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

There's no clear consensus to establish any bright-line rule as to either A, B, and C. Evaluating both the strength of arguments and the numeric distribution of participants, I find that the consensus is that (1) the general view is that the term should be used cautiously (one editor cited the general guidance to avoid peacock terms) and (2) use or non-use of this term should be guided by the sources. Neutrality ^talk 16:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I recently got into a dispute at Madonna (entertainer) over the use of the term 'Legacy' instead of 'Impact' as a section title in the BLP. I tried to quote consensus from a previous discussion at Talk:Rihanna#RfC about exactly the same issue. I argued there that dictionaries generally define 'legacy' as something inherited from the past. I was informed that consensus at Rihanna has nothing to do with the article on Madonna. [1]

Hence I'd like to establish consensus here for BLPs in general. Please let me know if this is not the right forum.

RfC: Use of the term 'Legacy'

Look up legacy in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Should the term 'Legacy' be used for the contributions and impact of living entertainers, personalities, etc, who are still active in their field?

• A: The term 'Legacy' is appropriate for anyone who has a significant impact.
• B: The term 'Legacy' is appropriate for people who have not been active for some time.
• C: The term 'Legacy' is appropriate for people who have passed away.

LK ( talk) 07:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• C Per especially definition 2 on M-W. It implies something the dead have left us, their long term impact. I'm not sure why the word is preferable to impact though - legacy sounds more flowery and value-laden to me. —DIYeditor ( talk) 13:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• B to A - provided WP:RS refer to the person's legacy - per m-w definition 2 - "something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past the legacy of the ancient philosophers The war left a legacy of pain and suffering." - past does not mean dead - it could mean a movie star no longer or active or perhaps in the wane of their career. However, I think the question we should be asking is whether RSes refer to a person's legacy - if there are strong RSes that do, then it is possible to refer to a legacy. For sporting figures - one often discusses the "legacy" (in sports) following retirement - e.g. Joe Montana's legacy - gNews "Joe Montana" legacy. Heck - we even have Montana discussing the legacy un-retired Brady - [2]. And Brady's legacy has been discussed for the past few years by others - [3] [4]. I don't think this a BLP issue - more of a question of avoiding puffery (for dead or alive subjects) - this is a term that should be used only the most clear cases (supported by strong RS). Icewhiz ( talk) 13:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• A because it's WP-practice and I don't see it changing (personally I think you've left a a legacy when you're dead). Like Bob Dylan (FA), Art Spiegelman (GA), Barack Obama (FA). For some reason Oscar Wilde (GA) doesn't have one, but that's WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 13:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• B or C depending on the time frame implicitly stated. "Legacy" implies "something from the past" so should not be used for recent persons or acts. Collect ( talk) 19:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• A makes no sense. How can you assess the legacy of someone who has not yet died? And why are we using the euphemism "passed away"? Guy ( Help!) 13:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Consider John Major. Twenty years after he left office and went into mostly-retirement, can we not assess his legacy?- Simon Dodd { U· T· C· WP:LAW } 13:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think we can and it won't take long. Drmies ( talk) 18:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Very droll, Dr. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Lest we forget! Pincrete ( talk) 20:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

That was a not inconsiderably important initiative. Guy ( Help!) 22:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I could go for some icecream. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• C (or B if they are never going to be active in that area again). Yes, we can assess the legacy of an ex-Prime Minister (who will never be such again) as the legacy of what he did whilst in power. Madonna, however, is still an entertainer, thus "Legacy" is not correct. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• A given how much impact those active can have (often lots). Lawrencekhoo, please stop with your absurd and completely unnecessary campaign to remove that from section titles of those who haven't retired or died. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 22:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Could someone have a talk with SNUGGUMS about being polite and collegial with other editors even if one disagrees with them about policy? Thanks -- LK ( talk) 00:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I know very well how to be polite as well as collegial when disagreeing with others. That's not mutually exclusive with criticizing others' actions as faulty or calling them out on a blatant problem. Snuggums ( talk / edits) 00:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• C' Makes the most sense, but an arguement could be made for B. A legacy should not apply to people who are still actively wroking in their field. AIRcorn  (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• B and C though I would modify B to 'no longer active' (without the 'for some time' qualifier, which is vague and unnecessary). Especially in fields such as sports, where people retire very young, it is meaningful to speak of 'legacy' once they have 'left the field'. I'm sure sports writers are busy speculating about what Usain Bolt, S Williams, Ronaldo, Beckham, etc's legacy is - or will be - and the use of the term is meaningful, since their active lives in their professions are over/nearly over. This could be equally true of a figure like Obama, whose presidency might meaningfully be deemed to have left a legacy - though once again, as with the sports figures, the content is inevitably going to be speculation as to what that legacy will be. Using the term for a person still active in their profession is borderline 'puffery', since it implies we already know how they are going to be remembered. We aren't generally prescriptivists here on WP, but why use a term which is inaccurate, when other more accurate terms exist? The alternatives are even more readily understood - such as 'impact'. I presume of course that the use debated at this RfC is section headings and WP:VOICE text - not within quoted or paraphrased text itself, where we obviously would use the term used by the source(s). … … … "To evoke posterity is to weep on your own grave" - Though he doesn't mention other people's graves! Pincrete ( talk) 20:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• C Some Wikipedia articles using the word wrong doesn't change the meaning of the word. Go with the commonly understood dictionary definition. Darx9url ( talk) 23:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

