive and open for sanction. Zaathras ( talk) 15:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

There actually more of a defined gap between the left and the far left (given that there is so little of what is the far left), compared to the blurry line that still exists between right and far-right. Kcmastrpc has a good example where any politician that may be opposed to abortion, or that supports gun rights, is categorially thrown to a "far-right" pot by some media sources.

To call someone far-right (or far-left) in Wikivoice, which includes being in these categories, we need 1) a lot of time to have passed so that the general opinion over time keeps that person in far-right (eg David Duke), and 2) a near plurality of sources over time to use the label. Unfortunately, more often than not, we see one publication throw out the term "far-right" and the article suddenly frames the person as far-right in Wikivoice. We simply cannot do that. We need that agreement, and after several years, to be able to establish that. Masem ( t) 15:40, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Oxford dictionary and Google Scholar disagree with the assessment of no definition of far-left. And what authoritative source provides a measurement of far-right while also claiming far-left does not exist? Slywriter ( talk) 15:41, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

There's no reason, besides a sort of belief that the world is inherently symmetrical, to think that there should be equivalent numbers of notable far-right and far-left politicians in the United States. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 15:55, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Of course not, but this is pretty lopsided. Valereee ( talk) 15:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

fun fact: searches for "far-left", "far-left politics" and "far-left United States" generate more returns than their far-right equivalent, albeit only slightly. (see below for more accurate on-wiki search)

So think the question is whether the categories accurately reflect the content on Wikipedia. Suspect need to use Quarry to dig further down and see if those stats hold for BLPs Slywriter ( talk) 16:11, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

fun fact: WP:GHITS is a meaningless measure. Zaathras ( talk) 16:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I'm betting Sly was doing a Wikipedia search. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 16:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

correct, which is why Quarry and accuracy of categories mentioned since drilling a search down to BLP isn't easy. Though I will be amending as lack of " " distorted. "Far-right" use is 2 to 1 over "Far-left" and adding born to either to approximate biographies shows 3 to 1 usage of far-right to far-left. So the categories may be underpopulated but disparity will exist Slywriter ( talk) 16:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I think the usage of these terms is lopsided because, in current times in the US, the existence of openly extremist media is lopsided. There are a large number of far-right radio stations. There are far fewer far-left stations. The same can be said for social media. Presumably this is due to popularity. It may be that there are fewer folks on the far-left, or that they just don’t like listening to conspiracy theories or ridiculously unbalanced content. There certainly seem to be fewer far-left politicians as they can’t get elected. Of course Google searches are useless as the far-right sources call someone far-left if they think a six-year-old shouldn’t be able to buy a grenade launcher. In any case, we should avoid creation of a WP:FALSEBALANCE to cure a problem that may not exist. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 16:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

It's lopsided compared to a parity that doesn't necessarily exist. If someone published a paper tomorrow saying that the far right is 20x more influential than the far left in American politics, I'd be unsurprised. Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 16:27, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Oh, that's an interesting thought. Valereee ( talk) 16:28, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

Why were you assuming that there were equal numbers of far right and far left figures in the United States? In my own state we have close to a dozen members of the far right in our legislature and not a single member of the far left, the far right is just so much bigger than the far left here that any NPOV coverage is going to give you an overwhelming focus on the far right. I assume for other countries those numbers are different, in some contexts it might be appropriate to spend 90% of the time talking about the far left because thats what they have. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:20, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I wasn't assuming equal, just that 3:69 sounded like maybe we should be discussing. Valereee ( talk) 19:48, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

It's not like the US has an actual far-left movement (i.e., a communist movement) EvergreenFir (talk) 18:29, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Given that these can be seen as contentious WP:LABELs, there should be some sort of standard as to when they should be applied, especially when used in the MOS:LEADSENTENCE or as categories. Why does "far-right" appear in the lead sentence of Alex Jones and Steve King but not Steve Bannon and David Duke? Why does "far-left" appear in the lead sentence of Cathlyn Platt Wilkerson and Sara Jane Olson but not Angela Davis or Bill Ayers? And that's just the United States: there are a few hundred other countries that also have far-left and far-right figures. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 16:59, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I bet there are better examples but in the case of Davis it would appear redundant as we say she's a Marxist in the first sentence and link the Communist Party USA in the second. In the case of Ayers we run into the issue that while they were at one point a violent leftist their views appear to have been moderated over the years and I'm not seeing contemporary sources calling him far left. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:25, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

I do think the core problem involves loose compliance with MOS:LABEL, and, more loosely, emotive writing. I very much like Bill Ayers, Angela Davis, Steve Bannon, and David Duke (the articles, not the people!), and quite dislike Alex Jones. These articles are proof, IMO, that our main problem is not ideological bias, but the writing being too "overt" and two-dimensional, making it non-encyclopedic. The exact same point of view can be stated in a neutral, encyclopedic manner, or stated in an excessively emotive way. This older comment of mine, IMO, quite neatly addresses the distinction. DFlhb ( talk) 14:12, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Found a great, apolitical example: there are countless reputable sources that say Steve Jobs "revolutionized the computer industry". And that's what he's known for, right? So it should go in his lead sentence! In wikivoice! But it shouldn't, because it's emotive and non-encyclopedic. Instead, the lead should describe specifics. We should strengthen MOS:LABEL, because many editors incorrectly believe that MOS:LABEL conflicts with WP:FALSEBALANCE. DFlhb ( talk) 23:19, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• My two cents has always been that we should almost never include "far-left politician" or "far-right politician" modifiers in the first sentence of the lede; I think it is much more tact to expand upon how they are far-right or far-left further in the lede, as is done at Roy Moore and Wendy Rogers. I think our single worst article in this regard is Josh Mandel; the lede doesn't expand upon the extraordinary claim of being a far-right politician and so it comes off as being very shoehorned. I also must note that this is nearly exclusively being used against modern/currently serving American politicians, and not the plethora of extreme politicians that once served both in America and across the world. My statement does not apply to, for example, George Lincoln Rockwell or Marjorie Taylor Greene, where the far-right modifier is supporting a different statement (political activist, conspiracy theorist). Curbon7 ( talk) 17:31, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Interesting. I just thought all left was far left. The line between right and left seems to be drawn at the far left, and anyone who is not far left is deemed "right" or "far right", therefore the term "far left" seems rather redundant. The far right scares the crap out of me, and the left is all a bunch of haters who like to label anyone who even slightly disagrees with them, and they scare the holy crap out of me. I don't think it's a simple continuum that has a line drawn right in the middle of something. Zaereth ( talk) 18:15, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Take care to not conflate left-right politically when it involves an organized group or violence. e.g. Boogaloo movement where it was a constant argument of not "far-right" politically when any organization or violence is smack dab far right. fiveby( zero) 18:22, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• Part of the problem is defining left and right. These terms are very different from country to country. Someone who is on the left from the perspective of one country might be on the right from the perspective of another. Far better to avoid labels, and instead focus on actions and stances. Blueboar ( talk) 18:30, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

• Ok, I'll bite. The problem is mainly in the US, which is asymmetrically polarized at the moment (books like Network Propaganda do a good job of providing a huge amount of evidence for this asymmetric polarization [of the news, in that case]). We have more people in politics and political media who support ideas that have traditionally been associated with the far-right now such that a ton has been written about them (and that phenomenon). So there are more sources to cite about the far-right in the US. Those on the right have tried to characterize the increased distance between the center of gravity on the right from everyone else as more symmetric than it actually is, but uses the term "far-left" in wildly inconsistent ways. It's tricky because (and this is also a perennial challenge for the left come election time) there's a larger variety of priorities on the left such that the number of people who support the fringe on any one of those issues aren't so numerous, and short of promoting communism (which has almost no foothold in politics/media) none of the "far-left" applications have really stuck (criticism of police? anti-racism? talking about lgbtq people in school? increasing taxes? more regulation on business? saying slavery had lasting effects? these are all "far-left" in one usage or another). On the other hand, while "far-right" can mean an awful lot of things, too, there are a few, pretty well-defined areas that will lead to being called far-right in the US: nativism, authoritarianism, fascism, theocracy, certain types of militant opposition to the federal government, and extreme stances on race or civil liberties. They aren't two sides of the same coin. We don't have neat spectra with lines down the middle such that we can calculate extremity with statistics. All of this is to say, the far-right in the US is better defined and more prominent. Because nobody thinks of themselves as "far"-anything, that also means there are more people to see the term and object to it. If we follow the sourcing, and only use the terms when there's strong support among the sources that it applies, we're going to wind up using "far-right" more than "far-left" because they're only counterparts in the abstract, not in practice. I hope that changes soon, but it is what it is. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:33, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
• I'm unconvinced this is a Wikipedia problem. First, while both these terms are relative, and so in theory should be used equally frequently by all types of commentators, political commentators aren't necessarily following that sort of logic, and are choosing the terms they feel fit best (or will get them the best ratings). Second, even if the terms could be applied to similar numbers of people, that doesn't necessarily mean that notable people are equally likely to be "far left" as "far right". Third, and most importantly, we're not in the business of balancing these categories; we should be applying the terms when reliable sources use them, and if there's an imbalance in their use, that's not necessarily our problem. If I had my way, I'd dispense with these terms altogether, as they become quite meaningless to anyone who has a certain familiarity with politics in multiple countries. But that's neither here nor there. Vanamonde ( Talk) 18:38, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
  • In the case of the left in the US, there is the problem of where on the continuum the left becomes the far-left. In my thinking, Marxist-Leninist, Stalinist, Maoist and revolutionary anarchist politics are clearly far-left, but should any elected official who is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America automatically be categorized as "far left"? I think not but others may disagree. Also a factor is the definition of "politician", which in most contexts we reserve for elected officials or candidates for office. Bill Ayers and H. Bruce Franklin were far left activists half a century ago, but neither ran for office and both have had long careers in academia. We have 84 articles in Category: Members of the Black Panther Party but only a handful of these people ever ran for political office. Notability on the American far left often results from militant activism outside the realm of electoral politics. Cullen328 ( talk) 18:58, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

