• Ashley Gjøvik (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A request at WP:RPPI from an IP asks that this article be semi-protected. Another IP opposes the first. There is a storm of editing going on there and I'm hoping someone will work out what is going on and whether admin action is needed. Johnuniq ( talk) 10:02, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

This is a massive WP:BLPPRIMARY mine field with too many things cited solely to court documents. One IP had the nerve to revert and wikilawyer an administrator, Fences and windows. [1] I have a suspicion these ip addresses are PR-ing and litigating through wikipedia and the article needs an extensive clean-up. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 18:34, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

For those that don't know there was some previous disputes that seemed to be going on on and off wiki that resulted in both the subject and someone they were in dispute with being blocked and banned respectively. See e.g. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive1100#Ban evasion, Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard/Archive 13#Arbitration motion regarding HazelBasil and SquareInARoundHole and Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 184#Cher Scarlett, Ashley Gjøvik, Ifeoma Ozoma, & Apple Worker Organizations. I have no idea if the other party is still socking if they are, perhaps longer term semi protection should be considered. While the subject remains blocked, I would suggest emailing about problems would be a better solution than posting about it on Twitter. Nil Einne ( talk) 19:15, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

There is a pattern of IP addresses that have never made edits to WP before making 1 or 2 edits and then disappearing. I suggest that the person doing this knows what they're doing and is doing this intentionally to evade a previous ban. See evidence from here Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Single-edit_IPs_vandalizing_Ashley_Gjøvik_page and in particular, this section posted to another user's talk page from a throwaway IP accusing that editor of "casting aspersions" for making claims that this IP-hopper isn't (implausibly) a new person for every new IP they're using. I wasn't aware of the history of this page before the recent twitter threads, news articles etc., but based on what you have linked above, I think it's very plausible that this IP hopper is the same person as SquareInARoundHole. Note: I've only made a couple edits since my dynamic IP rotated last night, but I'm not intentionally changing my IP after every edit like this person or using proxies across many different ISPs. I am the same person that used Special:Contributions/76.6.213.65 for the past couple weeks. 76.6.210.82 ( talk) 07:01, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I did an extensive clean-up that addressed the BLPPRIMARY and ABOUTSELF concerns. [2] Morbidthoughts ( talk) 22:55, 25 June 2024 (UTC) reply

That's impressive work, Morbidthoughts, because that article was a mess. – notwally ( talk) 00:34, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

It may be noted for the record that this article and Cher Scarlett were, some years ago, the subject of a protracted episode involving both of the articles' subjects themselves. jp× g 🗯️ 23:47, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

See Special:Permalink/1071273528#Arbitration_motion_regarding_HazelBasil_and_SquareInARoundHole. I believe there was some big noticeboard kerfluffu as well, although I don't have a link on hand. jp× g 🗯️ 23:50, 6 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Question: I am not overly familiar with BLP policies. Is the reason that court documents are not allowed is that they become Original Research because they are easy to MIS-interpret? (I saw lots of those additions, but didn't know about the applicability of court documents as sources for what seemed to be simple statements like "lawsuit dismissed with/out prejudice").

I understand WP:BLP : "Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person." - but I would think that would pertain to info like allegations of misconduct/criminal charges, not whether a lawsuit is active, dismissed, settled, or adjudicated. --- Avatar317 ^(talk) 00:58, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I take a broad view of WP:BLPPRIMARY's prohibition. The need to complete a story is not a reason to start ignoring this policy. It is an argument that is against WP:WEIGHT if no secondary reliable sources report on the outcome. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 01:17, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I think WP:PRIMARY as well is important regardless of BLP concerns, including its interaction with WP:INDISCRIMINATE and WP:NOTEWORTHY. A missing detail that is truly important may be useful to pull from a primary source in certain circumstances (much less likely in a BLP given WP:BLPPRIMARY), but determining how much to include in an article is difficult enough using secondary sources, not to mention primary sources. – notwally ( talk) 01:31, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Published case law (which is not court documents in the sense of public records) is used frequently on Wikipedia - quick search of Reuters casetext yields 1,100 results. Many are on BLPs. WP:RSLAW is worth a read. RICO is pretty much the most serious accusation someone can lodge and the only source of it is an Apple blog. If it's worth including, I can't see how published case law that it was dismissed (especially with prejudice) isn't also warranted. The fact it was adjudicated doesn't seem like a minor detail. Changed my mind on this because of Johnuniq's note below. Say ocean again ( talk) 15:00, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Published case opinions are court documents and have to be handled the same way on Wikipedia because they implicate many of the same concerns with their usage, whether that is privacy of living people or the issues interpreting them by anyone who can edit here. Also, dismissal with prejudice is not necessarily an adjudication on the merits, and there are significantly more serious accusations than a RICO lawsuit filed by an employee for retaliation and fraud. Claiming that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a very persuasive argument, especially on this noticeboard dealing with the strict guidelines for BLPs. – notwally ( talk) 06:07, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Note this IP address has only ever made this one edit, to this talk page. See above about sockpuppeting on this article as this editor is almost certainly a known quantity; since they are no longer able to edit the article, they are now editing administrative threads trying to influence how it is being edited.

I've only made a couple edits since my IP rotated last night, but I'm not intentionally changing my IP after every edit like this person. I am the same person that used Special:Contributions/76.6.213.65 for the past couple weeks. 76.6.210.82 ( talk) 06:55, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't control my IP address and have never contributed in a way that wasn't clear I'm one person. I requested page protections for the very reason that you and unknown number of others were edit warring and the article itself was posted on as a community note from a Twitter thread with tens of thousands of retweets.

I made an account to make it clear, even though I disagree with it on principle for the purpose of this BLPN conversation. Say ocean again ( talk) 14:12, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I was saying that they are Wikipedia:Published vs Wikipedia:Public records, not that they aren't court documents.

My question is whether or not AppleInsider is a reliable source for inclusion on a BLP.

A second question would be for lawsuits and legal complaints that are never reported on again, at what point should we remove them from a BLP as Wikipedia:Recentism, if we cannot include case law? Say ocean again ( talk) 13:50, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

The issue about AppleInsider should be up for discussion. Even if reliable, it and another source, Index on Censorship, definitely should not be given as much as weight as sources like Financial Times, The Verge, or New York Times. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 22:01, 27 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Discussion: Talk:Ashley Gjøvik#Inclusion of content and sources Say ocean again ( talk) 03:55, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Using court documents and similar is very undesirable because their meaning can be misunderstood by onlookers, and because they can be contradicted in another document, and because an opponent of the subject can easily cherry-pick undue negativity from a laundry-list of assertions. Using a secondary source is supposed to shift the burden of deciding what reporting is appropriate from an anyone-can-edit contributor to the editorial team of the secondary source. Johnuniq ( talk) 04:57, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

• FYI, I have semi-protected the article for 6 months. Lectonar ( talk) 14:16, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

FYI, there's a related conversation happening at Wikipedia talk:Biographies of living persons#Published judicial documents with good information on this topic. Say ocean again ( talk) 14:37, 26 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Discussion about inclusion of content

Content from Special:Diff/1231386224/1231391075

Moved to: Talk:Ashley Gjøvik#Inclusion of content and sources Say ocean again ( talk) 03:19, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

Say ocean again ( talk) 00:48, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

This kind of extensive, detailed discussion is probably better had on the article's talk page. – notwally ( talk) 03:03, 28 June 2024 (UTC) reply

I want some input. Following WP:BLP, @ Avatar317 removed significant amounts of material from the TESCREAL article ( See diff

I'd argue material is fairly well sourced, and many of these figures are WP:PUBLICFIGURE (i.e. Elon Musk, SBF, Sam Altman, and various high level philosophers).

As per WP:BLP, in cases of conflict, I was told to escalate here on noticeboard for suggestions from community.

Some background:

• Admin Arbitrarily0 closed an AfD for TESCREAL with merge on December 2023. It was closed for lack of WP:N
• Multiple sources since December have used the term and analyzed it. I used Draftspace to improve and asked User_talk:Arbitrarily0#Draft:TESCREAL to see if it could be undeleted.
• It was undeleted today by admin. Avatar317 is upset and has also opposed Template:Did_you_know_nominations/TESCREAL

Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 01:40, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

From WP:PUBLICFIGURE:"If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." --- Avatar317 ^(talk) 03:07, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Avatar317: Could you be more specific about which portion of this section is of concern for you? GorillaWarfare (she/her •  talk) 03:17, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Anything OTHER than self-described TECREALISTS. --- Avatar317 ^(talk) 03:23, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Can you provide a reason why? We need specifics other than "I hate this article and will throw what I can as WP:WIKILAWYER".

We addressed these are all public figures, that there is significant useful sourcing for most of these claims. Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 03:33, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

We are describing this supposed philosophy as being akin to a secular religion. We would likely avoid branding anyone with a religion that they have not chosen to identify with. The claim that it is not a pejorative is at odds with the statement in the intro that "the acronym is sometimes used to criticize a perceived belief system associated with Big Tech". It is not a term developed by holders of the belief to identify themselves, and it is hard to see that it's something we should be using to label people any more than "woke" or "TERF". -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 02:22, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Currently, nearly all figures in the section have multiple sources.