What if sources use it "wrong"? Trump’s new effort to destroy Obama’s legacy is very dangerous, The Legacy and Lessons of Bob Dylan, Five readers offer their views on Madonna's legacy, her skill for reinvention and that new single. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I see "Obama's legacy" used all the time. However, an encyclopedia needs to use different words in an article summing up a person's life. In the article on Obama it would be premature. The man is just fifty-something and may be active for another three or four decades. Coretheapple ( talk) 17:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Obama's Presidency is over - I think it is meaningful to speak of the legacy of that presidency, though not of the man himself. Ditto Blair, Major etc. Pincrete ( talk) 09:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• C ( Summoned by bot) While intended to be a compliment, the word implies that the article subject is either dead or as good as dead, per the definition "Something inherited from a predecessor; a heritage." If the person is still active in his field it even has BLP implications, implying the person is "over." There are so many wonderful words in the English language. Let's find a word other than "legacy" for living people. Coretheapple ( talk) 17:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• A ( Summoned by bot) you can have a legacy prior to croaking ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose codification of a brightline rule here: I don't often use this term (in fact, I think I may never have in my time on the project) but this feels like truly unnecessary policy WP:CREEP. This is clearly an editorial decision that needs to be made via WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and requires such a fact-specific analysis that any firm rule (even one of inclination) that is added to this [most bloated of all pages anywhere in project space] policy could never hope to address an approach good for every contingency, and will in fact only muddy the waters for the editors on individual articles. Some might say that this defaults my view to being closest to A, the broadest/most permissive interpretation, but I want to make it clear that I would not view that as terribly accurate; I don't think a specific one-size-fits all inclination towards any of the three options is appropriate here. Local editors familiar with the WP:Weight of the sources and the flow of the article are generally quite capable of puzzling out a pragmatic approach to questions like this, and BLP already constrains them (and clashes with other policies encouraging local consensus) quite enough as is.. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you given an opinion on whether this Legacy section in the article on Tom Cruise is appropriately named? And if not, what policy should be used to justify changing the name of the section? LK ( talk) 05:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

No, reading through that section, I have to say that, were I an editor working on that article, I would definitely be urging against that header in that instance. But honestly, the section title is just the least of the problems with the section itself; it seems to be a random collection of tidbits that just didn't fit anywhere else in the article and were crammed together, without any connection, flow, or context tying together the handful of points of trivia--some of which arguably don't have enough WP:WEIGHT to be mentioned in the article in the first place. Clearly, this is an area which imputes a certain degree of subjectivity, but I can't say as those facts constitute much of anything that anyone would reasonably classify as "legacy". That said, this is an interpretation based on the current content in that section; I can very well imagine that enough has been said about Cruise's impact upon his industry that a legacy section might very well be appropriate for him, with better-suited content drawing upon the right sources. As to what policy should control here, I do see your implied argument that no policy is quite 100% on point. But even if the discussion might necessarily hinge on purely pragmatic arguments, I still think that in most cases the local editors can arrive at a rational solution in individual cases more expediently if they do not have to work around the proposed default rules here as a mandatory framework. Anyway, if nothing else, someone arguing against a legacy header in a case where they foudn it inappropriate would probably have at least WP:WEIGHT to draw upon; if anyone has a proper "legacy" then RS have probably described their notability in such terms, and provided some guideposts for which accomplishments/streams of influence qualify.

In any event, that is, of course, a very separate and more specific question than the one being asked in this discussion. FYI, even if you get an endorsement for this proposal (and I hope the need will be rethought before this goes much farther, but even if you do...) you are still going to need to re-introduce it at the talk page for the policy to be changed, and probably also publicize it via WP:VPP, WP:CD, or another central community space, per the usual approach to modifying policy pages. But maybe I am unaware of a habit of BLP-policy changes to originate here before moving to the talk page? Snow ^{let's rap} 07:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not proposing any changes to policy or guideline about this issue. I do agree that adding something as trivial as this to a policy page would be policy creep. I'm just trying to establish community consensus that in most cases, it would be in appropriate to use "legacy" to describe the impact of people still active in their field. LK ( talk) 12:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see, my mistake--thank you for that clarification. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• C WP:Use plain English sums up my view on the proper use of language. The word 'Legacy' has a clear dictionary definition (which can be seen from my survey of dictionary entries) – it is an inheritance handed down from the past. Many fans have decided that it sounds nice, and have inserted it into articles where it's not appropriate. Including it in our articles violates WP:PEACOCK and WP:BLPSTYLE as articles are supposed to neutrally and factually describe a person and their achievements. This word is only being used for it's connotation that the person has made great achievements. Without the positive associations, this term would not be pushed by the fans (and perhaps paid editors) who patrol the celebrity pages. LK ( talk) 06:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• C, along with the proper use of the term. Some exceptions could be possible for major figures no longer active in their field, i.e. heads of state, pop culture icons, etc - in line with the sources (i.e. the subject of the sourced discussion should be "Legacy of X"). This should be an exception to the rule, though. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Threaded discussion