    The issue of classification of "far-left" is that what defines far-left varies. The DSA is solidly on the left, as a post-capitalist ideology, and as such is "far-left" when compared to US ideologies, but would not be considered "far-left" in most countries not called the US, UK, or Canada; as such, we should rightfully not state it is a far-left organization. I would also like to bring up that Nepal's ruling democratically-elected government is a coalition between Marxist, Marxist-Leninist, and Maoist parties; should we thus turn on WP:AWB and run down all of them inserting "[name] is a Nepali far-left politician..."? Obviously not! Curbon7 ( talk) 19:44, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

    • Having been working with sources that address this exact question recently, this is pretty much the conclusion that they agree on. Revolutionary politics (such as Marxism and anarchism) are "far-left" while reformist politics (such as social democracy and modern liberalism) are "center-left". And then democratic socialism is really the only one where they don't have a broad agreement on whether it's center-left or far-left. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 22:29, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
      • There is no widely recognized clear-cut distinction between social democracy and democratic socialism. Cullen328 ( talk) 22:36, 26 March 2023 (UTC)

        Sounds like agnostic atheist and atheistic agnostic (hah, I was right, both links turned blue!). Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:51, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• This comes up regularly, mostly by drive-by editors complaining about some article. (Generally not the categories but the lead description.) I admit I used to think it was nonsense. While it may be trust there's a difference in how many US politicians are described as far right vs far left, this seems to be reflective of the difference in how common theya are in the real world, since despite what those complainers like to say, even from the US let alone an international context, neither Sanders nor Ocasio-Cortez are far left. One time I intended to reply to one of them pointing out it was nonsense so I check out Jean-Luc Mélenchon which I assumed would definitely say he's far left and found it didn't and gave up. I'm not saying we definitely have a problem, my knowledge of French politics is limited. Nevertheless, I very often hear of Mélenchon described in the RSes I read or watch as the far left counterpart to Le Pen so I do wonder. Nil Einne ( talk) 11:57, 27 March 2023 (UTC)
• Categories for "Far-right politicians" and "Far-left politicians" seem highly questionable in general. Practically nobody self-describes themselves as "far"-anything, and it is essentially same as calling someone "extremist". Seems like an obvious case of WP:BLPRACIST: Do not categorize biographies of living people under such contentious topics as racism, sexism, extremism, and the like, since these have the effect of labeling a person as a racist, sexist, or extremist..-- Staberinde ( talk) 13:52, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Here’s my take I guess. First I would like to make a couple observation. (1) There is a double standard in the perception of these political labels when being used under politicians (e.g. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Josh Mandel, Wendy Rogers) than when being used for media personalities (e.g. Ben Shapiro, Alex Jones, Rachel Maddow). (2) With regards to media personalities, we also tend to include a broader range of spectrums than politicians, including the less extreme conservative and liberal. With politicians we only include the descriptor if it’s far- something, typically far-right. You never see [Insert name] is a conservative/right-wing politician… or [Insert name] is a liberal/left-wing politician. The usual justification for this disparity offered byproponents of such labels is that these radical politicians are primarily known for being radical more than anything else they’ve, assumingly even more than the office they hold. Therefore, we should use the label for the extreme one’s and not the mainstream ones. At least that’s what I’ve seen from my experience. I find this a hard argument to make but also a hard argument to rebut. Like, how can you as Wikipedia gage that someone whose serving in public office is primarily known for their extreme views rather than anything else they’ve done to the point that it needs to be shoved in the lead sentence, when such a label typically shouldn’t? And how do you determine the contrary? What this means in practice, from what I’ve seen, is that once about 3-5 RS newspapers have used the label (even in passing) it will be introduced into the first sentence since it’s considered to the “widespread or extensive coverage.”

Now to my opinion on all of this. I don’t mind these labels being in the first sentence when it’s comes to BLP’s of media personalities; I think the reason I have this opinion is because of the greater tendency to include the whole spectrum of ideologies for these people, rather than just the extreme ones. But, the disparity when it comes to politicians is just odd to me, and that’s why I oppose the practice generally. If were not gonna call Mitt Romney a conservative politician in the first sentence,I don’t think we need to label Josh Mandel far-right in the first sentence either. There also the MOS:LABEL concern, which I find quite valid, and the argument that these views should be described in greater detail later in the lead seems like a very reasonable and worthy compromise on this issue. Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 15:37, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

If we are talking about a clear neutral, impartial, disinterested tone, even for a run-of-the-mill person, including their political leanings in the very first lede sentence is a problem. We're supposed to write from the most objective and central facts about the person first, and then introduce other more subjective factors as appropriate. For example Maria Cantwell establishes in the lede she is Washington State's junion senator in the first sentence, and then explains her political alignment. That means from a tone standpoint we aren't calling out her political leanings. But when we push these into the lede sentence and without establishing context, such as what's done at Marjorie Taylor Greene, the tone of the article immediately shifts into something that is hostile (in MTG's case) since we have now prioritized her far-right leanings. In the case of MTG, it would be far better to explain what her ideology is in something like the second paragraph as to give room to give it context (what's her motivation for it, what impact has that had). Its not something to be whitewashed away, obviously, but providing in better order helps to make the tone far more neutral and less problematic than it is now. Masem ( t) 15:53, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

With MTG, the article isn't stating that she's a far-right politician, it's stating she's a far-right conspiracy theorist, so there is a distinction when compared to other cases mentioned above. Curbon7 ( talk) 18:27, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

Even stating that she is a fat right conspiracy theorist is a problem, but that us not an objective term. I am not saying we can't call her that in the lede, among other notable far right or MAGA claims, but the lede sentence is not the home to anything that subjective, as it sets a negative tone immediately for the rest of the article. Masem ( t) 15:57, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

Definitely think we shouldn't call her fat. Valereee ( talk) 16:01, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• My opinion - this is not a BLP issue as framed because there is not symmetry in the US political arena. The US does not have any significant far-left movements or actors. American Left is not the far-left. Within our Overton window, it may seem Bernie Sanders is "far-left" but on the full spectrum he is not; no one in Congress is left of social democracy. The closest we've come in recent history is the Occupy Wall Street movement. ( [22]) We do, however, have a far-right movement in the US (e.g., Proud Boys, Oath Keepers, Christian nationalism#United States). This reminds me of the gender symmetry argument. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:39, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Antifa (United States) is certainly far-left, and at least some prominent figures in the Black Lives Matter movement are openly Marxist and revolutionary in their politics. Further, there is no shortage of far-left figures in American academia. I do however agree that at least at the national level of politics, hard-core leftists are pretty hard to find. Bernie Sanders was an avowed Leninist in his youth and has never fully repudiated a lot of that. But I haven't seen anything from him since being elected to office that I could fairly describe as far left. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:47, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  @ Ad Orientem I agree with the Antifa part but honestly they haven't been in the news as much recently. This might be just my perception, but it seems to be going the way of Occupy Wall Street. But you're correct it should have been mentioned. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:32, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment I am inclined to agree that it is problematic. The terms far left and right are being tossed around almost indiscriminately with little thought to actual definitions, which is a gray area in itself. Adding to the problem is that the terms are routinely used as pejoratives by people in the political class and pundits as a descriptor for anyone whose politics they find disagreeable. There certainly are people who are far right and left, including in the US. But coming up with a fair way to categorize them would be a challenge that might be beyond easy reach. I am reminded of the former US Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart who when dealing with a case involving obscenity, famously said of hard-core pornography that while he would not attempt to define it, "I know it when I see it." Unfortunately, that doesn't really work here. Unless we can define these terms in some reasonable way, I would support deletion of these categories should someone care to send them to WP:CfD. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 21:38, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

  Just FTR (I'm not disagreeing with any of what AO is saying), the categories are just a symptom. I agree they probably should be deleted, but they were really just what I was using as a very rough viewing point for understanding the size of the possible issue. I'm more concerned about whether we're adding this to the lead of too many articles about politicians and political commentators if we can find any reasonable RS calling them that.

  @ EvergreenFir, it's not that I have some misapprehension about whether we should be calling the same number of people far-left as far-right or even close. But the first mention of far-left at Antifa (United States) has 14 sources directly on that word. Fourteen! (seven are nested inside one footnote), all extremely high quality and most of them academic. I didn't investigate how we ended up with fourteen on that word, but I have to assume it was due to pushback on calling even antifa far-left. And even then the description, which is not in the lead, says has led some scholars and news media to characterize the movement as far-left". Shouldn't we be using similar-quality sources for calling someone/something far-right? It's not like academics haven't been writing about it. Valereee ( talk) 11:20, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  @ Valereee - I don't know the history on antifa but I could guess as to why there's push back. Regardless, it does not need 14 sources and neither should any labels of far-right. I do think we need to be more judicious in our use of "far-right" and only use high-quality sources (e.g., I wouldn't rely on Vox or Teen Vogue or Mother Jones for those labels). EvergreenFir (talk) 15:46, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

  Agreed. I think for inclusion in the lead, especially, we should be very careful with our sources. And I don't think we need this many, we just need multiple truly excellent ones. Valereee ( talk) 15:51, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• Comment As others have indicated above, there's no reason to assume that the political spectrum neatly fits a bell curve with equal numbers of far left and far right. However, with a ration that lopsided it seems likely that at least some examples are vandalism, unsourced, poorly sourced/sourced to editorials, and other various BLP violations. It may be worth doing a systemic review and checking to see if there are any issues there that need to be reviewed. The Wordsmith ^{Talk to me} 04:55, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a false dichotomy is what it is. It's far easier to lump people into some stereotypical category that is solely defined by a label than to see them as being an entire spectrum, and unfortunately it's been a staple of politics for as long as recorded history. It's a lot easier for politicians when it's "us against them". Zaereth ( talk) 23:08, 28 March 2023 (UTC)