Maybe Peter Thiel could be removed for now, as well as Ray Kurzweil. Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 03:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I can't read the FinancialTimes article, because it is behind a paywall. Can you please provide quotes, because the association to Musk via one quote where he said he liked the Russian guy well known as a Cosmist was used as the ultimate source for Musk's connection in the first deleted article, and that alleged connection was deemed to be WAY too weak of a connection. --- Avatar317 ^(talk) 03:25, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

2 of the 9 paragraphs deal with Musk in this source. The formatting gets messed up on copy paste into here.

"""

Tech luminaries certainly overlap in their interests. Elon Musk, who wants to colonise Mars, has expressed sympathy for longtermist thinking and owns Neuralink, essentially a transhumanist company. Peter Thiel, the PayPal co-founder, has backed anti-ageing technologies and has bankrolled a rival to Neuralink. Both Musk and Thiel invested in OpenAI, the creator of ChatGPT. Like Thiel, Ray Kurzweil, the messiah of singularitarianism now employed by Google, wants to be cryogenically frozen and revived in a scientifically advanced future. Another influential figure is philosopher Nick Bostrom, a longtermist thinker. He directs Oxford university’s Future of Humanity Institute, whose funders include Musk. (Bostrom recently apologised for a historical racist email.) The institute works closely with the Centre for Effective Altruism, an Oxford-based charity. Some effective altruists have identified careers in AI safety as a smart gambit. There is, after all, no more effective way of doing good than saving our species from a robopocalypse.""" Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 03:28, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Maybe this is an excerpt from a longer post, but this does not say that these people identify with a thing called "TESCREAL", rather it is a list of seemingly unrelated factoids. jp× g 🗯️ 03:07, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes. Read the article if you want.

"People who are very rich or very clever, or both, sometimes believe weird things. Some of these beliefs are captured in the acronym Tescreal."

...

"Repeated talk of a possible techno-apocalypse not only sets up these tech glitterati as guardians of humanity, it also implies an inevitability in the path we are taking." Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 04:48, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

This article quotes Gebru and Torres as having called these people "Tescreal". At no point does FT claim that they are "Tescreal", or even that this is a commonly-used term (the closest it gets is to say "The label, coined by a former Google ethicist and a philosopher, is beginning to circulate online"). The part you've quoted is vague innuendo.

"Newspaper X said that person Y said claim Z" is not the same thing as "newspaper X said claim Z" -- it's not even close.

For a comparison, see the UFO stuff: there are plenty of reputable newspapers saying that David Grusch claimed he had proof of UFOs, but there are not reputable newspapers saying that there's proof of UFOs. jp× g 🗯️ 00:00, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Including a list of specific people on an article about a pejorative political term seems to me like a quite obvious BLP violation -- would we have a list of pundits at feminazi, christofascist, SJW, et cetera, cited only to other pundits, who hate them? jp× g 🗯️ 02:56, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

We have Big Tech, a "perjorative term" for big tech companies.

There are some "perjorative" terms that occur on wikipedia that have allegations that public figures are them. They fall into the pattern you suggest "doesn't happen" on here. Many of these terms are far more perjorative than TESCREALists.

Democrat in Name Only is a similarly "perjorative term" that alleged Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson as DINOs in the 200s.

Republican_in_Name_Only alleges Brian Kemp and others.

Cuckservative is thrown at Jeb Bush and John Mccain

If we keep it in Wikivoice, and they are WP:PUBLICFIGURE, and there are multiple opinions alleging them as such, we should include it with the appropriate WP:WIKIVOICE Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 04:52, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I'd also argue that "feminazi", etc. are internet jargon slurs used to demean. TESCREAL is originated by well published scientists and philosophers, i.e. Timnit Gebru, and Emile P Torres. Its roots are clearly scholarly and scholarly criticism of philosophies is generally not a perjorative political term right now.

If you find a reliable source arguing otherwise (I've seen the rando medium post arguing TESCREAL is a conspiracy, its WP:SPS), then we should consider WP:BLP. It has no current perjorative connotation as it has not entered mainstream discourse, though it is useful enough of an organizing idea that multiple folks are now using it to describe current veins of thought regarding some AI leaders/philosophers. Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 05:51, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

In general, it is clearly not the case that everything that comes out of the mouth of a credentialed scholar is a neutral, scientific claim based on pure apolitical reason. For example, Jordan Peterson and Slavoj Zizek are both very prestigious psychologists and university professors, who both hold all sorts of esteemed doctorates and professorships. However, obviously, neither of them are speaking as neutral scholars in magazine interviews about who's ruining society these days.

I assume you mean this Medium article written by James Hughes, who is a sociologist and a research fellow at UMass Boston’s Center for Applied Ethics. I am not a huge fan of the academic micturation contest framing in the first place, but I don't think there is really a credible basis to say that Emile Torres is a "well-published philosopher" and this guy is a "rando". jp× g 🗯️ 00:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Agreed. Emile P Torres and Timnit Gebru are not in the slight neutral, nor is James Hughes. And I'd argue that science often is not neutral and is often necessarily political. (see Climate Change or the "Do artifacts have politics?" paper)

Apologies for suggesting that James Hughes is a nobody, I mean to say that he needs to publish in a source that can stand up. The article had previously been deleted for lack of WP:RELIABLE sources, and I took great pains to try to include all the reliable sources I could. I think including criticism of the term, especially while its new and highly fluid in every source I find, could improve the article more.

I think this topic is highly political, and like any highly political topic, there are folks who use the most hyperbolic comments on both sides, whether characterizing everyone who is associated with even a single one of the movements as part of a larger eugenics conspiracy (bit of a stretch) or that TESCREAL is a slur invented by the left (also bit of a stretch).

Currently, my opinion is its just an academic term for a phenomena of weird ideologies in Silicon Valley.

We should use WP:OPINION on highly political topics. (I note that the Transhumanism article uses this significantly, as do many contemporary philosophy articles on Wikipedia). We should not consider deleting large portions of information stated in WP:OPINION just because we consider the politics to be particularly obnoxious (even possibly to ourselves as editors) or to the WP:PUBLICFIGURE that the politics criticizes.

The plethora of opinion pieces, commentaries, scientific articles, and (Some) straight news pieces suggest that this political term has some notability. And that many of these sources suggest and argue that Elon Musk and others are examples suggests we should include them in a list of alleged "Tescrealists", as long as we use WP:OPINION. Alleging that Elon Musk and others participate in weird ideologies that happens to be described by some as TESCREAL is not something that should be contentious to point out either. Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 15:38, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

In vitro fertilisation (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In this edit a previously uncited but vague mention of unprofessional conduct by unnamed doctors has become a direct accusation against a named person. It remains uncited. The editor who added the new sentence, who appears to have a conflict of interest, says they will edit war to keep the paragraph in place. Extra eyes would be useful. 81.187.192.168 ( talk) 19:22, 2 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I have removed the paragraph consisting of BLP violations. While the information added is likely true, the burden is on the editor adding the information to provide a citation. The behavior of SuperinfoTU on their talk page is not encouraging. It suggests that they see no issues in their policy violations thus far and expect to continue violating myriad policies. An admin should consider a NOTHERE block. Toadspike [Talk] 14:22, 4 July 2024 (UTC) reply

As I've explained before I respect the policy. You are bored going back and forth. SuperinfoTU ( talk) 03:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm concerned about the "Controversies" section of this article per WP:CSECTION and WP:BLP. Particularly concerning is the seven paragraph subsection on "Accusations of antisemitism". Note that this is not only a BLP but an active politician (not sure if that is relevant but it seems like it ought to be).

I'd be curious to hear what those more knowledgeable about our BLP policies think about this. IOHANNVSVERVS ( talk) 02:08, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't speak French, but a search of "Jean-Luc Mélenchon" and "conspiracy theories" produces many results from newspapers I do recognize as reliable. The heading does seem to unduly suggest there are "controversies" instead of just criticism, so I'd suggest that should probably be changed. The criticism itself appears due based on my search. Say ocean again ( talk) 01:45, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Could someone please look at Nina Power and especially Talk:Nina Power#She is a confirmed nazi now, where editors are seeking to include material about a libel case based solely on primary sources. I suspect that the core factual statements may well be correct, although the tone of the edits is quite lurid, but there's no secondary sourcing for anything beyond the initiation of the case. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 13:16, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I've removed the stuff which were sourced to court documents and self published sources not from Nina Power. Possibly the best solution is just deletion though. From what I see, there are currently zero secondary sources about Nina Power in that article. Instead, it just seems to be sourced to what she has published in various UK papers etc. I haven't done WP:BEFORE so perhaps such sources exist, but definitely the article seems to be highly problematic as it stands. Nil Einne ( talk) 14:03, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Thanks. I agree that it's all pretty marginal. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nina Power for some previous discussion. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 15:21, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Not clear what the actual problem is, folks. A look at the history shows that previously, secondary sources were removed (e.g. a pair of reviews of art shows mentioning her). And now, court findings cannot be included even when they bear directly on confirmed facts, or when they act as a secondary source confirming the subject's own words and actions?

This is someone that's been a (generally minor, sector-specific less minor) public figure on a (public) political journey rightwards. The only edits I've seen in response to asking for tightening up the wording and sourcing has been over-broad and wholesale deletion of recent updates that form a part of that public political journey. Chaikney ( talk) 15:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I think court findings are WP:PRIMARY. We should probably wait for a secondary source, i.e. news media, to report, unfortunately. Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 15:36, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Brief aside: It appears that she is known for her anti-trans advocacy (she has self identified as part of " TERF" island in one article). that's probably why there is a fair bit of interest on both sides now, and why many folks want to keep her article in the past AfD.