Could someone uninvolved please write a brief conclusion based on guideline, and close this RfC? Thanks very much, LK ( talk) 01:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

• Amy Cuddy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Amy Cuddy is complaining on twitter with what appears to me significant justification that her entry in Wikipedia is a mess of BLP violations. I'd like us to take a very good look at it. The concerns mentioned are that it contains false information and excludes factual information. There is also a claim that quality references that are favorable to her work have been systematically edited out.

Separately, but relatedly, she says "Current language silences targets, warning that reporting bullying may elicit boomerang effect. Bullying experts would be appalled." I presume that she means some current language on some policy page at Wikipedia, but I'm not really sure what she's referring to. If we do tell people that, we need to fix that immediately as it is against everything that we stand for as a community.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 19:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

There are multiple issues on that page. I've fixed a few of the most egregious issues. I'm sure the content on how failed replications of "power posing" are handled will need extensive discussion on the talk page. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 19:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, it looks to be quite complicated. One hard part is that the combatants on the talk page are bordering on engaging in original research which would naturally fall outside the realm of what we should be doing here.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 21:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I have the put NPOV tag for now till the issues are resolved. Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 19:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 21:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem is, her biography is basically serving as a coatrack for Power posing the discredited hypothesis she co-authored (and note key word here is discredited, not 'unproven'. The co-author states the methodology was suspect in the first place and subsequent research has largely borne this out). Most of the neutral coverage of that is at the relevant article. If we removed most of the power posing related material it would be a relatively sparse bio. The problem with this is: subjects who do bad science like to have all the positive references on their biography, but none of the negative. This goes against our NPOV. So we end up with a bio that largely turns into a giant 'Subject did/said this - here are references saying they are wrong'. Which isnt really what an internet biography should say. It should be 'Subject co-authored a now discredited hypothesis Power posing' and thats it. Leave all the to and fro for the article on the paper itself.

RE reporting issues, about the only thing that is relevant from the talk page and the article history is that the subjects publisher attempted to make changes at one point and was pointed/asked nicely (and yes it was nicely for ENWP) not to edit the article directly. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 19:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it quite unfair to say that "subjects who do bad science like to have all the positive references on their biography, but none of the negative", except to the extent that of course this is naturally true of virtually everyone who has a biography, a rather uninteresting observation. Invoked in this way, you seem to suggest that the subject of this article is asking for a whitewash, and that's a pretty bad violation of WP:AGF. I think it's a huge mistake to take on this kind of "gotcha" battleground mentality. The concern is that the article currently doesn't live up to our principles of WP:NPOV and that's not ok. It's further not ok to compound that with veiled criticism of the subject for asking for it to be better.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 20:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm reading Only in Death's statement a little differently. I think what he is saying is that these types of articles become focused on bolstering and subsequently refuting the subject's views or theories rather than actually defining the subject. (See, for example, the Neil Gross section above.) In many cases this may in fact be due to the subject trying to push their own ideas, while others work diligently to refute them, but I think a majority of these cases is between editors that have no affiliation with the subject other than a personal belief/disbelief in their work. A person's biography is not a good place to debate a scientific theory; those debates should be in the articles about the theories. For a biography, it is enough to simply state what their views are and link to the articles which expand on those views, which is what I think Only in Death was trying to say. Zaereth ( talk) 22:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

If so, then great, and I agree completely.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 11:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I took a look at her twitter thread, the article, and googled for some more information, and I don't see any information in the article that is counter to the information from reliable sources online. Of course she would be upset about it, she got viral fame for something that was later discredited over and over and over. This is an upsetting event, but it's really all she's known for, so removing it from the article would results in a completely untrue article. Natureium ( talk) 17:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The squeaky wheel gets the grease. This whole approach, where someone complains directly to Jimbo Wales on Twitter that, as he puts it above, "her entry in Wikipedia is a mess of BLP violations," and then we all rush to the rescue, makes me queasy. Now that Jimbo has brought it to our attention and weighed in with additional replies, I think the community can take it from here without the founder's further intervention. KalHolmann ( talk) 17:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Why can't Jimbo be just a regular human being and editor like the rest of us, working on what caught his interest and he feels is right? Zaereth ( talk) 19:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales is not just a regular human being and editor like the rest of us, nor will he ever be. And for the record, he has not made a single edit to Amy Cuddy. None. Never. KalHolmann ( talk) 19:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I see now very clearly what your problem is and who it is really with Zaereth ( talk) 20:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

As an analogy, let's say the article on Joe Schmo says he believes the moon is made of green cheese. That's fine, because it tells me something about Joe Schmo. Do I really need a bunch of statements from scientists, celebrities, and "experts" from Saturday Night Live telling me how wrong Schmo is? What is the purpose other than to a.) prove Joe's theory wrong, thus protecting the world and our children from his outlandish ideas, or b.) to show the world just how stupid Schmo is? It doesn't serve to define Schmo, thus is really irrelevant to his article. That really belongs in the "Green-cheese moon theory" article, where I can go look it up myself if I want to know more about it.