• I do see the push for inclusion of "far-x" into the opening of any article as generally poor writing/not encyclopedic. I can think of a number of reasons why we might have more instances of far-right vs far-left. Some may be due to Wiki editor bias but I suspect more is related to the rate at which sources we classify as generally reliable use those terms, carefully or casually, in sources. I think our articles are better overall and better adhere to IMPARTIAL when we try to avoid labels, even when used in sources, and put more effort into explaining positions. If we can't find sources that justify the use of a label, or if a source uses the label but doesn't doesn't provide evidence, then we shouldn't use it at all. If they do support it then we can use it to describe those positions actions. It would be best if we avoided it in most cases.
• I can only really echo the sentiments of the above users and say that the reason there's so few politicians described as far-left rather than far-right (a label used where they're described for the most part by reliable sources) is because of the absence of "far-left" politics in the United States. The usual example people give is "why isn't Bernie/AOC/Nancy Pelosi described as far-left then?" which is frivolous given neither are anywhere near. ser! ^{( chat to me - see my edits)} 17:15, 31 March 2023 (UTC)
• We really should put less effort into applying the label and more into finding the facts that justify it. Bias, even among good faith editors, may be part of the issue. All else equal it is probably easier to convince an editor that "far-x" is due if the person disagrees vs agrees with the subject in question. It's also possible that a Wikipedia bias in favor of some sources vs others means we have more sources that are likely to use "far-right" vs "far-left". I think there also might be a motte and bailie issue here. For example, it would be reasonable to say Bernie Sanders is "far-left" if our reference is the range of "left" in the DNC. I'm not certain that, at the national level the "far-right" GOP is significantly further from center than the "far-left" DNC. However, since the national media in the US is left of center it's not surprising that they might be more likely to recognize the extremes of the other side vs their own. This isn't exactly the same but recently there was some research noting that the authoritarian left isn't getting much academic attention vs the authoritarian right [23] and the feeling was part of the gap was due to the left bias in the academic circles that tend to study the area. /TLDR The reason is probably a mix of more RSs use "far-right" vs "far-left" and, all else equal, we are probably more likely to find "far-right" due for inclusion. I think the real solution is probably a MOS fix. We put more effort into showing why the label might apply and less effort into using the label. We should also be more selective about what sources provide weight for the label. Sources that don't justify the label or use it casually probably should be discounted when deciding if we should include the label. Honestly, this seems like how we should treat any contentious label. Springee ( talk) 18:27, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  It seems to me the key question shouldn't be whether sources justify the label, which just encourages editors to free base generate WP:OR opinions of what is it isn't "justified". Rather, it should be what is the quality level of sources using the label? and do any sources of that quality contest the label? (Not using a particular label isn't at all the same thing as contesting it, and I would much rather editors try to figure out whether sources are depicting a BLP subject in compatible ways using different language, versus offering conflicting characterizations, rather than editors evaluating evidence on their own as a basis to decide what is "justified"). This applies equally, needless to say, to far-right, far-left, far-forward and far-behind labels. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:37, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  When contentious labels are used causally we should look at the evidence before including them. Part of the problem is a label like "far-x" has variable meanings. It can reasonably be used to indicate that Senator X is a hardliner in her party. Not that her policies are extremist, rather than she is uncompromising or just that within the reasonable bounds of left/right, she is at the extreme of those bouts. For example, she is "far-left" on minimum wage legislation. What isn't often clear is if a source that says a person is "far-right" is using it to mean they are simply "right within the group" vs our wikipedia definition which includes them in the group of white nationalist, or NAZIs who killed millions. I'm sure there are many politicians who served at the federal level whom we might call "far-right" who also proudly fought to liberate Europe from the NAZIs. I do agree that "quality" matters but part of "quality" comes from justification. I don't care if we feel the NYT is a gold standard newspaper, we shouldn't treat a single sentence mention of "Sentator X, a far-right, politician from Smithville" as usable. Conversely, a source that explains there far right positions would be more usable, assuming it was done well, even if the source is a second tier source. If the source for "far-right" comes from a source that is using a lot of persuasive language vs impartial language, again we should pause and ask if the assessment is based on facts or on an attempt to sway the reader's opinion. I agree that not using isn't the same thing as contesting, but we shouldn't take that no sources contest it as sources accept it either. Sources, as a rule, shouldn't be expected to adjust their reporting to respond to other sources. We expect our best sources to focus on the facts at hand. If they don't think that label applies then that is meaningful in and of itself. Springee ( talk) 19:02, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

  But when you say, we should look at the evidence before including them, it seems to me that the relevant question is not, "what evidence does this particular source present in support of the label" but rather, "do the best avaibale sources agree with this characterization and do any comparably good sources disagree". I agree that impartial sources should be weighted over emotive ones (of course I would), but a sober statement of fact by a quality source doesn't derive from the evidence it provides for the descriptive use of a label in a particular piece - it is the reputation for reliability of the source generally speaking, or the publication process (in the case of peer review), that make the source reliable.

  Meanwhile, I am completely unconvinced by your sample statements such as, Senator X ... is "far-left" on minimum wage legislation. Are there any reliable sources characterizing any sitting US Senators as "far-left on minimum wage legislation"? What would that even mean? Far-left politics paradigmatically includes such demands as worker control of the means of production - whether "from above" or "from below" - and it is hard for me to see how this is relevant to minimum wage policy. If no reliable sources at all would characterize any members of a population as "far-left" (or "far-right"), then the last thing we need is editors drawing up a spectrum of policies from left to right and trying to decide whether or not they agree with the best available sources. (This is what I think of as "free basing", btw.) Newimpartial ( talk) 19:50, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  So how do we decide the "best sources" agree? What percentage of source need to use the label? Do we need to show the label is applied by a range of source or just those who are on the other side of center? You say your are unconvinced that sources use the term loosely. In that case you would need to show that sources are generally consistent in their usage. I guess the best way to establish that is only use sources that explain why they apply the label and what they consider to be "far-x". Springee ( talk) 21:20, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

  it seems to me that the relevant question is not, "what evidence does this particular source present in support of the label" but rather, "do the best avaibale sources agree with this characterization and do any comparably good sources disagree". Is poor advice when dealing with controversial labels, particularly when we know that a good chunk of dissenting sources would fall into unreliable but otherwise nontrivial sources (eg Fox News, Breitbart). The quoted advice tends to suggest we can cherry pick sources to support a label if only a minority of reliable sources support that, which should never be the case. The abscene of the use of labels in the majority of reliable sources should absolutely be treated as a reason not to use the label..On the other hand, having a majority of reliable sources in general agreement about the label then making inclusion of the label make sense, That gets us away from the current nature of cherry picking labels via a more evidence driven approach. Masem ( t) 21:51, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm unconvinced there is no issue here. Sources that do refer to certain individuals as "far-left" are not suitable for use on Wikipedia, so that leaves us where we are today. I don't know if there's a solution to this outside of what Springee is proposing (and that's assuming one recognizes there is an issue). It's problematic that the sources which are deemed as reliable seem completely unreliable with regards to how they use this particular label. I believe in order to rectify this we just need to ensure that sources who do use this terminology are doing so responsibly, however, I suspect a policy around this topic won't ever gain acceptance, but I'm open to being proven wrong. Kcmastrpc ( talk) 21:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd say that one of the issues here is that, certainly in the US, it's far easier to differentiate "far-right" from "right-wing" than it is the opposite. Given that actual left-wing politicians in the US are few and far between and 99.9% of people couldn't name a single issue that would make someone "far-left" as opposed to "left-wing", it is unsurprising that this imbalance persists in reliable sources as well. Black Kite (talk) 21:30, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree. There is a difference between right-wing and far-right as right-wing isn't usually fascist, interested in taking away as many liberties that citizens are used to, forcing their religious beliefs on other citizens' children, and promoting violence to obtain goals. Left-wing, far-left, commie, socialist, and other terms most often used in the US as pejoratives, seem to be interchangeably applied to anyone interested in gun control, diversity, inclusion, equality, LGQBT rights, climate change, mentions of race, historical accuracy, etc. Any attempt to equate far-right and far-left is false balance. O3000, Ret. ( talk) 22:10, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

Related problems

I don't think Wikipedia has a left-wing bias, but I do think we suffer from two relevant problems:

• Poor writing quality on some contentious articles, for example with overly-emotional framing or word choice. This is something machine learning can help with: if implemented, it could detect potential biased or emotive language at scale, tag it, and, if we determine it was correctly tagged, we can fix it. I do hope that gets implemented. This isn't even always POV-pushing; it could simply be poor copyediting skill, where people fail to preserve the intricacies present in sources. Another machine learning solution would be to check for text-source mismatches (this give false positives, but is still useful if editors treat it as a tool rather than an Oracle).
• The numerous studies on Wikipedia's political bias all conclude that the more contributions, the more neutral the articles; but with WP:ECP and WP:CTOP, we've partly neutralized that feedback mechanism. This is a nuanced issue: first, it seems to have fully driven away good-faith IP editors, since most of the IP complaints we get on contentious article talk pages are non-constructive and get easily dismissed outright rather than steelmanned. Second, even many established users deliberately stay far away from WP:CTOPs, so these articles end up edited by a small clique of users (among which POV-pushing is more prevalent than we'd like). Third, that's forced us to make our moderation extremely blunt, with a whole bunch of bureaucracy, further compounding the issue. And our moderation tools are just as blunt, due to MediaWiki's primitiveness: if you're topic banned, why can't the software take care of it with nuanced access controls, and just prevent you from editing those articles? We give people rope to hang themselves, and lose a lot of editors that way. Fourth, many editors we indef for behavioral problems (e.g. bludgeoning, battleground) or personal biases (under "NOTHERE", maybe our most loosely applied essay) are still an integral part of the social mechanism that leads to good articles through compromise, even if their suggestions/edits, taken alone, would make our articles worse (I write this with the current ArbCom case in mind). Take a psychology metaphor: attempts to prevent or repress conflicts inherently lead to dysfunction. Conflicts, even really messy conflicts, are good and inherently constructive, as long as they're resolved effectively. We've focused on removing and repressing conflict, rather than making our conflict-resolution more robust, and have ended up with the inevitable dysfunction that always follows from that approach.