I agree, starting an AfD may be best, there isn't enough independent sources about her. Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 15:32, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

hmm, change my mind, I see some sourcing that is significant. Many of her book reviews also include criticisms of her past history. Should be correct to include the book reviews, and include attributed opinions around her politics in her bio. Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 16:00, 5 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm not seeing much on her, but plenty on her book. Seems that might be the better subject of an article? [3] [4] [5] [6]

The Nazi bit seems entirely undue from searches. Say ocean again ( talk) 01:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

John Leguizamo appeared on a genealogy show called Finding Your Roots in 2022. Within a day of the airing, this edit changed the widely reported birth date, his name at birth, and a few other details related to his family based on the findings of the show. There seems to be several issues with this, as the details are shown for two brief seconds in a visual overview of a family tree and other editors have considered it 'confirmation of his actual birthdate'. Taking one conflicting date as fact when there are multiple RS pointing to a different date seems to be ignoring WP:DOB. This also draws into question if WP:BLPPRIMARY comes into play and how it should be applied with a brief 'blink-and-you-will-miss-it!' showing of primary details. Since the name listed in the show also is not reported elsewhere, it adds further conflict to how to report on that since it is based on a primary source. @ TheSandDoctor: since you were the person who originally initiated the WP:DOB RfC regarding conflicting dates of birth, I wanted to request your opinion for cases like this in the future where multiple sources point to one year, and a solitary source points to another.

I have included the references I could find regarding his year of birth, including his About Me bio from his book. I also was unsure of if Copyright.gov is a reliable source since I know we consider the Library Of Congress reliable for years of birth, or have in the past, but I included it as well for the year of birth.

Copyright Office authorship query, "Leguizamo, John, 1964-"

Current biography yearbook (1998), page 368 "Leguizamo, John - July 22, 1964"

MacMillan Profiles Latino Americans (1999), page 197 "John Leguizamo, July 22, 1964"

Santa Ana Orange County Register Sunday Newspaper Archives July 25, 1999 Page 243 "Recalled John Leguizamo, 35"

The Oxford encyclopedia of Latinos and Latinas in the United States (2005), page 539 "Leguizamo was born in Bogata, Colombia, on July 22, 1964"

Latino Wisdom (2006), page 47 "Born in Bogata, Colombia, in 1964, Leguizamo"

Who : a directory of prominent people, 2nd Ed (2007), page 266 "Leguizamo, John (1964-)"

The works of John Leguizamo (2008), page 3 "Was born in Bogata, Colombia, in 1964" (About the author page from his book)

Time Almanac 2009, page 56 "Leguizamo ( 22 Jul 1964)"

Encyclopedia Britannica Almanac 2010, page 56 "John Leguizamo, 22 July, 1964"

CNN, Oct 3, 2014 "50 people turning 50 in 2014 — John Leguizamo had a milestone birthday on July 22 as he celebrated turning 50."

InterviewMagazine, May 31, 2016 "Now, at age 51, Leguizamo"

Vogue, Apr 6, 2017 "The 52-year-old actor was born in Colombia,"

GQ, Feb 28, 2018 "Yeah, something's definitely different about John Leguizamo. He thinks it might come down to his age—he's 53 now, over half a century"

NBC News, Apr 13, 2023 "Leguizamo, 62, has enjoyed"

Awshort ( talk) 10:28, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

This should be reverted to the date in the majority of sources you've supplied and make a note about the discrepancy. Say ocean again ( talk) 02:14, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Awshort: Thanks for the ping. I would agree with @ Say ocean again: in saying that we should probably include it as a footnote but list the predominantly reported one. The case that spawned the DOB RfC was a bit unique in that literally no reliable sources can/could agree for some reason on Taylor Lorenz's age to the level that we have to include a 3 year gap as they all contradict each other...that doesn't happen very often, I would hope. -- TheSandDoctor ^Talk 04:16, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I do a lot of work in AFDLand and right now we have one, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aimee Knight where there might be BLP concerns. There has been some Twitter canvassing going on and lots of low edit, sporadically editing, accounts participating in the discussion who might not be that familiar with Wikipedia policies, like WP:BLP. I'd welcome some evaluation by editors knowledgeable about BLP concerns to state whether there are legitimate BLP issues or if there are not. Thank you. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 23:51, 7 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Page is currently being targeted with protracted effort to delete relevant and current as well as cited information.

Even citation links to verified information is being removed. Married with child is indisputable based on links that were erased. Average google search of interviews would verify articles and podcasts in actresses on voice.

Seeems to be an attempt to denounce her nationality as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Erifanz ( talk • contribs) 04:21, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

courtesy link: Ella Thomas Say ocean again ( talk) 05:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Have you considered starting a discussion at Talk:Ella Thomas, which is the first place to discuss issues with that article? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 06:11, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm been trying to figure how to go about starting a discussion which is why I was asking for assistance. Erifanz ( talk) 07:07, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Erifanz, you seem to be saying [7] that you are Ella Thomas. Is that correct? Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 06:17, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

No... I am her cousin Rusa. I manage the page with her sister. I never had an issue before so am confused why this started and why I'm being blocked when I asked for help. Please advise. Erifanz ( talk) 07:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Erifanz Take the time to read

• WP:COI
• WP:BLP
• WP:OWN and
• Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing carefully.

This issue probably started because one or more Wikipedians noticed that the article didn't look like a WP:BLP should (WP has a lot of stuff like that, people only notice what they notice). That often happens when friends and relatives edit WP-articles about people, since they tend to do so from a "This person is AWESOME" perspective, whether they mean to or not. The purpose of a WP-article about Ella Thomas is to be a summary of independent WP:RS about Ella Thomas. Some WP:ABOUTSELF allowed, but still needs citing. Just because something is online doesn't mean it's useful as a source, especially for a WP:BLP. Hope this helps some. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:26, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you for being so kind and taking the time to clarify.

I'm still confused because I read through guidelines and there is no subjective context to her page. It's her early life, present life and catalog of work. When I look at similar pages of actresses... I followed the format almost identically. Even other actresses and actors repped at the agency have the same format.

I understand that we don't own the page and appreciate the format correction. I also don't understand why an interview with her and her husband doesn't count as a citation.

Again thank you for your patience with my questions. Erifanz ( talk) 07:39, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Are we talking about [8]? If so, while it's possible that they say "yeah, we are married etc" somewhere in that 70 min podcast, the text on that page doesn't make that clear at all. So for an editor who looks at that cited page, it doesn't seem to say the are married or have a child together. This may be possible to improve with Template:Cite AV media, which has a parameter for time (like when in the podcast do they say this.) Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:58, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

We're also very strict about copyright around here. At least when we notice we should be. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 08:27, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

There is no copyright infringement... I literally manage her website. Those images are on my computer as press files for her. They are our images. Even the old one and the image you questioned are being used everywhere even by her modeling agency. The shots were done for PR. (I understand why it's a conflict of interest on the other issues of editing but that would cause half of the actors and actresses pages to be blocked.) Can you at least please reinstate the new image. Erifanz ( talk) 09:44, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Then you need to prove that on Commons, guidance in the "possible copyright violation" template at [9]. The default assumption on WP and Commons for pics like these is that the copyright holder is the photographer. Note also, that when you upload a pic the way you did, you stated that the picture was free for anyone to use commercially, which is fine if that's what you want. More at Wikipedia:A picture of you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Not when it's a paid shoot by the actress for PR and website... she retains rights tto the image for publicity. Thank you again for all your answers. I've learned a great deal tonight. Erifanz ( talk) 10:18, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

This is what you need to prove on Commons. Follow the guidance there. User:Erifanz saying this is so is not enough. And again, you uploaded the pic as "under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 4.0 International license." That means free for commercial use. With attribution. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Thank you for your help... I think I'm giving up and handing this off to someone else. Erifanz ( talk) 17:29, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Steve Darling has said "During his national campaign, he gained recognition when local Conservative Party campaigners falsely accused him of pretending to be blind for political gain, according to the charity Devon in Sight." The charity has no evidence that this happened. It seems to have been a political stunt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.101.13.54 ( talk) 10:28, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Article now says "... allegedly falsely accused him..." which is supported by a Guardian article. I don't see an ongoing BLP issue here Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 14:50, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

There are frequent edits to this article on a living person, a politician with a "divisive" stance and is covered in international news. Many of the edits in my opinion do not provide a balanced narrative and do not introduce a neutral point of view. Asking for help to moderate this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.158.98.6 ( talk) 17:15, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Greetings. The word you quoted does not presently appear in the live version of the article. Also, the article talk page is a live and active forum where you can bring such concerns. This forum is for when talk page discussions fail to produce a consensus. Please present your concerns at the active talk page. Cheers. JFHJr ( ㊟) 01:32, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Sorett is a dean at Columbia College who has recently been involved in some controversy around text messages for which three other deans were placed on leave. Sorett himself was not placed on leave, nor did he send any of the texts at issue, though he allegedly replied "lmao" to some of them (according to the Washington Free Beacon, but reprinted in higher-quality sources including the New York Times). Can we get some outside opinions on whether this controversy ought to be described on the biographical article about him? Discussion here: Talk:Josef Sorett#Texting controversy. Courtesy ping to Jjazz76. GorillaWarfare (she/her •  talk) 19:25, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Ilaria Salis (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Noting that people experienced with BLPs might want to take a look at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#84.206.11.96. I'm not sure what to do so input from others is welcome. Thanks. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:36, 8 July 2024 (UTC) reply

If it wasn't for her election to the European Parliament I'd be nominating the article for deletion per WP:BLP1E. Seems like a bit of an attack piece and needs some copyediting. TarnishedPath ^talk 01:22, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I semi-protected the article for three months. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:38, 9 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Max Volume (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a lot of unreferenced content in this article, added by a user with a username similar to the article title. Walsh90210 ( talk) 02:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I removed a bunch of the unsourced content and added some page tags. Still a lot of unsourced information. I'm not sure if this article subject is notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. – notwally ( talk) 02:14, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I've posted some potential sources on the article's talk page. Schazjmd  (talk) 14:15, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The Section that I have removed regarding the shooting at a weigh-in involving Daniel Kinahan is entirely inaccurate as it alleges Frank Warren as a co-promoter. In truth, his business was a broadcaster of the event via Boxnation with the event promoted by MGM.