I'd like to think this is something new, but it's not. For over 200 years the top theory in thermodynamics was the phlogiston theory. Old Johann Becher was like the Einstein of his time, and his theory enabled people to make precise and correct calculations. Turns out, it was completely backwards, but we don't spend time trying to prove that in his article. We simply state it link to the article about the theory. When Lavoisier came up with his oxygen theory, people called him a quackpot, because they knew that phlogiston was real. Thomas Young, whom Einstein regarded as one of the most brilliant men of his time, received death threats and was even attacked for daring to suggest that light is a wave instead of a particle. That is what articles like this often turn into; a battleground for people who either have something to prove or are just looking for that "gotcha" moment described above, when all we really need to do is define the subject. Zaereth ( talk) 19:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not a good analogy. Everyone knows the moon is not made of cheese, so by stating that, it's obvious that the person has some crazy scientific ideas. This is more like creating an article that talks about all the things Dr. Oz promotes without noting that they are pseudoscience (which the article on Dr. Oz does in the first sentence). Natureium ( talk) 19:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• The real problem here is the community's customary distaste for quack therapies running counter to the more recent inclination to believe women qua women and dismiss their critics as chauvinists. Watching this play out will be interesting. 199.127.56.89 ( talk) 21:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Nice trolling, but serious people have serious work to do here.-- Jimbo Wales ( talk) 11:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Comparing the version from 48hr before to now, clearly most egregious issues are removed, but this article represents the trend throughout WP that people want to include RS-sourced negative information about a person as high or as predominately as possible. The original lede here was bad, but the current single sentence lede still spends half the time focusing on the negative. We can't bury the impact of the "power posing" issue, but given there's a separate article for it, most of those details should be there on the separate article, and summarize her introduction of the concept, and its subsequent rejection by the scientific community on the BLP page. And this by far is a mild case of where past editors have focused heavily on the negative, which can lead to this improperly POV-ish BLPs. -- Masem ( t) 23:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Every time there is a BLP problem, we should indeed be rushing to the rescue

@ KalHolmann: you say above that it bothers you that Wikipedia editors rush to the rescue when a BLP subject sends a tweet about inaccuracies aimed at Jimmy Wales, is worthy of further consideration. Do you know what? Any time a BLP subject is concerned that their article has -- in their view -- inaccuracies, then we should indeed all be rushing to the rescue! Wikipedia does not have any right to publish inaccurate information about living people, and it has been repeatedly proven that it does. If you have a problem with such errors being fixed -- regardless of who is publicly addressing whom and what medium they use to do so -- then you will need to coherently explain what your problem is. MPS1992 ( talk) 23:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Moving Forward

Jimbo Wales has found "significant justification" in Amy Cuddy's complaints of what Wales calls the "mess of BLP violations" that constitute her Wikipedia page. After editing that page 19 times over the past two days, with varying degrees of confidence, I propose the following longer-term remedy. Amy Cuddy should:

• register a user account in her own name, which is available.
• understand that per WP:BLPEDIT, "The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. … Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable."
• per WP:BLPSELF, open a new section at Talk:Amy Cuddy, identifying herself as the subject of this BLP and proposing further changes to be made by interested editors. Dr. Cuddy must bear in mind, however, that most editors are not scientists and will require simplified instructions in plain language suitable for content to be included in a popular online reference work.
  

In the interest of fairness, we could also offer the same arrangement to critics of Dr. Cuddy. I am hopeful that as long as editors consistently maintain WP:NOPV, this open collaboration will violate no Wikipedia policy or guideline. KalHolmann ( talk) 01:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional, related complaints by Amy Cuddy

In introducing this section at BLP/Noticeboard, Jimbo Wales alluded to Amy Cuddy's complaints on Twitter of BLP violations. He also mentioned Cuddy's separate but related charges of bullying at Wikipedia. To facilitate addressing Dr. Cuddy's concerns, I have compiled a list of tweets from Amy Cuddy's verified account @amyjccuddy posted within the timeframe that she tweeted to Mr. Wales. After two days, most of her accusations remain undiscussed on this noticeboard. I encourage editors to address these.