DFlhb ( talk) 13:45, 27 March 2023 (UTC)

The left-right spectrum is not symmetrical, and while there is a wealth of literature about the far right, there is nothing about the "far left" per se. The reason for that apparently is that while most groups on the left have distinct ideologies, those on the far right often do not. What other term is there that groups together Oath Keepers, Three Percenters, the Proud Boys, QAnon, the alt-right, etc. along with allied groups overseas? In contrast, the entire left can be grouped into social democrats, communists or anarchists, usually because of self-identification and the names of their groups.

I would merely suggest that care be taken in how people are described. It's better to say for example that X is an activist in various far right groups than X is a far right activist, i.e., a neutral tone should be used.

TFD ( talk) 01:15, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. By the way, I don’t think anyone here has mentioned that we have two Wikipedia articles titled Far-left politics and Far-right politics. The former says, “The term does not have a single, coherent definition.” That probably applies to the latter too. If we can be coherent instead of incoherent, then why not do so? If there is a specific basis for one of these labels then why not mention that basis instead? Or at least at the end of a sentence using one of these vague terms add the word “because” with some explanation. If there is no specific basis or explanation, then it’s a useless pejorative. Accordingly, I would change Category:Far-right politicians in the United States to Category:Far-right political beliefs in the United States and have no people listed in that category, only in the subcategories. Same for far-left. One person may actually have some beliefs that are far-right, some that are standard-left, et cetera, so we probably should be careful about lumping them into vague broad incoherent categories. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 06:25, 4 April 2023 (UTC)

The categories should be deleted and not receive a name change. Agree with Slywriter that there is no place on Wikipedia for them. Usage and the categories are derogatory and contentious labels. -- Otr500 ( talk) 18:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

That’s my second choice, if we cannot modify the categories as I proposed above. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 18:47, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

This article is already a mess with but becoming worse given her 2024 presidential bid with disruption starting back in December-ish so requesting additional eyes. S0091 ( talk) 22:32, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

What sort of changes are being made? Because, honestly, as the article is now, it looks kinda whitewashed, with a minimization of her long history of pushing pseudoscience that, prior to 2016, was her main claim to fame. Seems like a WP:FRINGE issue currently that isn't addressed. Silver seren ^C 22:40, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

In the "Years of Service" section for this actor it states 1968-1969. Below that it states the rank, which is Sergeant First Class (E-7). That is impossible to achieve that level of rank resulting from one year of military service. The rank appears to be from a character the actor portrayed in the television series, China Beach. Only the actual rank should be presented which he earned in real-time military service. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.56.73.103 ( talk) 04:42, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed it since it was unsourced Tristario ( talk) 06:41, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

This article has clearly been (a) created, (b) curated, and (c) carefully written by the subject himself, Tory Baucum. Attempts by other contributors to add other content (i.e. less fawning) has been removed. By the subject himself. In recent revisions, the author has attempted to dialogue with those seeking to make the page more balanced. And he has undone their edits. I believe this violates the biographies of living persons policies because the subject of the article is interfering with those seeking to add factual elaboration to the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brothercrust ( talk • contribs) 22:55, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The biography has serious issues, certainly. It isn't even entirely clear to me that the subject meets Wikipedia notability guidelines. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 01:53, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

And the change summaries are getting quite concerning, bordering on threats (from both sides it would appear). Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 05:48, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It looks as if Tory Baucum has personally written this article about himself and has been diligent in removing any content that makes reference to documented source material which is less-than-flattering Brothercrust ( talk) 17:35, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

This is quite concerning. Smatherston ( talk) 17:37, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I suggest the article be deleted as the back-and-forth is inappropriate Brothercrust ( talk) 19:06, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it appears as though the subject of the article has clearly been the author and editor, and is now engaged in making accusations in the "talk" section. Very unfortunate. I have watched this story from afar for a number of years and am not surprised that the subject of the article would behave in such a way, as it fits the very pattern for which he is infamous Everglades704 ( talk) 21:21, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Please note that the creation of multiple accounts in order to mislead is a violation of Wikipedia policy. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:42, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

You are correct about that, oh grumpy one. I've blocked these three accounts for abuse; I haven't reviewed the article's history, and have no view on whether or not the concerns expressed above are valid - happy for folk to go look at the article and make any changes necessary, and/or to report any suspect accounts to COIN or wherever. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:51, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång did a lot of cleanup, and I've done some rewriting of it. The talk page looks like somebody talking to themself. Schazjmd  (talk) 23:55, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

It literally was someone talking to themselves, for the most part. When folk make it that obvious, there's hardly a need for CU, but I checked just to be sure. As we say at SPI, they are  Confirmed to one another. Girth Summit _(blether) 23:58, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

Karen Stintz article seems to violate the NPOV requirements, with significant portions displaying editorial bias by praising the subject's actions while a politician. Reads as though it was written by the subject or someone affiliated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.174.73.118 ( talk) 12:24, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello,

Ben Cohen's wikipedia page is being vandalized by people who disagree with his political position. Ben has a clear position on Russia's war in Ukraine, he is calling on the US to use its power to advance diplomacy and peace. He is being falsely accused of spreading "Russia Propaganda" by a tabloid -- the Daily Beast.

It seems acceptable to me to report Ben's position on the war and his advocacy for peace, but to accuse him of propaganda is false and libelous. Especially given that his position on this issue has been consistent since at least 1998 -- see Thomas Friedman on Ben in the New York Times: https://www.nytimes.com/1998/04/28/opinion/foreign-affairs-ben-jerry-nato.html

I correct the entry to reflect the controversy around Ben's position -- that people are calling for a boycott of Ben & Jerry's as a result of statements he made. All of that is factual. Accusations of propaganda are not.

Ege3 ( talk) 13:32, 11 April 2023 (UTC)EGE3

Are you referring to this edit cited to this which you've been reverting? Firstly, that's not vandalism (see definition at WP:VANDAL). Using that label incorrectly as you have done could in itslef be sanctionable. Secondly, neither the DB nor the edit accuses him of spreading "propaganda". the edit says the DB has reported that he has contributed to an organization which itself has been accused of spreading propaganda. Your outrage over relatively cautious wording is curious. But thirdly, DB is not a great source for BLPs. Googling, I can only see the story in Newsweek, Daily Mail and New York Post, none of which are good enough for BLPs. I'd been inclined to take it out untl there is better sourcing. DeCausa ( talk) 14:23, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Agree entirely with DeCausa. Unless more reliable sources report on the story, it is probably not signficant enough to include in Cohen's biography – but misrepresenting the edits you disagree with and wrongly crying libel and vandalism is not the solution here. Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 14:37, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I created the page for Victor Alexeeff years ago. For some reason, the page was taken down. I now paid a professional editor, who has been adding pages to Wikipedia for 3 years to add that page again since I obviously made mistakes putting it up. Now THAT page has been deleted. I'm at a loss and do not know what else to do. I need help. Check www.VictorAlexeeff.com for information about this artist. Thank you. Best, Petra Luna -- Petraluna111 ( talk) 03:15, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a free hosting service for the biographies/CVs of non-notable people. It was previously deleted at an AfD Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Victor_Alexeeff. Your whole purpose of editing here (aside from some edits you made in 2010) has been to push for the creation of this biography, suggesting that you may have a WP:COI. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 03:19, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I'd ask for your money back from the so-called "professional" editor. The re-creation of the article was not quite as bad as the one that was deleted, but it didn't contain a single reliable source to show Alexeeff's notability, just a few reviews of a single album in minor publications and blogs. Another article that this "professional" ( User:Aniivyrha) wrote was deleted because it was simply a copy of someone's IMDB page! I note that the new version of the article also referred to a "Petra Luna" as involved in some of Alexeeff's work; if that is you, you have a WP:COI and should be following the guidance on that linked page. Black Kite (talk) 14:51, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

I am writing concerning a matter that needs to be addressed involving grossly improper content about a living person in the Park East Synagogue page. I am an employee of Park East Synagogue, and therefore would very much be grateful if independent editors could weigh in to make this decision whether to remove the content.

The sentence in question is the second sentence of the fourth paragraph of the Park East Synagogue#History section, which reads as follows:

The synagogue's executive director is Benny Rogosnitzky, who has a history of allegations of embezzlements from several charities, one of which involved a "massive money-laundering scheme" according to the 
New York Post and the 
New York Daily News.

Having spent some time reading through Wikipedia’s policies on Biographies of Living Persons (BLPs), my understanding is that this sentence should be completely struck from the article because the language falls afoul of the rules laid out in WP:BLPCRIME. I gather from the WP:BLPCRIME policy that “allegations of” potential criminal activity about any living person should not be reported on Wikipedia unless that person has either been tried and convicted or is a “public figure” where there is sufficient public interest to merit mention of unproven allegations. Cantor Rogosnitzky has not been convicted of embezzlement, money laundering, or any such crime, nor have there been any allegations since this 2010 incident. Moreover, he cannot be considered a “public figure” under WP:NPF. There isn’t even enough press coverage about to meet the standards for a page under WP: Notability (people).

Please note that even if he were a public figure, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.” WP:BLPPUBLIC. Here, the New York Post is redacted from use according to WP:NYPOST, so there is only one reliable source that even mentions the allegations.