As the fight poster shows: Fight Poster The event was an MGM event and not co-promoted by Mr. Warren but only associated. Mr. Warren had no involvement in the event or present at the shooting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stfen98 ( talk • contribs) 09:39, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Stfen98 Presumably you mean Frank Warren (promoter). Try starting a discussion with @ ADifferentMan, who reverted you, at Talk:Frank Warren (promoter). Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:01, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

In the wikipedia page on professor Ioannidis /info/en/?search=John_Ioannidis this claim features notably in the lead text:

"Ioannidis was a prominent opponent of lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic, and he has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories concerning COVID-19 policies and public health and safety measures.[5][6][7][8]"

The claim about conspiracy theories is misleading, uses poor sources (the opinion of one single writer that is even misrepresented), and, since it targets a notable living scientist, thus defamatory. The way it was constructed and added to the lead text is aggravating from a legal perspective and also indicative of a bias entirely orthogonal to Wikipedia's mission of objectivity.

1) The sentence applies misleading citation practises: Upon inspection only 1 of the 4 references actually implies a link to conspiracy theories (David Freedman). Honest editors would put the references to the particularly grave claim on conspiracy theories separately, after these words. This choice of citation method fakes a stronger evidence for the defamatory statement than actually exists (1, not 4).

2) The claim uses poor sources and the claim itself has low credibility: The actual claim turns out upon inspection to be this single (not four) personal witness account: "I saw it on the faces of those medical students. To them Ioannidis may always be the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis."

So this is a single claim by a single writer (David Freedman) based on his personal reflection not in his own head, which would still not a be notable source, but how he interprets (!) the faces of a group of medical students (!). Aside from being impressed by Freedman's ability to deduce facial expressions at such precision and semantic detail, this is poor sourcing with libellous content, against WIkipedia policies. Noting also that this libbellous content has been repeatedly reintroduced by some actors.

3) Even the claim itself is misrepresented (actual misinformation). The wikipedia text introduced states that Prof. Ioannidis was "accused of promoting conspiracy theories". Beyond the low source quality noted above, the actual statement in the source is "To them Ioannidis may always be the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis." So the accusation is that he made a study that supported conspiracy theories (a study that is now peer reviewed and published in a leading epidemiology journal, which is - interestingly - omitted, also suggesting lack of objective balance) - not that he promoted conspiracy theories himself, which is entirely different. This is misinformation, and by the way it targets a notable living scientist, thus also defamatory.

I think this case study of wikipedia defamation and multiple violations of good editing conduct is notable enough to be considered in a review on misinformation and biases in Wikipedia pages. It is an important topic both for science and for democracy.

PS - Note that Prof Ioannidis has published hundreds of papers with hundreds of coauthors the last few years - claiming him to be fringe as done elsewhere in the same article is directly disproven by his continued centrality in science publishing, and this claim is also purely opinion-based and fails source credibility, even if it had been true (it is, at the very best, highly debatable as evidenced by his scholar page:

https://scholar.google.com/citations?hl=da&user=JiiMY_wAAAAJ&view_op=list_works&sortby=pubdate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.49.43.69 ( talk) 14:58, 10 July 2024 (UTC) reply

There's a lengthy section on his COVID-19 positions later in the article, of which the line in the intro is a fair summary. That's how Wikipedia works. It's fine. XOR'easter ( talk) 02:17, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Is this really ok?

The section on his COVID-19 positions presents one source for the term "conspiracy theory". Quoting the source:

"I saw it on the faces of those medical students. To them Ioannidis may always be the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis."

This is quoted in the Wiki page as:

"Writing for Wired, David H. Freedman said that the Santa Clara study compromised Ioannidis's previously excellent reputation and meant that future generations of scientists may remember him as "the fringe scientist who pumped up a bad study that supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory in the middle of a massive health crisis."

The lead section says:

"Ioannidis was a prominent opponent of lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic, and he has been accused of promoting conspiracy theories concerning COVID-19 policies and public health and safety measures."

This is referenced with four sources. The first source does not use the word "conspiracy theory". The third source does also not use the word "conspiracy theory". The second source is the article already mentioned. The fourth source says that "[f]or many of his colleagues, Ioannidis’ views could support conspiracy theories in the middle of the crisis" but concludes that his views were in the realm of reasonable scientific disagreement and should not be conflated with conspiracy theories or misinformation.

My questions:

1. Does this fulfill NPOV and BLP rules for sourcing and neutrality ("the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each")?

2. Does this sourcing justifiy the claim of having "been accused of promoting conspiracy theories" in the lead section of a living person? 77.8.134.52 ( talk) 21:47, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, seems like a fair – if anything quite mild – summary. Bon courage ( talk) 05:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

1. How do you conclude that placing the claim of having "been accused of promoting conspiracy theories" in the lead section represents a viewpoint in proportion to its prominence, as per RSUW?

2. Why do two sources, one of which concludes that Ioannidis is not guilty of having promoted conspiracy theories, justify the claim of having "been accused of promoting conspiracy theories" in the lead section of a living person? Is this really "well sourced," as per BLP? 77.1.184.13 ( talk) 10:53, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

It seems fair to include this in the lede. This falls under WP:PUBLICFIGURE especially in terms of all the sourcing with regards to that claim. And Prof Ioannidis has objectively spent significant amounts of time on conservative media pushing his contrarian figures around COVID-19 statistics. Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 18:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Also, plenty of scientists who are excellent in one field end up pushing fringe conspiracies in other fields. Linus Pauling is among the most central biochemists of our time, but his fringe views on Vitamin C curing cancer was pseudoscience in the field of public health. Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 18:26, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

So basically: In 2020 a Wired journalist wrote that the medical students at Columbia University may always view Ioannidis as having "supported a crazy right-wing conspiracy theory" [6]. And in 2020 Nassim Nicholas Taleb "indirectly" connected Ioannidis' view to conspiracy theories [8]. And based on these two statements, Ioannidis' Wikipedia page now introduces the reader with the claim that "he was accused of promoting conspiracy theories." And this is done in the lead to represent "a viewpoint in proportion to its prominence", as per RSUW. And the fact that source [8] concludes that Ioannidis' views were in the realm of reasonable scientific disagreement and should not be conflated with conspiracy theories or misinformation is not mentioned, neither in the lead nor anywhere else, even though "the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a verifiable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each," as per RSUW. If that's how Wikipedia works, I guess that's how Wikipedia works. 77.1.184.13 ( talk) 20:51, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Yep. The significant amount of COVID-Misinfo he spread is probably also problematic too.

Maybe it would be worth suggesting to change it to "spreading misinfo" or debunked public health stats instead of conspiracy theory. But it is probs WP:DUE to suggest his latest most notable covid denialism stuff Bluethricecreamman ( talk) 21:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

This discussion may be of interest to those who hang out at this noticeboard. XOR'easter ( talk) 02:20, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• 92.19.46.45 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

extremely concerning abuse of wikipedia rules, user 92.19.46.45 has committed blatant libel and argues they do not need to source their claims that mr robinson is an "international terrorist". as well as this, there are currently discussions in the talk page that the lead is also in violation of multiple rules based on ideological reasons. in lieu of this, an upgrade in protection status is not only warranted but urgently needed in my opinion. below are three of their statements:

   Given that its crimes in multiple countries are considered terrorism, a better start to the article would be.
   <Convicted international terrorist Stephen Christopher Yaxley-Lennon (born 27 November 1982), better known as Tommy Robinson, is a British anti-Islam campaigner and one of the UK’s most dangerous far-right terrorists.>
   We cannot deny that it has committed some serious offences. And even if a reliable source for its terrorist atrocities doesn't currently exist, then one can be made to cite the article after it is edited to make such a declaration. Then we'd have a reliable source to cite, improving the validity of the assertion. It's not like anyone can prove it isn't a terrorist, so that's good enough to strengthen the article. 92.19.46.45 (talk) 12:16, 29 June 2024 (UTC)

blatant defamation that is in violation of wikipedia rules, warranting the user being permanently banned