• "Hadn't looked at my Wikipedia page in a year. Someone just directed me to it. Wow, it is a mess of false and defamatory info. Why is it okay for people to continue to vandalize by adding false information and excluding accurate information? Where are the actual Wikipedia editors?"
• "Let me add: Wikipedia has become a playground for bullies."
• "Hi, @jimmy_wales. Please make a clear, pro-social statement to targets of repeated @Wikipedia defamation on correcting record & protecting selves. Current language silences targets, warning that reporting bullying may elicit boomerang effect. Bullying experts would be appalled."
• Kelly Silbernagel @KellySilby asked, "WHY!! Why would anyone bully you in the first place?? I. Don't. Get. It."
• Cuddy replied, "It's fun? Makes them feel powerful? Righteous?"
• Kelly Silbernagel responded, "Ugh. Gross."
• Cuddy went on, "It's not just intentionally defamatory. It's flat-out wrong. I just—how is that allowed?"
• "Learning more: Apparently people have made correcting edits and contacted the people who unjustifiably deleted those edits, which only led to addition of more false and defamatory info."
• "The wrongdoing causes actual harm to people."
• "And miraculous, isn't it, how none of the publications that demonstrate effects of power posing end up on my Wikipedia page, like our 55-study meta-analysis?" http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797617746749?journalCode=pssa (Note: this publication has since been added to Amy Cuddy.)
• "I am just totally dumbfounded by how many false statements are included on the page and how much accurate, highly relevant information is excluded. I know, there are bigger things to worry about. But it hurts. Truth."
• "Well, this is just another topic to cover in a book on bullying. If you (1) have a @Wikipedia page that's been vandalized or that's included defamatory information, and (2) have found it impossible to get Wikipedia to correct the record, will you please contact me? Thanks."
• "If you look at the history, you can see where people tried to do that but they were reversed. I totally do not understand this."
• "I don't know who adjudicates when getting it right requires expertise."
• "I think of myself as a pathological optimist. No matter what, not matter how bad things get, I wake up the next day feeling that things will be okay. I'm feeling like it's time to abandon some of that optimism."
• "I would just like to be represented accurately, fairly, and concisely in the places that so many of us default to for basic information. And I would like other people and concepts to be represented accurately, fairly, and concisely."
• "People who want to destroy often do so with greater passion and energy and time than people who want to build. It's not an easy problem to solve, but If we want to see positive change, we need to direct passion and energy and time toward building."
  

Personally, I consider that last allegation especially unfair. As an active Wikipedian for the past 12 months, I've had plenty of run-ins with other editors and have fallen afoul of admins who do sometimes bully. But I've never thought of them (or myself) as "people who want to destroy." KalHolmann ( talk) 19:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Update: Less than 24 hours after I posted the above hyperlinked tweets, Amy Cuddy has protected her verified account, meaning only her 76,709 confirmed followers have access to @amyjccuddy's tweets and complete profile. Coincidence? KalHolmann ( talk) 15:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I have seen this issue before on some articles of academics I've created, where the section on "research" or whatever gets bloated with excessive discussion of the minutiae of their research and whether it's valid/replicated/whatever. This is certainly a problem and these details definitely don't belong on articles about scientists, and the opinions of your harshest critics almost certainly don't belong on your BLP. Also, Cuddy's Twitter is apparently now unprotected again. Everymorning talk to me 23:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I am Matthew Parish Matthew Parish. My Wikipedia entry keeps being amended to add a section called "criminal charges" which is grossly false and defamatory. I am deleting it now. Please lock my page so that no further amendments adding defamatory material (the veracity of which is denied - this should be obvious; the amendments say I am in prison but obviously I am not or I would not be writing this) may be made.

This is top urgent. Please confirm you have acted upon this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:501B:A190:7475:4B04:3D53:FCF2 ( talk) 20:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Parish, while I would agree that the section is given undue prominence, and that the French source is probably not appropriate for English Wikipedia, to my mind, the Bloomberg story is both newsworthy and reliable and would rate a mention in the article. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 22:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that it is WP:UNDUE and potentially has other problems too. I am going to trim it somewhat, unless someone else gets to it first. Some of the grammar is absolutely dreadful as well. "Accused ... participating ... purported ... established ... faked ... circulated ... supposedly implicated ... prominent ... overthrow ... " all in one sentence?!? Please, people, try SUBJECT VERB OBJECT. MPS1992 ( talk) 22:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a note that, as from 24 June 2018, the article has also been protected from editing by new editors for a month or so. This should alleviate problems somewhat. The various unregistered editors who wish the material removed from the article entirely, should read WP:LEGALTHREAT. MPS1992 ( talk) 23:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Needs rev/deletion of defamatory content. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 14:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• the usual wikiwedia shite - living person published attack - it's been removed thankfully - I am watching the page now, please add it also to your watchlists. This is what wikipedia published https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Matthew_Tye&diff=847327073&oldid=847326953 Govindaharihari ( talk) 18:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I nominated the article for deletion, only to discover that it has been deleted twice already and has been recreated. It seems to me that the simplest approach is to delete and salt the article, possible also an investigate into the activities of the creating editor could be warranted. Shritwod ( talk) 02:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Looks like a vanity page maintained by the subject himself--may not meet notability guidelines. More eyes on this will be appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:CDA0:623:849E:B032 ( talk) 19:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I researched the subject and the citations provided and have opened an AfD here. -- HunterM267  ^talk 19:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