I am very grateful for the attention of Wikipedia editors to this matter. LochNess2019 ( talk) 17:03, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

@ LochNess2019, that content was added last month by an IP. Those are not acceptable sources for content about a living person. I've removed the content. Schazjmd  (talk) 17:08, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Clarification: NY Daily News is generally reliable but for the other reasons you stated, not sufficient for inclusion. I'm starting a discussion on the article's talk page. Schazjmd  (talk) 17:11, 11 April 2023 (UTC)

Posting this as a reminder that the backlog at Category:Unreferenced BLPs has built up over the last few years. The category has been hovering around 1,800 unreferenced BLPs, and that's just those that have been tagged. Please consider finding references for some of them, or join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Unreferenced BLP Rescue if you have any thoughts on collaboration. Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 05:25, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

• Harlan Crow (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Responding to a complaint of inaccuracies at Harlan Crow by a user in #wikipedia-en-help ^connect, I've removed a few claims that I found to fail verification in the sources provided. (Some sources can probably be found accusing Crow of having violated various laws, but the question would be if they're reliable for the purposes of legal commentary and if they're presented in a WP:BLPCRIME-compliant way.) I'm on my way out the door, though; could someone please take a closer look (and maybe watchlist the page going forward) to make sure it's not becoming a coatrack for BLP violations and dubious legal arguments? Thanks. -- Tamzin ^{cetacean needed} (she|they|xe) 19:17, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

The article Ministry of Culture and Tourism (Ethiopia) has some clear BLP problems, but would need quite a bit of work in checking the references, which are mostly from sources whose reliability may be hard to judge. For this topic and the claims made, we're going to get extremely few (if any) BBC, NYT, Guardian, Al Jazeera English, Telegraph, type sources. I'm unlikely to try cleaning up the article - my only edit was to add an update tag (since technically the ministry no longer exists, it was split up). I didn't check which of the people mentioned are still alive - the events are from over a decade ago, so some people could have died since then. I couldn't find an appropriate tag to put on the article itself - it's not itself a biographical article, but it has likely living people mentioned. Boud ( talk) 00:25, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Trial of Benjamin Netanyahu (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article concerns an ongoing criminal case. It should be written a neutral way, however the entry contained references to attempts by the defense and Netanyahu supporters to discredit some of the evidence, as well as lengthy reports of minutiae from some of the hearings and minor developments (e.g. media reports of negotiations over a possible plea bargain in early 2022, which did not materialize). This is a large scale trial involving hundreds of witnesses and which has been going on for years. An exhaustive report of the court proceedings, evidence and claims by the defense is both impracticable and inappropriate for a Wikipedia page. I therefore removed the irrelevant material, and left a shorter description of the criminal charges. It appears to have been reversed soon after, suggesting misuse and violation of the neutrality policy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a00:a040:1a3:e5ef:d0a5:5a8:2b1e:3a3 ( talk • contribs) 05:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

This person Sangeetratnakar is trying to defame this musician U.Rajesh ( /info/en/?search=U._Rajesh) with reference to some data published on a tabloid which is against the biographies of living persons policy. These were some random allegations and did not have a bearing when the matter was taken up legally. Hence this should not be included on the musician's proile. This particular user Sangeetratnakar has to be barred from making further edits as we don't know his motives.

[ Rajesh|U. Rajesh]

Link to Diff - https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=U._Rajesh&diff=prev&oldid=1149544597&diffmode=source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.200.158.130 ( talk) 09:44, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:PUBLICFIGURE seems to have been met by the citations to Firstpost and Gulf Today. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 20:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Brenden Jones

To whom it may concern,

The page linked above is that of a living politician in North Carolina. Over the past few months, this page has been plagued by rampant misinformation, malicious opinion, defamation, and all other kinds of nonsense perpetuated by the user "Taborhistorian." Most of these outlandish claims are simply opinions falsely cited by sources that reference nothing to do with the actual claim made. This nonsense has gone so far as to publically highlight the daughter of the individual cited on this page, who is a minor.

This reckless behavior is clearly maliciously biased and goes against everything the Wikipedia community stands to protect.

Any help or advice in this matter would be greatly appreciated.

Respectfully,

K — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKingsCross ( talk • contribs) 21:14, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Recent edits by Taborhistorian appear to be contrary to WP:BLP policy, certainly. I've reverted the more obvious issues, though it may well need more work. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 21:50, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Per Andy's request I've rev-deleted an very large amount of the edits made by Taborhistorian which specifically referred to the subject's children, and have blocked them indefinitely for blatant BLP violations. -- Ponyo ^{bons mots} 22:47, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

I have tried cleaning up the article. I'm not sure if this politician is notable given the scant independent sourcing. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 22:54, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

There is a bunch of information about Lucas Murray that is poorly sourced and probably incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C0:CD02:2A60:D96F:5C17:F76C:2A0F ( talk) 23:01, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

Looks like vandalism. I have reverted it. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 23:42, 13 April 2023 (UTC)

• Marc Gafni (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is getting a lot of activity from "new" editors and SPAs (including Netanya9 ( talk · contribs) -- not new, but definitely an SPA). I've been trying to bring it into line with WP:BLPSPS, but the changes I've made are getting reverted and I'm not sure I can justify going beyond 3RR. Perhaps others will want to take a look. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 14:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this into a broader conversation, I'm sure we'll work it out. Netanya9 ( talk) 14:38, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

There is an RfC on joke AfDs about BLPs on April fools day at Wikipedia_talk:April_Fools#RfC:_Ban_joke_AfD_of_living_people. All are invited to participate. TonyBallioni ( talk) 16:28, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

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

Hi editors, I'm Arturo and I'd like to post here to see if I could gain additional feedback on draft content I posted on the Bernard Looney Talk page.

Much like a post I made in July last year, there's been some content added that I don't think quite meets NPOV guidelines for article structure. I am specifically referring to the COP27 controversy and 2023 Bonus controversy. In the guideline, it says, "Segregation of text or other content into different regions or subsections, based solely on the apparent POV of the content itself, may result in an unencyclopedic structure." I think the addition of these subheadings fits the definition.

I do not dispute what it says in reliable reporting, however, I think these subheadings violate NPOV guidelines and have suggested on the Talk page that the content be moved to the Career section and that the organizations which have been named in sources as criticizing Looney (Greenpeace and Global Witness) be named in the article as well. I also have asked that bp's statement on Looney's presence at COP27 be included, as I think it is important for both sides to be represented to complete the picture.

I do not see this an attempt to whitewash the article; rather, I think it makes it more complete, more accurate, and provides more context to potential readers. This makes it more useful to readers and more aligned with Wikipedia policies and guidelines.

I'm always open to suggestions for further improving the text I've proposed and hope we can come to a consensus, and because of my COI, I won't make any of the changes agreed upon myself. I thank you in advance for your consideration. Arturo at BP ( talk) 18:12, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

Michael L. Kurtz (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The names of this subject's adult children are named in the article with citations that don't actually specify that they are his children. I'm not sure if this is a violation of WP:BLPNAME, but I thought I would bring it here for review. - Location ( talk) 22:23, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed the information. It was not properly sourced and it seems questionable whether their names should be mentioned even if we had a source saying that he has children. Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 22:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I encountered a recently created Wikipedia page John Anthony Castro and after a quick check found that it may violate a BLP policy because many sources are doubtful and at best represent original research. I request to review the sources and the page's content for the following reasons: 1) Ref-bombing with a lot of primary sources. 2) Extensive use of "claims" and "not fully verified information" in biography that led to a very poorly written article. 3) From 32 sources I examined, many sources are self-published, redundant, promotional, or repeating the same news (redundant). Also, extreme overuse of the primary sources that lead to specific opinions and original research (at best). 4) I also have suspicion of a political agenda here as the page is presented with covert negative information and it is also possible "sensational" or "one event news" (However, I'm not sure about it). 5) The page appeared shortly after the person became known in the media for filing the lawsuit against the former U.S. President Donald Trump 6) The article represents "original research" at best. And at worst, "biased and ref-bombed article potentially written non "in good faith" for non-encyclopedic purposes".

Here is a more detailed analysis for additional review and verification:

[24] [25] Self-published and promotional source. (Ref#1)

[26] Irrelevant source (ref#2) – no mention of the person.

[27] (Ref#3): Obituary of the aunt. Not sure if it qualifies because it only mentions Anthony Castro and we don’t have a double verification here for such a dubious source.

[28] (Ref#4) Self-published and potentially promotional source created for a political campaign in Laredo city. Also, a primary source

[29] (Ref#6) – the source used twice but it was not possible to verify it as the editors didn’t make any archive version of it. I wasn’t able to verify the information and it looks like it is "PayWall". While it is not a violation, the problem is I wasn’t able to verify the information here.

[30] (Ref#9) Ineligible blog

[31] (Ref#11) – Primary source (court records)

[32] (Ref#12). Primary source (Texas Controller of Public Accounts) – also non-verifiable.

[33] (Ref#13). Blog

[34] (Ref#14) (PDF file about the lawsuit). Primary source

[35] (Ref#15). Primary source on the lawsuit from the Taxnotes.com

[36] (Ref#16). Primary source PDF file

[37] (Ref#17). Primary source

[38] (Ref#18) Primary source. Also, potentially confidential information of the uploaded letter. It is not clear if this source can be used even as a primary one.

[39] [40] (Ref#19) Not a word about Castro. (Ref#20) (Primary source statistics) – might be relevant and eligible but not from the main governmental website but from a vague PDF document.

[41] (Ref#21) The source is primary but might qualify as it is from Texas Tribune

[42] [43] (Ref#23) A short mention of Castro’s lawsuit among other things – only one very short paragraph

[44] (Ref#25) Self-published and potentially promotional source from the political campaign of Mr. Castro.

[45] (Ref#26) (Self-published source from Castro’s personal website)

[46] An opinion letter written by Castro

[47] (Ref#28) An opinion letter written by Castro

[48] (Ref#31) A short paragraph about Castro among other candidates. Can be eligible for basic information but doesn’t contribute to any notability.