Is there any need to give far right conspiracy theories legitimacy while describing the behaviour of vermin? It's like one of its subhuman supporters got to this page and edited those in just to protect a fellow member of its kind. 92.19.46.45 (talk) 19:54, 15 June 2024 (UTC)

the user is clearly incapable of impartiality

Present any video evidence you have in your possession or sources that have indisputable proof, things that nobody could possibly argue were doctored, or stop spreading conspiracy theories as fact. 92.19.46.45 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

this last statement is in regards to the user in violation believing that a UK court room finding dozens of men guilty of beating, drugging, and raping 1000s of working class girls not to be sufficient evidence to argue robinson exposed a crime ( Telford child sexual exploitation scandal, the Rochdale child sex abuse ring and the Huddersfield grooming gang). they wish to instead remove it until they are (to my potentially and hopefully incorrect understanding) personally provided a video of a child being gangraped. i believe the user may have ulterior, and frankly illegal, motives and should be reported to the police. i would like to encourage moderators to review the discussion personally, as i fear i may have misinterpreted this, but i think it is quite clear what is being asked. if i have misread, i apologise.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by NotQualified ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

BLP applies to talk pages so the IP shouldn't have said that, and looking at their history Special:Contributions/92.19.46.45, I think someone who can deal with responses probably should have a stern word with them or frankly since they've already been told to cut it out, perhaps even a block might be already merited. But to suggest they need to reported to the police is seriously over the top, and violates WP:NLT to boot. Nil Einne ( talk) 13:31, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Well I said something to the IP even gave a CTOP alert given the IP seems to have been around for 3 months. However as implied by my first post, it's unlikely I can deal with any followups. Nil Einne ( talk) 13:41, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• Brendan DuBois (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Brendan DuBois was very recently arrested and charged with possession of child pornography. Because he is a bestselling author, this has received lots of media coverage (although there's not much to report). Since this is a case of someone who is not a public figure being charged but not yet convicted, I have removed the information from DuBois's article, but perhaps others have different opinions about inclusion. Counterfeit Purses ( talk) 03:15, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

if they have an article about them they are a "public figure". you are allowed to say he has allegations and has been arrested and charged but not convicted as that is objectively true NotQualified ( talk) 07:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The ABC or Wikipedia have an article on someone definitely does not make them a public figure. I'm unconvinced DuBois is a public figure, I don't think all notable authors are public figures, the nature of their work means they tend to have to be less self-promotional than actors and the like or musicians and there is often less focus on them as individuals. While he has won some awards and has a notable book, the sources on him seem fairly limited. I don't think his appearances on two game shows is enough self-promotion to make him a public figure. Nil Einne ( talk) Nil Einne ( talk) 12:24, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Having looked at the sources, note however that even if DuBois is not a public figure, I think we still have to mention something despite WP:BLPCRIME. Putting aside the severity of the accused crime, since at least one publisher has stopped sales of his books, it's the sort of career impacting accusation that IMO we still have to mention even after serious consideration of excluding. Nil Einne ( talk) 13:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Not everyone who is notable is a " public figure". I think some mention is probably warranted in this case regardless, although I think the focus should be on how it has impacted his career rather than the details of the allegations, at least until more information is confirmed. I made an edit in that direction. – notwally ( talk) 22:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Possible BLP vio. Original post by two anons here 25 July 24. A third anon removed "fundamentalist", which has been their since the article's creation. A fourth anon edited / removed questionable content, plus more, giving the current state (diff). Bot and a registered made minor edits in that diff. The fourth anon, 03:32, made no edit summaries nor communicated on their talk page and was blocked 1 week by Drmies. I and Aintabli restored the original edits. Current state is without questionable content plus edits the fourth anon made.
Should this be on the article?
Sources. Not too many found that I thought RS. The first source (below) was added with the original post. I added the second. The third and fourth I found later but did not add.

• "Man charged with sexual offences". States of Jersey Police. Archived from the original on 20 June 2024. Retrieved 30 June 2024.</ref>
• "Former Jersey Catholic priest charged with 10 historic sexual offences against a child on island". ITV. 25 June 2024. Archived from the original on 25 June 2024. Retrieved 29 June 2024.
• "Polski ksiądz oskarżony o ataki seksualne na dzieci. Angielska diecezja potwierdza" [Polish priest in UK accused of sex crimes against minors]. Rzeczpospolita (in Polish). 24 June 2024. Archived from the original on 24 June 2024. Retrieved 11 July 2024.
• "Polish priest in UK accused of sex crimes against minors". Polskie Radio. 25 June 2024. Archived from the original on 11 July 2024. Retrieved 11 July 2024.
• Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Thank you Adakiko ( talk) 20:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Steven Crowder (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

2601:602:A001:5750:9448:B651:4900:8688 ( talk · contribs) made a possible BLP violation by writing about 'a false accusation made by the subject's opponents', which is sourced to Reddit. [10] Ae245 ( talk) 06:39, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I just protected the page and REVDELed those edits before seeing this post here on BLPN EvergreenFir (talk) 06:48, 13 July 2024 (UTC) reply

For the article on Sam Neill I have been quoting from his 2023 memoir “Did I ever tell you this”. This is in accord with the Policy page on “Biographies of Living People” which says only that material “challenged or likely to be challenged” shall be supported by neutral sources; but it does not say that quoting from memoirs is forbidden!

But ( talk) is saying that this is forbidden. However his memoir would enable me to add (e.g) that he attended Cashmere and Medbury (primary) schools before attending Christs’ College. It would be difficult to find any primary sources for that. Hugo999 ( talk) 01:48, 14 July 2024 (UTC) (see my talkpage0 reply

Sam Neill (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This concerns text in an article and should be discussed on the article talk page, not at a user talk page, and not here until after article talk. The comment you received was talking about what is WP:DUE to be mentioned in an article. For example, an autobiography might say that someone climbed a tree when they were five. Mentioning that in the article at Wikipedia would not be DUE, not unless something dramatic happened as a result of the climb. The thing that makes it DUE is when secondary sources describe the incident and its consequences. I don't have an opinion on the issue in this case, but what I have outlined is what needs to be considered. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:52, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

It was discussed on my talk page (originally) and the article talk page! Hugo999 ( talk) 04:56, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

There is no relevant discussion on article talk apart from the comment you added an hour after my above post. Softlavender posted on your talk because their comment was advice related to your editing. You could get other opinions about that at WP:Teahouse but the issue of whether or not certain text should be added to the article should be discussed on article talk so others can easily see it now, and in the future if it arises again. Johnuniq ( talk) 05:29, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Hugo999, there is no reason to find WP:PRIMARY sources for anything. I'm not sure where you got that idea. What is desirable is sources that are independent of the subject; that is, not written by the subject himself. Please read WP:RS if you have not yet done so. Softlavender ( talk) 05:54, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

For basic, non-controversial biographical details, sourcing them from memoirs or self-published sources can be acceptable. See WP:BLPSELFPUB for guidelines on when that may be appropriate. Independent sourcing is almost always better though. Some of the fluff that was added, such as about the Beatles touring Australia and New Zealand, would not appear to be noteworthy even with independent sourcing [11]. – notwally ( talk) 22:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The biography page of Donald John Trump contains slanderous comments that are unsourced. This should not be allowed according to your own rules. Disturbing. 2605:A601:A908:6E00:B88F:2AA7:F368:C4BC ( talk) 11:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Please take a look at the big blue box at the top of this page: matters raised at this noticeboard generally need to have been discussed on the article talkpage first, and be posted here with diffs making clear what the issue is. Unfortunately it's not really possible to address your concern if you haven't provided specifics on what it relates to. -- Euryalus ( talk) 11:28, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Since you're not giving any specifics, there's nothing to act on, if that matters. However, WP:LEADCITE may be of interest to you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:24, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Should information on his mother and father's political beliefs be included? I personally see it as a serious BLP violation as it is hearsay and irrelevant to his motivation, but can prejudice people towards them. WP:NPF seems to me like we should exclude their information as they are not notable and are not relevant to the incident. Just want to confirm I am correct in this being a BLP violation or if I have misinterpreted policy. Traumnovelle ( talk) 21:27, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Absolutely not. WP:NPF and WP: BLPPRIVACY apply EvergreenFir (talk) 21:34, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, correct - NPF/BLP violation. DeCausa ( talk) 21:35, 14 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Absolutely not, per @ EvergreenFir: and @ DeCausa:. KlayCax ( talk) 01:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

There is nothing in BLP says this information should not be allowed. Please quote the part of the policy that says it should be excluded. TFD ( talk) 01:45, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

• No, for now, per WP:NPF. However I am open to the possibility that this could change if it becomes clear that the parents, and/or their political beliefs, contributed to their son's actions. But the bar there is fairly high. It would have to be discussed extensively in multiple reliable sources. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:52, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

  Why is it required that their political orientation be relevant to their son's actions? The article is called Thomas Matthew Crooks, not Why did Thomas Matthew Crooks try to kill the President? Everything generally reported about his life is relevant to the article about him. TFD ( talk) 02:25, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

WP:NPF is interesting, but instruction creep of simply applying WP:DUE and WP:V of WP:RS. As long as our coverage of it is proportional to what our sources provide and relevant to the subject of the article (i.e. our sources make the connection, not our editors via WP:OR) then it would seem to me sensible to include it. — Locke Cole • t • c 02:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ JPxG: has recently made an edit removing any mention of "conspiracy theories" or "misinformation" from its given section of the article and replaced it with the description that the claims were either "unverified" or "incorrect". WP: NPOV was cited and there were allegations by him that the previous wording was in violation of Wikipedia's policies on neutrality. He has claimed that the words should not be used and that they are "sensationalized POV buzzword[s]... I think is completely unnecessary.".