In recent weeks there has been a campaign to add cherry-picked, unverifiable, and non-neutral content to the lead section of Richard B. Spencer in violation of BLP. I have little appetite to defend neo-Nazis, but our policies must be enforced everywhere, and I believe at this point the lead section is so distorted that the article has lost its credibility. Perhaps folks here would be interested in helping out. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Dr. F is currently engaged in WP:Forum shopping. He filed an AE enforcement action alleging BLP violations and was laughed out by multiple admins, one of whom even threatened to block him. The talk page is also almost uniformly in favor of the current lede: /info/en/?search=Talk:Richard_B._Spencer#New_lede

There is no BLP violation but there is apparently a WP:TE issue here. Steeletrap ( talk) 23:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You may want to consider DrFleischman's failed and increasingly desperate attempts to convince anyone at WP:AE about his POV, as well as here and here. -- Calton | Talk 09:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Article-subject asking for assistance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Please read the offending comments in the header of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.78.250 ( talk) 15:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Content on this page was recently reverted - does this clear up the concern? -- HunterM267  ^talk 16:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I reverted again. Meatsgains^{( talk)} 01:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• Dennis Herrick (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dennish1942 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Self-promotional account. The article is an autobiography, with almost all the sources of the primary type, leading to his publisher or personal website. I'm not finding much from Google searches to support notability as either an author or academic, and would AfD this if I could. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 00:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• There are multiple conflict of interest issues elsewhere. Mr. Herrick added his books as references [5]; [6]; [7]--the last one is yet unpublished; and created an article about one of his books [8]. The subject may be well versed in his field, but before we can accept his scholarship and self-sourcing, let's see if the bio can stand with acceptable sources. Otherwise there's a history of adding original research to multiple articles. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 01:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• I'm concerned by continuing edits like this [9], and am asking whether this merits discussion at ANI. Thanks. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 01:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Dear Editor, I entered accurate information about this person and I made sure that this information was cited appropriately. The information was totally deleted by James Allison w/o any explanation. My understanding is that deletion of accurate information w/o explanation is considered VANDALISM according to wikipedia guidelines. I would appreciate it if you could look into this and let me know. Thank you GlassFort ( talk) 22:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

As multiple editors have now undone your additions, the proper thing is to raise the issue on the talk page of the article, Talk:Linda Katehi, and gain consensus for the additions before re-adding. (And no, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to delete even accurate information, and while doing so without explanation may not be the best practice, that would not automatically amke it vandalism.) -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 01:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

QubecMan ( talk · contribs) has recently added a large number of individual politicians to the category Category:Opposition to same-sex marriage. I'm not sure all of these are appropriate; I'm also unsure that adding any politicians to that category is reasonable (as opposed to a sub-category of some sort). power~enwiki ( π, ν) 16:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Politicians voting records in most democracies are public record. While I don't approve of the category in general (I don't particulary think using categories as badges of shame/labelling is a good idea) if a politician has publicly opposed same sex marriage it should be easily sourceable (and probably already in the article if it includes a section on their political views) and so justify inclusion of the category. If there isn't a source/reference in the article justifying the category, it can't be added. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 18:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Voting records are actually a problematic source for such claims. If Suzy Politician voted against the Gay Marriage Legalization Act of 2009, it may be because she was against same-sex marriage, or it may be that Suzy saw that that act created a second form of marriage that did not give gay couples all the rights that straight people get, or it may be the Mandatory Puppy Sandwiches For Lunch Amendment that someone hung on the bill. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 19:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• As ever, someone needs to go over all these and remove most of them, deleting the Cat would be better and easier. Govindaharihari ( talk) 19:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Subcategory might be appropriate, and I also agree that voting records alone aren't enough for inclusion. Voting records are primary sources that are subject to interpretation. Per WP:CATDEF it seems like anyone included in a category like this would need to be more than someone who merely voted against same sex marriage. Tony Abbott might count, but maybe not Stuart Robert. Nblund ^talk 19:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• It's a strange category, as if opposition to or even support for marriage equality were an immutable characteristic. The same person could belong to Category:Opposition to same-sex marriage and Category:Support for same-sex marriage. To which category does Barak Obama belong (different position in 1996 (pro), in 1998 (undecided), in 2004 through 2010 (for partnership, against marriage equality, in 2012 (pro))? To which category does Hilary Clinton belong (hint: in 1999 & 200 pro union, anti marriage; in 2004 averring marriage "is between a man and a woman", but also voting against a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage; in 2007 pro union anti marriage; in 2013 pro marriage equality)? - Nunh-huh 06:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Hillary and Obama would not been in the category because they Support Same sex marriage Now. the category is for people who are Currently opposed to it. QubecMan ( talk) 07:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