[49] (Ref#32) Twitter message – social media

[50] (Ref#33). I have no opinion or knowledge about this particular source. It is also primary and needs verification.

[51] (Ref#34)

Wordpress blog from an organization with its own opinion about the case. Definitely not an independent source.

[52]

Might be eligible for basic information but I’m not sure it is an official governmental source (Ref#35)

[53] (Ref#36) MartinPict ( talk) 17:43, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

@ MartinPict, this really should be discussed on the article's talk page first. Schazjmd  (talk) 17:54, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I did it. However, in my opinion there are so many violations here that I would like to draw NoticeBoard's attention to the situation. The thing is, it seems to me that there are not 1-2, but many issues, and this needs intervention. MartinPict ( talk) 18:32, 12 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed as much contentious WP:BLPPRIMARY material that didn't have secondary coverage as I could. There really shouldn't be a discussion before removal. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 23:22, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

16:29, 14 April 2023 diff hist +1,084‎ John Trobaugh ‎ I have changed the language to reflect that I am a Transgender Woman and my Doctorate in Education. Tags: Reverted Visual edit possible BLP issue or vandalism

The above info is what I got when I changed my name and pronouns to reflect my identity. I also added a public newspaper reference to my status as a transgender woman. ^[1]

In addition, I added a picture reflecting my identity as it is a self-portrait and my Doctorate in Education I received last year.

I am confused as to how to go about this change. I feel embarrassed to see my deadname still on Wikipedia but don't know how to fix it.

DrJulesArt ( talk) 16:52, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@ DrJulesArt I didn't mean to upset you in any way, it's just editing your own page would mean you are having a conflict of interest with yourself (and you also didn't provide a source of your transitioning beforehand). In that case, it would've been better to make an edit request on the articles talkpage, but I am aware you were not knowledgeable of that. Me and other editors will make the appropriate changes.

- L'Mainerque - ( Disturb my slumber) - 17:02, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

The page ( Jules Trobaugh) has been updated and moved. Since prima facie you were notable under our guidelines before your transition, per MOS:GENDERID, we do keep one mention of the deadname to avoid confusion for readers. For borderline cases of notability that isn't strictly necessary, but I haven't looked into that possibility here and don't have an opinion. For photographs, our image use policy only allows freely licensed pictures of living people. If you own the copyright to the image you are trying to upload and you have not uploaded it elsewhere, you can follow the directions here to upload it under a free license to Wikimedia Commons, after which it can be used in the article. If it has been uploaded elsewhere and you own the right, you should follow the steps at here instead. -- Patar knight - ^chat/ _{contributions} 17:35, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

@ DrJulesArt for more information on how to request changes for articles where you have a conflict of interest see these: WP:Edit requests, WP:Guide_to_effective_COI_edit_requests. But notice that it can take a long time for these requests to be answered. So for urgent changes like issues with deadnaming you should also make a post here to make more people aware of the request and the importance of dealing with them in a timely manner. Fortunately we have a lot of people here on Wikipedia who take issues like that very seriously. Random person no 362478479 ( talk) 20:51, 14 April 2023 (UTC)

I have made some changes / additions to this BLP. Dr Trobaugh was editing with a COI, yes, but the biography certainly could be improved by focusing on the edits rather than who made them. 172.195.96.244 ( talk) 08:24, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

The WP:BLPPRIMARY policy states that Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. However this does make sense at least for UK Companies House website as the information there are verified against the government record see [54]. So I see these information as more accurate than any other sources. Which beg the questions why governmental public records are "not" to be used? This will contradict for example the date of birth reference provided for all US presidents for example Barack Obama's which is referenced to a governmental public record, i.e., white house. I might be missing something here? or thie wording of this policy just do not make any sense, espically the use of " public records" FuzzyMagma ( talk) 12:51, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

The main point of the policy is to stop people doing WP:Original research, they should find stuff in reliable secondary sources which show they have some note rather than trawling through government records for every last silly thing noted there. We shoulc not be going to companies house to find stuff that papers have not bothered to write about. It can be used as backup but that should not normally be needed unless it is wrong in some sources. NadVolum ( talk) 17:31, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@ NadVolum how do you classify it as original research if it’s already mentioned by a verifiable source. That is stretching the definition of original research and can create a circular argument as it equates the process of searching of verifiable information with original findings. These two are not the same, one is doing a proper search and the other is original research

In addition, what makes you jump to consider government sources are not reliable. As I mentioned, many featured articles contain information from governmental sources. This policy wording need to be re-written or dropped entirely FuzzyMagma ( talk) 18:36, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

You misunderstand the information available at Companies House. It's not "verified against the government record" in any sense. When a director is appointed by a company the company secretary files the relevant form containing the director's personal information. There's no verification of that data by Companies House or the govenment. They just published what they've been given. True, it would be a criminal offence if it turns out the company secretary filed something fraudulently, but the information isn't independently verified. It's not much more reliable than taking information of a company's own website. DeCausa ( talk) 18:44, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@ DeCausa from a personal experience, I disagree. When you send your details as a director you also send prove for these information. FuzzyMagma ( talk) 19:52, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

No you don't. I'm a lawyer and I've done this more times than I care to remember. You can see from Form AP01 here it's entirely self-certifying. DeCausa ( talk) 20:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I can say that about immigration and visa forms, and as far as I am concern you can be Pope and it would not make any different. Here is what I am based my info on [55] without the need to provide personal infromation or prove my (irrelvant) personal claim.

Feel free to refute it but please provide evidence beyond "I'm a lawyer" FuzzyMagma ( talk) 21:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

FFS Evidence beyond "I'm a lawyer": I already linked to AP01 which refutes your gaslighting nonsense of "from a personal experience, I disagree". Also your link doesn't prove shit. It doesn't say anu=ything about verification. Inconsistency with other forms submitted is tiotally different. Obviously. DeCausa ( talk) 21:34, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

the from is bond by section 1112 of the Companies Act 2006, it is “an offence for a person knowingly or recklessly … to make to the registrar … a statement … that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular” FuzzyMagma ( talk) 21:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:DOB may be relevant. DOB:s are not gold to be mined. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 18:05, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Gråbergs Gråa Sång the policy am challenging is not citing this DOB policy, so DOB is irrelevant here. And I don’t have a problem with how the DOB policy is written. It’s coherent and makes sense and leaves a room for common sense FuzzyMagma ( talk) 18:40, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't see the problem with using Companies House to confirm that "at date X, person Y was the director of company Z", given that the information has been confirmed both by person Y and the Government. Using the further information (i.e. DOB, address) has issues with BLPPRIMARY, though. Black Kite (talk) 18:43, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

As I mention above, it's not conformed by the government. DeCausa ( talk) 18:45, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@ DeCausa but you said yourself, it’s fraudulent to provide false information. Compare that to any other reference, where also people provide such information voluntarily about their DOB, what is at risk there? How is it considered more reliable?

and moving to the broader perspective, how the way this policy is worded stated “not” to use public records? What is the reason for that general statement FuzzyMagma ( talk) 19:50, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

You started by saying its value comes from government verification. You're wrong about that. DeCausa ( talk) 20:10, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Under section 1112 of the Companies Act 2006, it is “an offence for a person knowingly or recklessly … to make to the registrar … a statement … that is misleading, false or deceptive in a material particular” FuzzyMagma ( talk) 21:35, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Just to make it clear. I am contesting this policy not only for the specific example of UK but for the broader sense of prohibiting public records with many examples where this policy is non sensical as public record is a very broad term that can pertain to everything relates to a government FuzzyMagma ( talk) 19:57, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

If you wish to propose a fundamental change to long-standing core WP:BLP policy, this isn't the place to do so. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 20:01, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@ AndyTheGrump thanks. I still think I might have misunderstood the wording of the policy judging common sense as I really do not think it would have been a policy if - as I understand it - means something as broad as this. Where do you recommend going with this proposal? FuzzyMagma ( talk) 21:28, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

Companies House is an absolute shit source -- they publish whatever is submitted to them. It's the best possible example of why we shouldn't use primary sources. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 20:29, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

I've been trying to tell them that (above). Apart from audited accounts it's all SELFPUB effectively. DeCausa ( talk) 20:37, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Nomoskedasticity citation needed? FuzzyMagma ( talk) 21:25, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

"Companies House is dysfunctional and facilitating fraud, MPs told", "Fraud is causing Companies House to crumble. It needs a stronger footing.", "Fakers, fast sign-ups and fraud: the crisis at the UK’s Companies House", "Dead directors’ on records listed at Companies House' etc etc DeCausa ( talk) 21:46, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

@ DeCausa thanks. It’s clear enough now. I surely have trusted this government website blindly. Time to go back and fix some articles FuzzyMagma ( talk) 01:23, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

No, we should not use this or any other public records for claims about living persons. As mentioned above, they require original research and there are concerns about fact-checking and accuracy. WP:NOR and WP:V should be enough. But beyond that, many documents are effectively self-published, they may involve people who are relatively unknown, and they can enable identify theft. Then there's the very real possibility of mistaken identity. Virtually everything about us is available in public records, often without our choice or consent. Just because someone applies for a job or gets called to testify in court doesn't give us, as editors, the right to reveal their private information. Woodroar ( talk) 22:39, 9 April 2023 (UTC)