I interpreted it, along with multiple editors such as @ CommunityNotesContributor:, as an edit that implied (along with the other claims made) that there were plausible reasons to suspect that Trump & a right-wing "deep state" was behind the assassination attempt. This is overwhelmingly contradicted in reliable sources and it is entirely in line with WP: NPOV (which doesn't imply neutrality or "not taking a side") to explicitly denounce the given misinformation and conspiracy theories as false in Wikivoice.

As CommunityNotesContributor notes:

I haven't ignored, I've countered. I've asked you to provide references of these so-called "rumours" and you haven't done so. We both know NPOV is about providing both sides of the argument and neutral language to the content, while that section is entirely based on misinformation and conspiracy theories. Probably you don't even realise, but using that language gives a grain of credibility to what is clearly described as false. We are not the adjudicators on whether certain stories are true or false, are role is only to document them based on how the reliable sources describe them, and clearly it's not based on something that is doubtful or unverified (rumours), but instead undoubtedly false (misinformation/conspiracies). I only hope someone changes the header back for accuracy sake at this point, as none of the sources appear to describe "rumours".

Furthermore, as I also wrote on the article's talk page:

And changing it from "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation" to "Many people posted incorrect or unverified claims about the incident on social media" implies that several of the claims have plausibility.

• "Incorrect claims" (which people are going to take as only some of the claims listed)
• "Unverified claims" (which people are going to take as plausible claims)

[e.g. In most versions of English, the removal changes the meaning of the section to essentially state that some of the claims listed in the section have plausible validity]

I'm not asking (and would oppose) the editor who made these changes from being punished. But this seems like a clear, outrageous, and egregious WP: BLP situation and a case where section #7 of WP:3RRNO applies, particularly considering article traffic. I asked for a discussion on the talk page in my original reversion of his radical change to the section, it was immediately reverted, and the changes were reinstated by him before a consensus was reached on the matter.

The full context can be viewed on the article's talk page. Thanks. There definitely should be a conspiracy theory section and it should be listed as unamb. false per policy. KlayCax ( talk) 01:29, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Bizarre action by JPxG, who should be knowledgeable on WP:FRINGE policy by now. These are very clearly conspiracy theories and should be appropriately described as such. Many aren't even conspiracies about Trump himself or negatively disparaging toward him, so BLP isn't the right thing to cite here. This sort of misinformation news reporting and ridiculous claims from people, politicians or otherwise, are common in the aftermath of major events such as these and they should (and are in our articles) described as conspiracy theories. To do otherwise is to violate NPOV and FRINGE.

Edit: This also shouldn't be a left wing or right wing thing. Conspiracy theories have been made in both regards and should be considered conspiracies until there is evidence for any of the claims (which would be a reason to move them out of this article section and put them somewhere else). Silver seren ^C 01:34, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Clearly there are conspiracy theories about this event (running in both directions), and clearly we cover conspiracy theories to the extent that they are reported as such in reliable sources. BD2412 T 01:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Yes, under no circumstance should allegations of "Trump and the Republicans hired crisis actors" be described as "unverified". (After labeling it a misinformation is entirely deleted from the article.)

This is probably the most egregious WP: BLP violation that I've seen in the three years that I have joined Wikipedia.

Off topic for BLPN: but a mention of right/left-wing conspiracy theories is WP: DUE, imo, or at least the type of conspiracy theories given. (False flag v. "Deep state" allowing it to happen.)

It however could probably be trimmed. KlayCax ( talk) 01:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You reverted every single edit, and refused all attempts to discuss this, on the basis that none of the edits was acceptable whatsoever in any part. I literally cannot comprehend the claim you are making, then -- you think that the BLP policy requires us to use the specific word "misinformation", and no other word is permitted, when saying that a claim is false? jp× g 🗯️ 06:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You are substantially and egregiously misrepresenting virtually everything about this dispute, ranging from the factual content of my edits to the arguments I made, as well as your own claims in repeatedly edit-warring over it. jp× g 🗯️ 01:50, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

What's being misrepresented? KlayCax ( talk) 01:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

And, above, I cited WP: 3RRNO rather than saying that there was not an edit conflict. KlayCax ( talk) 02:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

If you will recall, what I originally said (at some length) was that this entire section was unnecessary and WP:UNDUE -- we do not actually need to dutifully report every time a crank on twitter says something dumb. Cranks say dumb stuff all the time. It seems extremely predictable that, in the wake of a major political event, right-wing cranks would post right-wing crackpot nonsense, and left-wing cranks would post left-wing crackpot nonsense. There were three full paragraphs being devoted to a deep-dive on every stupid claim that was given even a passing mention, including the false-flag bilge, the NWO bilge, et cetera. This was a top-level subsection! It was being given the same weight in the article as comments from Joe Biden, Pope Francis, Xi Jinping, Macron, Trudeau, Modi, Starmer, every major political party, businessman and spiritual leader combined.

There was one editor who, whenever I brought this up on the talk page, would accuse me of "overthinking". Well, it's not overthinking, it's core content policy. But, regardless, anybody who tried to remove or trim the section was stonewalled, so I decided that rather than keep getting reverted I would just copyedit it. It was written badly, with flowery purple prose about "pushing" and "spreading" stuff that was a "conspiracy theory". But the claims being described this way were not matters of opinion, or really open to interpretation at all: they were very obviously false. There was no reason to do a cutesy dance around saying this with vague innuendo.

This involved moving it to be a second-level subsection of the "reactions" section, after the comments by world leaders and famous figures and media outlets, rather than its own exclusive top-level subsection, and in removing some of the more sensational, editorializing language. For example, if somebody says the Moon is made of cheese, a good way to describe that is to say they "falsely claimed the moon was made of cheese". An extremely bad way to say that is an unreadable wall of buzzwords about "the harmful dangerous toxic treacherous swirling spread of narratives that push, peddle, amplify, carry water for, smack of, are reminiscent of, invoke, incite, reference, and parallel misinformation-disinformation-malinformation linked to and tied to the debunked, discredited, debunked, conspiratorial moon-made-of-cheese trope". This is not only unnecessary and improper, but also unhelpful and unpersuasive.

The thing that you were edit-warring over to change, specifically, was not to remove this section with the false claims at all. Instead, you were repeatedly REMOVING the explicit and objective phrases "incorrect claims" and "unverified claims", and replacing them with the vague buzzwords "misinformation" and "conspiracy theory". I understand that you think those terms sound better, but they are vague and ill-defined -- specifically, "misinformation" is a highly politicized buzzword which even self-proclaimed misinformation think tanks agree is frequently used for POV-pushing.

Since you never bothered to actually try to discuss this, and instead went directly to the phase of edit-warring while falsely accusing me of doing stuff I did not do, you never got to ask me if I would be amenable to simply adding clarifying language later in the subsection. I would have been completely fine with this, and had intended to do so -- I was prevented from doing so because you kept reverting it over and over. jp× g 🗯️ 02:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

IMO, those articles about the term "misinformation" are not particularly persuasive. I think most ordinary people interpret it pretty synonymously with "false information/claims". We should just be going with what most sources are using. While I agree that we should try to avoid covering these kinds of crazy claims made online, unfortunately the media is covering them relentlessly right now. – notwally ( talk) 04:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I think you are missing my point: KlayCax's explicit claim is that they are not synonymous, and that calling things "incorrect or unverified claims" means I am actually saying they happened, because I did not use the exact word "misinformation" verbatim.

If there is a consensus that calling a claim "false" is more or less synonymous with calling it "misinformation", and that using one versus the other does not create "BLP" issues, that is completely fine with me -- that is the thing I have been trying to explain the whole time. jp× g 🗯️ 06:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

My comment above was addressing your point that "misinformation" and "conspiracy theories" are "vague buzzwords". While "conspiracy theory" is a stronger term that needs more caution than the others, I view the terms like "incorrect claims" or "misinformation" as being basically synonymous. I do not believe any of this involves a BLP violation. – notwally ( talk) 06:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

If it's widely supported in reliable sources, we should cover it. If it's not widely reported in reliable sources, we shouldn't cover it. If it's widely called a conspiracy theory in reliable sources, we should call it a conspiracy theory. If it's not widely called a conspiracy theory in reliable sources, we should not call it a conspiracy theory. There, I fixed Wikipedia. Happy editing! Thebiguglyalien ( talk) 03:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I agree it should be determined by whether the terms in dispute are widely used by reliable sources. There seems to be a lot of discussion, but not enough of it focused on discussing the actual sources. If a lot of high quality sources are using the terms, then they could be included in the article, although not in excess just to make a point. None of this looks like a BLPN issue though, just a content dispute that needs to be worked out on the talk page. – notwally ( talk) 04:17, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The specific rationale for the edit (e.g. the justification given for why WP:3RR didn't apply) was that describing something as an "incorrect claim" was a BLP violation, but that describing it as "misinformation" wasn't. If there is agreement that this is not the case, then there's really nothing more that has to be said at the BLP noticeboard, and I am happy to have the section closed and return to the talk page. jp× g 🗯️ 04:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

No, that's not the TLDR. it was clearly about changing "misinformation and conspiracy theories" to "incorrect or unverified claims". The latter changes the meaning from maliciously false to "truth not verified". Likewise changing the section header to "rumurs", as if WP is some tabloid gossip rap that's documenting alternative theories. I asked you to provide reliable sources for this claim, but you refused to do so. Glad I didn't get further involved at the time as I suspected this would en up as "if you don't appreciate what I'm allowing you to have I'll take it all away", in the guide of a WP:TANTRUM. Anyway, does anyone have a list of relevant diffs? The history page is too long to look through, but I don't understand how KlayCax was the only one edit warring. I understand KC reason for doing so, though don't particularly agree, but what's anyone else's excuse? CNC ( talk) 10:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You said "no, that's not it" and then repeated the exact thing I said. At any rate, is there an actual BLP issue, or are we just running out the clock? jp× g 🗯️ 10:33, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Do you not understand the different between unverified and verified? Per source analysis, the only reference to rumors from one RS was the description of "false rumors" or "unfounded rumors". All other sources have verified that these "unverified rumors" are in fact misinformation and/or conspiracy theories. As someone already pointed out above, describing fringe conspiracy theories as "unverified claims" [12] [13] and "rumors" [14] [15] [16] is clearly against guidelines CNC ( talk) 11:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I never used that phrase. You are lying.