That's recentism, a bias we seek to avoid. - Nunh-huh 07:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You can't make up the rules as you go. Natureium ( talk) 15:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

All of those individual politicians are opposed to same sex marriage and are well sourced for it. QubecMan ( talk) 03:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Remove this category "Opposition to same sex marriage" is not like a light switch with just two options, on or off. This category seems like a would-be Wall of Shame, and whatever the intention of its creators will be used as such, if it ever gets used at all. HouseOfChange ( talk) 08:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• that's a bias comment: this category seems like a would-be Wall of Shame. they do have people who are opposed to same sex marriage doesn't mean they are doing something shame. QubecMan ( talk) 08:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep this category people who are opposed to same sex marriage should have a category. QubecMan ( talk) 08:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Remove this category This is not a concrete category. It is based on subjective judgments about someone's opinion on a topic. Opinions can change, and there are no set criteria for deciding that someone is opposed to same-sex marriage. - Donald Albury 12:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I do think the category is inappropriate for people. - Donald Albury 22:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• This category should not be applied to people. This category is perfectly fine for organizations and laws for which opposite to same-sex marriage is a defining characteristic. Natureium ( talk) 13:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

if that's the case you should get rid of the category of Muslims. what is a criteria for deciding that someone is a Muslim. they should have a category that marks somebody down that they are opposed to SSM. QubecMan ( talk) 12:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Pinging users QubecMan, Donald Albury, Nunh-huh, Nblund, power~enwiki, Only in death does duty end that I nominated this category for deletion. I can't find the right link to post here, but I will when I find it. HouseOfChange ( talk) 13:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @ HouseOfChange: Categories are deleted by nominating them at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, not by adding something to the category page, so I reverted your edit to the category itself. That said, the category should probably not be deleted but only the recent additions removed. The category does make sense for other topics, such as California Proposition 8 (2008) or Romanian constitutional referendum, 2018. Regards So Why 13:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks, @ SoWhy:, I know I messed up with that effort so I will redo it using Twinkle instead. HouseOfChange ( talk) 13:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

      I wish you had considered the rest of my message as well before redoing the nomination because you failed to take into account that this is a category from 2012 that was not problematic before yesterday because it did not contain biographical articles. Unfortunately, most commentators here seem to have missed this. Reverting QubecMan's edits fixes the pointed out problems without having to resort to deletion. Regards So Why 13:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that the category contained biographical articles before QubecMan came along. Examples: Alexandra Colen, Marcelo Crivella, Ted Cruz. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 22:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Can we have a sub-category of some sort. I truly believe we should QubecMan ( talk) 13:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• In general, "contentious categories" should not be used for any living persons unless they are self-described as being members of that group. We already use that requirement for religion, ethnicity and nationality, sexuality and the like, and it would appear that this category is clearly of that same nature. Using categories otherwise is easily abused, and a pox on the desire of Wikipedia to "do no harm." I further note that Wikipedia, like it or not, will end up having to follow EU laws concerning contentious claims, and the earlier we accept that, the better. Collect ( talk) 13:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• This category is badly-named if its purpose is to be a container for laws or policies that oppose same-sex marriage. All names of people should be removed asap, as per WP:SEPARATE, and perhaps the category should be re-named, or else marked with an informative message at the top, to prevent this mess from happening again. HouseOfChange ( talk) 14:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • In what way is it badly named? It doesn't say "People opposed to same-sex marriage" and there's no reason to think that people belong there. Natureium ( talk) 16:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Remove category. This is just looking for trouble. When do we identify people for this category? Would Obama be included? Using any metrics to decide inclusion is just asking for trouble. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Remove category. - all activist cats like this are basically closer to propaganda than cited relevant cats, for living people it's unless totally clear then it's a obvious WP:BLP violation Govindaharihari ( talk) 20:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Remove category. As per other editors. For example, I noted that Pope Francis is included in the category, along with his other categories like 21st-century popes and Christian humanists... something seems a bit out of place with this category for the majority of those who are in it, and I can't think of any good reason to have it. -- HunterM267  ^talk 21:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep or Rename category. we need to have a category of people who are opposed to same sex marriage. QubecMan ( talk) 04:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• This discussion seems to have turned into a !Vote on whether or not to keep the category, but I don't think this is the right forum for that.