IMO this touches on the key point. While our proscriptions are not as strong as for dates of birth or names, they arise from the same concerns. Even in cases where we can be confident the information is accurate, we should not include it for the simple reason that it is clearly unimportant information if the only source you can dig up is a primary source. If it was important or significant information about a living person, then a reliable secondary source would have talked about it. There are often also ORry concerns which arise much less with secondary sourcing especially in matching a person with some primary source. (You can see this a lot in discussions where people say well it's clearly the same person because of the rare name, date of birth and location etc, or they look the same in the photo, or ......) There can also be accuracy concerns although this can be complicated. (Good secondary sources are generally going to check when there is some reason for uncertainty and of course make it easy to request corrections. However, for simple mundane information where they have no reason to doubt its accuracy, my impression is a lot of even decent secondary sources will just republish what primary sources say without additional checking, or rely on what they were told again without additional checking. While the latter may be what is sometimes in primary sources, at least there tends to be theoretical legal requirements for accuracy and consequences where people lie. By comparison lying to journalists is significantly less likely to be legally consequential albeit it might be something that carries more risk someone will notice.) Nil Einne ( talk) 08:26, 16 April 2023 (UTC)

Article for Mary Jordan (filmmaker) has been created, written, and maintained by her husband, Eerik-Niiles Kross (user: Enkross). Violates BLP policy, full of lies/inaccurate info/unsubstantiated claims - should be deleted or at least heavily edited. The wiki of Eerik-Niiles Kross was created by user enkross as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leo1929 ( talk • contribs) 16:52, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

It's not a good WP:BLP, I'll say that much. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:15, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Nazareth is a city in the state of Israel. This is a fact that cannot be disputed. A person can relate to himself as he wishes, but a geographical place cannot be stated wrongly.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shulalevin ( talk • contribs) 20:04, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

The article was changed from "in the city of [[Nazareth|Nazareth, Israel]]" to "in the city of [[Nazareth|Nazareth, Palestine]]", by an editor with few edits. I've changed it to "in the city of [[Nazareth]]", I don't think it's necessary to have anything more. Any editor can change it without discussing it with me. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆ transmissions∆ ° co-ords° 21:06, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

If edit warring continues, please request ECP under WP:ARBPIA4. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 22:31, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

/info/en/?search=Sami_Al-Arian#Kuwait_and_Egypt

I personally do not have a deep knowledge of the man's life, I came to the article by looking him up after listening to this podcast episode where is daughter is interviewed about how the US court system operated and the use of secret evidence and torture against her father. He was never convicted, but after a mistrial took a plea deal that the government did not, by a resonable definition, seem to honor but instead found another way to go after him via setting him up for contempt charges.

Given that his trial was even at the time widely condemned by many civil rights and human rights groups that the government used means like solitary confinement, secret evidence, and jailed his brother in law in an attempt to force him to sign a plea deal were he would testify against Al-Arian, I was pretty shocked at the state of the article which contained a lot of uncritical repeating of the US government allegations as fact as well as frankly racist language. I'm not super familiar with editing this site but I went and fixed things that seemed particularly egregious, such as the first line of the article referring to him as "An Islamist of unverified Palestinian origin" which seem entirely unsupported and inappropriate especially given that his life was deeply effected by such allegations by the government, and it seems frankly pretty gross to default to referring to anyone's ethnicity as "unverified."

Anyway, I'm hoping someone who better understands how to navigate the site can take a look at this because I think the article is not up to standards and I'm sure there's tons more stuff that needs to be fixed, and at least nowadays we're far enough removed from the early 2000's when referring to any Muslim activist as an "Islamist" is no longer quite as socially acceptable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.42.46.6 ( talk) 00:04, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

That was all done in this series of edits by Internationaleditor85, who I am about to notify of the ARBPIA and ARBBLP sanctions. Thanks for bringing this up. nableezy - 00:23, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I am not a fan of Bezalel Smotrich and his anti-gay comments. But User:Iskandar323 is way over the top. Over here He writes in the lead that:

He has called himself a "fascist homophobe"

However the context of this statement is from a leaked recording of a private conversation and it was a sarcastic remark. Haaretz has a paywall, but this is Times of Israel: [56]

“I may be a far-right person, a homophobe, racist, fascist, but my word is my bond,” he says in an apparently sarcastic attempt to use his detractor’s words.

This is out of context to the extreme, this was a sarcastic remark and it is obvious from the recording of the private conversation that it was a sarcastic retort to the person he was speaking to. יהואש ( talk) 10:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I didn't add those lines. They were already there, and I simply restored them after you removed them, which, as an non-ECP editor, you should not strictly be doing on a page flagged with WP:ARBPIA mandated ECP editing restrictions. But if you really want to get into it, he still admitted those things by himself. The Times of Israel only adds "apparently sarcastic" in terms of retrospective editorializing after the leak, so there seems to be some degree of skepticism over the sarcasm here, and this is now the second time he has admitted to being a "proud homophobe" after saying it in a high school no less, a deeply public forum. Fool me once. Anyone who refers to "the gays" pretty much wears their sentiments on their sleeves, bigoted private jokes aside. As for 'fascist', that has already entered scholarship in force, e.g. here: "The recent call by Finance Minister Bezalel Smotrich to eliminate the village of Huwara is quite clearly a Fascist-style provocation by a messianic nationalist." Iskandar323 ( talk) 11:12, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Removing cats Category:Jewish fascists Category:Anti-Arabism in Israel Category:Far-right politicians in Israel, the latter two in particular (well sourced everywhere) was not OK. Not only not supposed to be editing this page to start with but in the case of the far right cat, a breach of 1R as well (it was only added on 16th by Iskandar) here and here

If you have a complaint about content, why not first raise it on the article talk page, give other editors a chance to comment first. Selfstudier ( talk) 11:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Placing Smotrich's LGBT comments under ARBPIA is probably not right, and Selfstudier created an edit notice barring edits on the page at 11:19, 18 April 2023, after this discussion was opened. To the substance of the argument here, the Category:Jewish fascists doesn't belong and the quote itself should be fixed and contextualized. Researcher (Hebrew: חוקרת) ( talk) 11:55, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The talk page notice already was present. I have merely added the edit notice to match. The entire page is subject to restrictions and the editor has also been made aware at their talk page of the restrictions on the page. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:13, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Same comment as previously, discuss it on the article talk page first. Selfstudier ( talk) 12:14, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

LeontinaVarlamonva is repeatedly inserting cherry-picked criticism about David Hurwitz (music critic) on his WP page, sourced to solely writings by David Hurwitz causing a chunk of OR, SYNTH and BLP violations. I've told them twice now that I have no issue with such information, granted it is cited to secondary sources. They have cited the article's use of primary sources for some basic life information as a rationale for why it can be used for critical commentary as well.

They have now accused me three times of "having a close connection" based on solely the fact that I have updated Hurwitz's YT count before and have improved the article (which, as I explained, is part of my project to improve music critic articles). I have absolutely no connection with Hurwitz other than being familiar with his criticism and writings. Regardless, the continue to add the unfounded "close connection" tag to the article. Instead of continuing the conversation, they have ignored me at Talk:David Hurwitz (music critic)#Untitled. Aza24 (talk) 19:15, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

Think that LeontinaVarlamonva's critique that the article is too reliant on primary sources written by Hurwitz is correct. However, like you, I question whether inserting quotes where he calls musicians work "stupid" or "trash" solely sourced to his own reviews is really due. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 20:35, 15 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't think examples I provide were any more cherry picked than examples of "high brow" scholarship that were picked to represent him. The fact is this person has produced some quite questionable/offensive content, so only talking about his "high brow" scholarship and "esteemed" roles he has held, seems misleading. The article seemed like a shrine to him, a museum, and from page history I can tell this criticism has been voiced more than once, which is the only reason I restored deleted information. It is not ideal but better than total uniformity.-- LeontinaVarlamonva ( talk) 00:51, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

You've now changed your concerns three times. Not sure why you're inserting dramatic analysis—"high brow"; a "shrine to him". I've now removed all uses of sources written directly by Hurwitz. Aza24 (talk) 07:30, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello - I've just come across Tamaz Somkhishvili while patrolling for vandalism and it appears to be a bit of a mess in terms of content disputes/POV. I don't believe I have the requisite knowledge to make a call one way or the other, and there appears to be very little discussion over the page, which was deleted once, and nominated again here. If someone more able to deal with this would be able to give it a look, I'd greatly appreciate it. Tollens ( talk) 06:58, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Tollens the discussion has already started. the page was under AfD recently and it was reviewed by the administrators profoundly. However, it came under bombardment by Undisclosed paid editors like AlexanderVolkov123 who put false sources. These sources, which include private attorneys' blogs, are not in compliance with Wikipedia's guidelines and contribute to a clear violation of WP:PROMO, as well as being an act of blatant vandalism and COI. 77.52.16.224 ( talk) 15:30, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm not sure where there is a discussion already. AfD is not this discussion (and administrators having seen the article is not really that relevant) - AfD concerns the deletion of the article rather than content concerns. In addition, I don't see any clear evidence of a COI anywhere, only assertions. From a quick scan of the article, most of the material added by the editor you mention at least appears factually accurate. Is there some reason to believe otherwise? To be perfectly honest, at first glance it seems the version of the article you promote has significant BLP issues in terms of untested accusations of criminal activity. Tollens ( talk) 20:37, 17 April 2023 (UTC)

My version of the text is neutral and complies with WP:NPOV. But my edits are removed from anonymous IP addresses, suggesting that there is an order to smear this person. Please put the article on the defence. AlexanderVolkov123 ( talk) 15:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

As I can see, the anonimous claim about false sources is a not a truth. Big part of AlexanderVolkov123's sources are an direct texts of Ukrainian courts decisions. So, an attempt to replace them with links to Ukrainian yellow press, of the same quality as The Sun or worse, is a rather incorrect action. Caramoble ( talk) 16:22, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Articles should not use tabloids as sources. But BLPs also should not use court decisions. Per WP:BLPPRIMARY: Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Schazjmd  (talk) 16:32, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The page has been protected under WP:GS/RUSUKR - some uninvolved perspectives would still be appreciated. Tollens ( talk) 07:21, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