Please leave me alone. jp× g 🗯️ 11:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Since you're now calling me a liar, I've amended my comment to include the diffs where you describe the content as "unverified claims" and "rumors". "unverified rumors" was shorthand. CNC ( talk) 12:38, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You should never refactor a comment after it has been replied to. If you had diffs to add later, do it as a reply. ―  "Ghost of Dan Gurney" (talk)  16:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Notwally Have added list of sources below analysing terminology usuage per request. CNC ( talk) 11:28, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

This type of discussion will pop up now and again, here is an earlier example for the interested: Talk:Francis_Scott_Key_Bridge_collapse/Archive_2#PolitiFact. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 06:21, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

 Comment: Okay, two things: first of all, I'd recommend CNC and JPxG take a break from this thread, and let others comment here. This is quickly becoming an unreadable mess of two users sniping at each other. Second, I'm not really sure why this is at BLPN and not at the article's talk page, where other interested editors can chime in. Isabelle Belato ^🏳‍🌈 13:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Source analysis

Per requested above, here are the list of sources that were used prior to the edit war stable version:

• How conspiracy theories and hate dominated social feeds after assassination attempt on Trump. Described as conspiracy theories as well as disinformation. Not described as "rumors", but "false rumors" or "unfounded rumors" for clarity.
• Top Democratic strategist pushed reporters to consider ‘staged’ shooting archived. "baseless conspiracy is becoming widespread", no reference of rumors.
• Conspiracy theories about the Trump rally shooting flourish online. "Conspiracy theories, false claims and unsupported assertions", no reference of rumors.
• Irakli Kobakhidze: The global war party does not change methods - in the 21st century, liberal fascism, radicalism, polarization, hatred and bloody attacks on politicians have become commonplace in the US and Europe. No reference of anything relevant to discussion, doesn't appear to be a reliable source?

Here are additional sources referenced on the talk page:

• Trump rally shooting draws flood of condemnation, support for the former president, and wild conspiracy theories. "At least one Republican lawmaker is already spreading conspiracy theories about the incident." No reference of "rumors".
• Social Media Platforms Deluged by Unsubstantiated Claims About Trump Rally arhicved. Described as "Unsubstantiated claims" with concern from disinformation experts, no mention of "rumors".
• Misinformation spreads swiftly in hours after Trump rally shooting archived. Described as "conspiracy theories" and "misinformation", no mention of "rumors".
• Trump's assassination attempt ignites new divisions and conspiracy theories. Described as "conspiracy theories", no mention of "rumors".
• Trump assassination attempt a result of the ‘worst negligence in history’ or an ‘inside job’? Conspiracies take flight. Described as "conspiracy theories", no mention of "rumors".
• Cool heads needed as political fringe dwellers spread disinformation after Trump shooting. Described as "hyperbole, lies, conspiracy theories and uninformed nonsense", otherwise referenced as "disinformation", no mention of "rumors".

Some additional sources since yesterday over conspiracy theories and misinformation:

• 'BlueAnon' conspiracy theories flood social media after Trump rally shooting archived. "liberals began flooding social media platforms with conspiracy theories", also referenced as misinformation, concern from disinformation experts, no mention of "rumors".
• Tim Robbins hits out at conspiracy theories linking his film to Trump shooting. Described as "conspiracy theories", no reference to "rumors".

Needless to say, all these so-called "rumors" are described as either conspiracy theories, misinformation, or otherwise condemned/identified as disinformation (ie intentional misinformation, as opposed to potentially unintentional). I even searched for "Trump assassination rumors" and there was only the BBC article referenced above, that as identified refers to "false" or "unfounded rumors" - so as to avoid the implication that they could be true. CNC ( talk) 11:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You are on the noticeboard for the biographies of living persons policy, where this discussion was moved, from the talk page of the article, on the explicit basis that it was not a normal content discussion, and it had to be discussed in the context of BLP policy.

Everything you've posted here is irrelevant to that, unless you can provide a specific reason why the Biographies of living persons policy REQUIRES the verbatim use of the exact phrase "misinformation" or "conspiracy theory", and that a claim cannot be described as "incorrect". jp× g 🗯️ 11:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

It was requested above, clearly because no-one can make an informed opinion on whether there is a breach of guidelines unless source analysis is undertaken per WP:EVALFRINGE. It's been clearly explained to you why describing wild conspiracy theories as "unverified rumors" is a breach of guidelines. If you don't understand that yet, I can't help you. CNC ( talk) 11:42, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Can you provide a specific reason why the Biographies of living persons policy REQUIRES the verbatim use of the exact phrase "misinformation" or "conspiracy theory", and a claim cannot be described as "incorrect"? jp× g 🗯️ 11:44, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I've made it clear to you the issue is with describing conspiracy theories (verified as such by RS) as "unverified rumors" (not verified by RS). Per below, I believe this a grapevine issue. You can call a claim incorrect sure, that's just polishing a turd as it were, when misinformation is based on malicious intent, something false isn't necessarily deceptive. Let's allow other people to analysis the sources and see if they people "rumors" is an adequate interpretation or not. CNC ( talk) 11:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

This is not the talk page for " Attempted assassination of Donald Trump"; it is the Biographies of Living Persons noticeboard. jp× g 🗯️ 12:10, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You can also look at WP:GRAPEVINE for this: "is an original interpretation or analysis of a source". Describing conspiracy theories as rumors is quite clearly original research unsupported by the RS used. CNC ( talk) 11:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I did not describe them as "rumors" -- that was a section heading, above a full paragraph, which gave a very clear additional description of the claims, and extremely clearly described them as false.

In no way did I ever, by any thinkable definition, call them "rumors" with no additional qualification. You are lying. jp× g 🗯️ 11:51, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

By describing the header of conspiracy content as "rumors on social media", and edit warring to implement this by including it three times within as many hours, this is the same violation and I think you know this very well. Imagine suggesting changing Moon landing conspiracy theories to Moon landing rumors, under the guise of "POV buzzwords". CNC ( talk) 11:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

This is false. jp× g 🗯️ 12:08, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You understand that MOS:HEADINGS "generally follow the guidance for article titles" and that MOS:AT is a "recognizable name or description of the topic" (emphasis added). So by repeatedly changing the header, you are describing the content. But sure, just call me a liar if you prefer. CNC ( talk) 12:18, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't think I have ever seen somebody try to do a Frankenstein veto on a Wikipedia diff before. jp× g 🗯️ 12:37, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

This is a content dispute over word choice, not a BLP violation. All this needs to go back over to the talk page, or else pursue other forms of dispute resolution. I agree with the other editor who suggests that some of the editors take a break from this and focus on the content rather than the other editors with whom they disagree. – notwally ( talk) 19:52, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

YouTuber controversy: Tana Mongeau has alleged that Cody Ko committed statutory rape by having sex with her when she was underage, only 17. The only decent news source that has covered this is this Rolling Stone article. I've reverted coverage of the accusations on Cody Ko's article multiple times because I'm unsure if it conforms to WP:BLPCRIME, so I'm asking for another opinion here (my talk page comment did not receive much attention). — VORTEX ³⁴²⁷ ( Talk!) 04:24, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I think the article subject is definitely a public figure. Under WP:PUBLICFIGURE, "If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out." – notwally ( talk) 04:32, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Alright, thank you. Is there any way to stop un-reverts?- — VORTEX ³⁴²⁷ ( Talk!) 04:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You can request page protection, but that should only be if the edits are disruptive and cannot be prevented through any other means. The best way may be to revert edits that are not constructive or do not add new reliable sources while letting the editors know that there is an ongoing discussion on the talk page. – notwally ( talk) 04:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't see where in the Rolling Stone article she alleges statutory rape. She alleges that she had sex with him when she was 17, and while the Rolling Stone article notes that she lived in California where the age of consent is 18, she does not indicate that the sexual encounter took place within that state. Had they happened to hook up at some meeting in a neighboring state like Nevada where the age of consent is 16, it may well be ill-advised, but not rape and not (as the last version you reverted) "underage". So if we do report on what she said, it has to be on what she said, and not on our assumptions of what it means. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 07:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

IMO the Rolling Stone article isn't usable as a source anyway per WP:ROLLINGSTONE. While this might technically be in their culture section, I think it's much more in line with "societally sensitive issues". Even if it's not, we could only use this as a source for Rolling Stone's view of the situation "any contentious statements regarding living persons, should only be used with attribution", which seems irrelevant unless for some reason the article itself becomes a big deal perhaps as happened with the infamous article A Rape on Campus. (To be clear, I'm not suggesting the circumstances are similar just that for good reason the Rolling Stone is largely unusable here.) Since the Rolling Stone seems to be the only putative RS here, we actually have zero RS not one. Nil Einne ( talk) 15:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The lead of the Donald Trump article says, “ A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump." This insinuates that Trump may have conspired or cooperated with that interference, which is contrary to WP:NPOV.