Tollens Thanks for protecting the page, but the paid material denigrating a persona, added from an anonymous IP address, remains on the page. What's more, on the discussion page, I have been threatened with blocking from an anonymous IP address. I ask you to deal with the situation. As it stands now, the page does not conform to WP:NPOV. You said my version is more acceptable, but there are problems with sources. Here is a reputable source, a big biographical article about the person in the Georgian Forbes [58] AlexanderVolkov123 ( talk) 13:10, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I've gone more thoroughly into the sources and I'm fairly comfortable now with the current state of the article - the claims made in the article reference fairly high-profile allegations against a high-profile individual, so they're acceptable under WP:BLPCRIME. Please note that Forbes contributor articles are considered generally unreliable and cannot be used for claims about living persons as they are essentially self-published, see WP:FORBESCON. I notice also that you haven't responded in any way to the concerns raised about your potential conflict of interest - is there a reason for this? Tollens ( talk) 20:36, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

I am Melissa Bime. I run a comapny, and a malicious employee is writing stuff about me on here and trying to ruin my reputation because she got fired. How do i stop this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Melissa Bime ( talk • contribs) 09:06, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Given that neither Bime nor the company concerned seem to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines, the simplest solution would probably be to delete the article. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 09:46, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Egads. That article is terrible. It reads like an advertisement that was written by yourself or someone with very close ties to you. You should seriously read WP:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing. (I wouldn't wish one on my worst enemy.) Honestly, your best bet is to request deletion at WP:Articles for deletion. Since the article doesn't really demonstrate notability, we will often give special consideration to subjects who come and request such articles to be deleted. Honestly, that's the best way to avoid vandalism, revenge edits, poorly written articles, and other such problems. Aside from that, the first thing I recommend is reading our WP:Conflict of interest policy, and note that you shouldn't edit the page yourself. Instead, you should use the talk pages to request your changes. Complying with policy is not only the best way to get help from the community, but also to avoid any bad press. Remember, everything you do on Wikipedia is logged and stored in the history --forever-- and people from the news agencies just love to go through that stuff looking for a story. If it's a case of vandalism, you can report it here or at WP:ANI, and an admin will usually handle the matter as they deem appropriate. If the problem is egregious or persistent, they may block the offending user, or may even protect the article. You can request page protection at WP:RFPP, but with any of these options you will want to go into them with "clean hands", or you could find it WP:Boomeranging back at you. But I still say option 1 is your best bet for a long-term solution. I hope that helps and good luck. Zaereth ( talk) 10:07, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I don't know What's the problem about Sung Deuk Hahm's article. Please tell me about the problem and why the Notice still opened.

Notice about sources This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Take extra care to use high-quality sources. Material about living persons should not be added when the only sourcing is tabloid journalism; see more information on sources. Never use self-published sources about a living person unless written or published by the subject; see WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSELFPUB.

Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, see this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 서대문사나이 ( talk • contribs) 14:58, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Are you confused about the notice on the article's talk page? That doesn't indicate there is a problem with that article - it's a warning on most articles about living people, just there to let editors know about the policies in place for articles about living people. Do you have other questions about it? ~ ONUnicorn^{( Talk| Contribs)} problem solving 15:24, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated rumor and slander being made about this living person. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:182:B00:E040:4D07:489B:F9B6:F6F0 ( talk) 17:26, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I removed that per WP:BLPCRIME. That should not be added back unless/until a conviction is secured in a court of law. Zaereth ( talk) 18:57, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

Hi. I work for Kay Adams (sportscaster), who is concerned about her real legal name being on Wikipedia. She uses the "Kay Adams" pseudonym (along with 24/7 security and restraining orders) to protect her from obsessed fans that routinely stalk/harass her, send her weapons, and/or become romantically obsessed with her. I believe she qualifies to have her legal name omitted under WP:BLPNAME :

"When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories."

Her real name is sometimes published online by gossip rags, but it isn't "widely disseminated" or published in any scholarly works. She does "intentionally conceal" her real name. Omitting her real name would not cause a "significant loss of context" to readers, but would help protect Kay's safety.

I ask that editors consider whether Kay meets the criteria of WP:BLPNAME and, if so, omit her real name from the page. Thank you in advance for taking the time to consider my request. Tucker.hart ( talk) 16:14, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

I will note that her name is currently sourced to TV Guide, which sounds like a good source... but it's a database page, not an article. As such, it is in no way an indicator that her name is of import or of interest, it's just information that they claim to have. As such, this looks like a reasonable request. (I am avoiding article edits at this time, so I won't do it myself... but it should have more consensus than just me here anyway.) -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 16:34, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

@ Tucker.hart Hi, and thanks for raising the question here the way you did. I checked the source in the article , and googled a bit. Based on that, your request and WP:BLPKIND, I'll WP:BOLDly remove it, then we'll see what happens.

TV Guide looks okay on the face of it per WP:RSP, but the discussions that led up to that summary talked about stuff like air dates. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:40, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Btw, if you're interested in contributing a WP:LEADIMAGE for the WP-article, take one with your own camera, and upload it with the process that starts HERE. You can then tell me it's done, and I'll add it to the article. Well, unless I think it's bloody awful. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:48, 21 April 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I'm adding this new article to the BLP noticeboard because imo it may need a little extra care due to the controversy surrounding the subject. Also, there is currently an image of Tyson in the article that is pre-transition and I'm wondering if there is any policy/guideline surrounding that. Thanks, Iamreallygoodatcheckers ^talk 05:25, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I think there is a good case to delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E. All of the coverage is recent and about their transition and their relationship to the much more famous MrBeast. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 05:28, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

I agree. The channel is notable but I'm not at all convinced that this individual is notable in their own right. Not everyone involved in a notable YouTube channel is notable individually, in the same way that appearing in a notable TV series doesn't automatically make an actor individually notable. In this case almost all the coverage I can find is linked to the channel, including that around their transitioning (which in any case, wouldn't of itself make them notable). Neiltonks ( talk) 09:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Done Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chris Tyson (2nd nomination). Hemiauchenia ( talk) 23:33, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

Mostly moot if the article is deleted, but I've removed the photos from the infobox per Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Gender identity. IMO given the state of the article even if it is kept we shouldn't include it anywhere. Perhaps if the article eventually includes a length section on life before starting HRT. IMO we also shouldn't include it in other articles for the same reason. While Tyson might have appeared in various MrBeast videos, I'm not convinced this is significant enough to require such a photo especially since there's no indication they are going to stop appearing. Nil Einne ( talk) 10:43, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

My removal was quickly reverted but I didn't notice as I didn't check out Wikipedia. I have re-removed the photo and mention this discussion along with giving reasoning on the article talk page. I missed that the OP had specifically asked about photos, I linked to the relevant guideline but didn't quote the part. Under best practices number 4, it says Avoid using an out-of-date, pre-coming-out photo of a transgender subject as a lead image. If no other photos are available, it is generally better to have no lead image at all. In general, avoid using pre-coming-out photos unless the subject's pre-transition appearance is especially well-known and notable. Nil Einne ( talk) 13:18, 22 April 2023 (UTC)

Are widely-published charging documents sufficient to source a year of birth? e.g. [59] We have multiple reliable sources identifying his age at or around the time of his arrest, e.g. [60], but I have not found non- WP:BLPPRIMARY RS sources that plainly state a year of birth. There has been discussion on the article Talk page that also relates to attempts to add a full date of birth based on a recent New York Times source, so there is also a question about whether this one source is sufficient to add a full date of birth. Thank you, Beccaynr ( talk) 01:14, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

User Richisups keeps adding potentially defamatory content - attempting to link toa convicted criminal. No relevance to the bio of the subject. Comments from others please. Also request made for wiki to review page as not a notable figure. Never held office above being a councillor. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiview2000 ( talk • contribs) 09:45, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

OP blocked as a sock. Lavalizard101 ( talk) 10:32, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Despite being a sock, OPs concerns about this biography were correct. It contained some WP:OR, inappropriate use of primary sources, and guilt by association. The article probably has further issues beyond what I've removed too. Tristario ( talk) 11:20, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tiffany Dover, CT55555 is arguing what I feel is an incorrect interpretation of the BLP policy. Based on some of their other article creations ( Arrest of Jacob Gregoire, Casey Hatherly, Razia Muradi), it seems there is a pattern of creating Wikipedia articles about otherwise low-profile individuals based on one spurt of tabloid news coverage. Is this type of content in line with Wikipedia's BLP policy? Walt Yoder ( talk) 16:31, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

• That article, and the other three mentioned, are all textbook WP:BLP1E. Indeed, the latter one doesn't even appear to be notable at all. The other 3 should go to AfD. Clogging up Wikipedia with trivial local news stories that happen to get a brief burst of coverage outside their local area ("Hey look, the cops arrested a firefighter! That'll be good for the quirky news spot!") is not encyclopedic. Black Kite (talk) 17:28, 23 April 2023 (UTC)

I've nominated one of these for deletion, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arrest of Jacob Gregoire. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 19:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

WP:DEL-REASON gives Articles that breach Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons as a reason for deletion. I agree that articles like this present WP:BLP issues, although it can sometimes be difficult to convince people of that at WP:AFD. WP:1E also tells us to avoid the creation of unnecessary pseudo-biographies, especially of living people. In addition there's policies and guidelines to consider like WP:NOTNEWS, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and WP:SENSATIONAL in relation to events. Tristario ( talk) 00:30, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

I have recently created Hanna Cavinder. She and her twin sister Haley Cavinder are jointly very prominent social media stars as the Cavindertwins on various social media platforms. However, they also have a lot of individual biographical content. Within Hanna's bio there are a lot of things that the twins do together and I am not sure if the article currently strikes the proper tone with regard to subject.-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:42, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

I am no longer watching this page. Make sure to ping my user talk if you reply here with feedback for me.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 20:41, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

The entire section of Batra#Notable people lists a number of living people with descriptions with zero citations, including at least one claim about sexuality that was recently edited. Fermiboson ( talk) 13:39, 25 April 2023 (UTC)