A proposal has been made to add a phrase: "A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump, but did not establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with that interference.” No one denies that this is 100% accurate and supported by reliable sources, but some editors (a minority) say at the article talk page that they prefer to maintain the status quo, which is an improper insinuation in the lead, without even including Trump's denial of the thing that's being insinuated.

So this seems like a pretty clear WP:BLP violation, and input here is requested. As a matter of context, note that foreign countries have been interfering in U.S. presidential elections since 1796, and several countries besides Russia interfered in 2016. Thanks. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 06:22, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

That's a misrepresentation. We have not been disagreeing about those words, but some other addition made without any consensus. The current version is the longstanding consensus version, but now AYW comes along with some weird talk about our version endangering Trump's life. This is weird shit. I'm going to bed. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 06:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

You indicated that you would not accept the language described above. You would not accept it, correct? Just say yes or no, please. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 06:49, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Obviously your answer is “no.” You’ve already said, “leave it be” and “why are you trying to change it for no good reason?” and “We can avoid a lot of controversy by just leaving it that way.” The present language is slanted, it suggests Trump may be a Russian agent or pawn, an antidemocratic traitor, and it deliberately omits evidence to the contrary in the very same Mueller Report. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 08:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The current, very longstanding, version doesn't imply anything about Trump or his actions. Nothing at all. It only tells the fact that the Russians interfered in the election to help him win. That's a fact that speaks of Russia's actions, not Trump's actions. That's also from the body, so it's an appropriate mention in the lead.

Why don't you point to the exact words in that sentence in the lead that say or imply anything about what Trump did? You won't find that in the lead, only in the body, and especially in the Mueller report article. It documents how Trump and his campaign welcomed the interference, hid it, lied about it, tried to blame Ukraine for it, and cooperated with it in myriad ways. There is a huge amount of such reliably-sourced content we simply don't mention in that spot in the lead. Be happy for that. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 20:23, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't think the lead is particularly well-written in the article, but I don't think the sentence you mention is a BLP violation. It seems like a stretch to claim that it "insinuates that Trump may have conspired or cooperated with that interference". – notwally ( talk) 06:39, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

It very clearly implies that he may have done so. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 06:47, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

No more so than your suggested version indicating that that question was investigated with no proven conclusion. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 06:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Right, they both do, but the addition tends to indicate that he didn’t commit that treasonous act. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 07:01, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

No, it very clearly doesn't. Maybe you don't think there is enough context in the lead, but that is not the same. In any case, it is not a BLP violation, but a content dispute that should be worked out on the talk page. – notwally ( talk) 06:57, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

There is no "insinuation" and no BLP violation. AYW should stop trying to short-circuit the usual process of resolving the content dispute via discussion. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 08:53, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I am uninvolved, but it looks to me like editors have tried and failed to reach consensus at the ATP. The assassination attempt has undoubtedly reduced interest to some extent. How much trying and failing is required before one is allowed to post here? If a "no consensus" RfC result is required, the information at the top of this page should state as much. ― Mandruss  ☎ 11:26, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

This is BLPN, which focuses more on BLP violations than ordinary content disputes. There are other avenues to resolve content disputes if discussions on a talk page are not adequate. – notwally ( talk) 19:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

WP:BLP requires neutrality and mentions “neutral” over a dozen times (e.g. “When in doubt, biographies should be pared back to a version that is completely sourced, neutral, and on-topic”). Anythingyouwant ( talk) 19:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

If anything, I would read the proposed alternative as being the one which insinuates that the Trump campaign cooperated with the Russian interference: specifically mentioning in the lead that the investigation was unable to prove the Trump campaign was involved in the Russian interference explicitly draws attention to that possibility! (c.f. Apophasis) Caeciliusinhorto-public ( talk) 14:41, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

As I said in my first comment above, foreign interference in U.S. presidential elections has been happening for centuries. Yet AFAIK no presidential candidate or president has had it in their BLP, much less in their lead, except Trump. So a bare statement in this lead that there was interference refers to something that has almost nothing to do with Trump himself, and therefore I would be glad to remove it as undue weight from the lead. But if it stays, then we should include BRIEFLY that he was exonerated to some extent, and in the American system everyone knows that he’s therefore presumed innocent. We already have a sentence which draws undue attention to the matter (including not one but two wiki links), and I disagree that the few more proposed words will cause readers to be any more suspicious of Trump than the existing text makes them….quite the opposite. Do we have many BLP’s at Wikipedia saying the subject was investigated, but omitting that no guilt could be established? Anythingyouwant ( talk) 16:05, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

A federal investigation widely reported in the news media seems fairly noteworthy, and makes this situation not comparable to past elections. The lead also does not say that the article subject was investigated; it says that Russia interfered in the election to benefit the article subject. Disingenuous arguments are not going to help an already contentious area. In any case, though, multiple editors have commented that this is not a BLPN issue. The discussion should continue at the talk page or you should pursue other avenues of dispute resolution. – notwally ( talk) 19:48, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

There would have been no " special counsel" investigation if they had been just investigating Russia. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:16, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

"foreign interference in U.S. presidential elections has been happening for centuries. Yet AFAIK no presidential candidate or president has had it in their BLP"

Regardless of the fact that there are likely reasons why Trump's case is different, and or exceptional, what specific elections are you referring to? DN ( talk) 20:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I already mentioned the 1796 election. The 2016 election also seems very pertinent. I gave a link in my first post above. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 20:11, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

This isn't a BLP violation. It's something subject to consensus that should be discussed on the article talk page not this noticeboard. @ Anythingyouwant: you seem to be replying an awful lot here. Please take pains to avoid dominating the discussion. VQuakr ( talk) 20:35, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Anythingyouwant, you write "exonerated"? Seriously?

AP FACT CHECK: Trump falsely claims Mueller exonerated him:

"THE FACTS: Trump has not been exonerated by Mueller at all. “No,” Mueller said when asked at the hearing whether he had cleared the president of criminal wrongdoing in the investigation that looked into the 2016 Trump campaign’s relations with Russians."

Anythingyouwant, get your facts straight. Trump was anything but innocent. Unfortunately, Mueller was bound by rules that prevented him from even making any finding of criminal actions. He was not allowed to indict Trump, but he collected the evidence and foolishly hoped Congress would act. He did NOT prove that Trump did not "conspire" or "coordinate" with the Russians. He was just unable to prove it beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt, and he did find evidence of lots of actions that would be considered conspiratorial and collusion ( Trump Tower meeting, Stone and WikiLeaks, and the secrecy around the message from Russia to the campaign carried by Papadopoulos).

There was a lot of cooperation with the Russians in the form of lying about the interference, hiding it, denying it, myriad secret contacts between Trump campaign members and Russian intelligence agents, back-channel communication, and aiding and abetting the Russian interference. Lots of secrecy there. Even Giuliani could not deny that the campaign colluded with the Russians. He just claimed that Trump himself didn't do it (and no one but a fool would ever believe Giuliani or Trump): " In sharp reversal, Giuliani now claims: 'I never said there was no collusion between the campaign' and Russia" -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 22:02, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

I’m not going to reply to this opus, as I do not want to dominate the discussion. I would, however, like to thank everyone who has joined or will join in this discussion at BLPN, because the issues are considerably clarified, even though I still maintain it’s both a BLP and NPOV violation. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 22:45, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

No opus here... , just a request that you answer the question I asked you far up above:

"Why don't you point to the exact words in that sentence in the lead that say or imply anything about what Trump did?"

Here's the sentence:

" A special counsel investigation established that Russia had interfered in the election to favor Trump."

We're still clueless about what words in that sentence triggered you so much. Help us understand. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 23:20, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

What I’ve already said is perfectly clear. We describe in the lead that he was investigated (special counsels investigate presidents) without including the outcome (nor his denial BTW). If we were only describing an investigation of some other people then it wouldn’t belong in the lead at this particular BLP. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 23:27, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

That's about as clear as mud. You seem to be objecting to what isn't there more than what is there. What is there is about as neutral as possible. Your attempted solution (by adding words that mean something quite different than what Mueller actually said) made it worse, not better. It wasn't an improvement. Mueller did not exonerate Trump or declare him innocent, but you, with your own OR wording, tried to do that. That's not right. -- Valjean ( talk) ( PING me) 23:36, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The underlined words in the very first post above are indisputably 100% correct, reliably sourced, not OR at all, and responsive to your own prior complaints. Good night. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:07, 16 July 2024 (UTC) reply

Disappearance of Jay Slater (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This article is about a British teenager that went missing in Tenerife a month ago, and whose body appears to have been found today (unconfirmed). Per WP:BDP, BLP likely still applies. I've just taken out reference to the missing person's alleged past "legal" issues which had been used to link with social media speculation/conspiracy theories about the disappearance, utilizing SYNTHy sources. Helpful if there were more eyes on this. DeCausa ( talk) 21:46, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply

The article is semi-protected from 7/9 to 7/23. IMO, looks like there is still too much inappropriate speculation/rumors/comparisons in it. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS. – notwally ( talk) 22:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC) reply