Going back to the original question of whether politicians should be included in the category, my view is that this should only happen if they are vocally opposed to the concept. Politicians might oppose specific attempts to introduce laws for any number of reasons, of which opposition to the concept is only one. For instance they might not think the proposal goes far enough, or the law being discussed is badly drafted or open to interpretation, none of which mean they oppose the concept. Neiltonks ( talk) 07:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• All the politiicans I putted on are known to be against same sex marriage are Known to have been the only few MPS who voted against it when governments legalized it. that sick's out. QubecMan ( talk) 08:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Expressing your opinion multiple times is not going to have any stronger of an effect. Natureium ( talk) 16:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Remove category as per arguments already articulated, we shouldn't be making controversial statements in cats ever. QubecMan comment above this "that sick's out" indicates this editor is not motivated by BLP and neutrality but by o`pinions on same-sex marriage. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why people are !voting here instead of at the deletion discussion.-- Auric talk 16:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I think people are voting here on whether people should be removed from the category and there whether the category should be deleted. Natureium ( talk) 16:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• If Quebec man can have three votes in this odd election, can I? - Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Columbia University rape controversy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi All. Regarding this and this revert: Do we want to disparage a living person based on one article (even attributed), in an article not about them ( Columbia University rape controversey), with the sentence also not (mostly) being about the subject of the article? Responses so far are on a talk section I started here Arkon ( talk) 21:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Also another revert. I've asked the editor to self revert for now. Arkon ( talk) 21:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Took it out again. Can't justify leaving what (I believe) is a BLP vio while waiting for a good faith revert. Arkon ( talk) 21:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm really struggling to see how an attributed statement of opinion about a public figure constitutes a BLP issue. As I mentioned in my edit summary, Cathy Young is cited 13 times in the article and she's mentioned in text in 6 other places. Young's article prompted a response from Sulkowicz, and the Washington Post describes Young's article as the most extensive and sympathetic treatment of the accused student. If Young is not central to the story, it seems like we should remove some of those citations and in-text mentions. If she is central to the story, then it's reasonable to mention at least one author who criticized her work. Perhaps it makes sense to move the quote to another section, or to find another. Nblund ^talk 21:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Citing those articles and their contents would be ok from what I can see (haven't read extensively), however stating that Young is "reliably rape-skeptical", based on one article, which sorely veers into opinion territory is a different matter. Arkon ( talk) 22:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Think I'm caught up on those links now, if we feel it's encyclopedic to have criticism of a (as the WAPO article says) reporter, from Sulkowicz (attributed of course) I don't, but reasonable people can differ and it's doable I think. Wording would need to be sussed I'm sure. Arkon ( talk) 22:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It veers sorely in to opinion territory because it's an opinion piece. It's attributed in-text and it's mentioned alongside several other opinion pieces - some of which are critical of Sulkowicz and some of which are supportive. There's certainly no policy-based reason for prohibiting opinions and criticisms from being mentioned. If you're simply objecting to the phrase "rape skeptical" I think we could simply remove that from the quote without losing the central point. Nblund ^talk 22:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Well yes, I have a problem with that phrase. That's why the talk section was opened first. Arkon ( talk) 22:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It's also just sourced to one opinion piece on Jezebel, not the sources you provided above in which that text never appears. Arkon ( talk) 22:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so that makes it sound like your real objection is to the content of the criticism itself. I don't think constitutes a BLP issue or even a policy-issue at all. I went ahead and restored the quote minus the "reliably rape skeptical" wording. I'm fine with that but other editors might not be.

Opinion pieces can be reliable for statements of opinion attributed to an author. Every quote in that section is sourced to one opinion piece - unless columnists are engaging rampant plagiarism that's sort of normal. The idea expressed in that story - that Young has a history of questioning or dismissing stories about rape is actually mentioned in both of the piece I pointed to above. Nblund ^talk 23:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorta astounded that it took this much, if you read the text, to understand why I said it was BLP vio. But you haven't really been the one to restore it without any substantial comment. I still believe you need to A) go to talk page to discuss the wording now B) use the WAPO or primary source as the basis. The current text still is flimsy at best, content wise, perhaps not BLP wise, so please talk page. Arkon ( talk) 23:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

To be clear: I'm offering a conciliatory gesture, but I don't think it's anywhere close to a BLP vio. It sort of seems like you have a problem with the content of the opinion itself, which isn't a valid policy reason for removing something. I'm not married to any particular wording, but the section cites multiple opinion pieces, I don't see what makes this one flimsy if the rest are fine. Nblund ^talk 23:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Well if you think calling someone "reliably rape-skeptical" in a random wikipedia article, that they reported on (per your source), from one opinion piece....alright. At least you removed it, no matter your motivation. You still need to respond to the content on the talk page however. Whatever it "seems like" to you, I really don't care. ` Arkon ( talk)

I would absolutely see your point if this were being treated as a statement of fact, but it's not - it's an opinion that is being attributed to someone else in-text. I think WP:RSOPINION, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:BIAS answer your issues regarding sourcing and fact/opinion. Nblund ^talk 23:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I would absolutely see your point if you didn't restore text to a source that you haven't once brought here, Edit: Crap, this could be misread, sources not used as justification for this report, after reverting earlier ) and not responded anywhere else regarding the content and provided sources when prompted (talk page, user talk). See ya at the talk page. Or not. Arkon ( talk) 23:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Opinion columns and blogs (and I don't believe Jezebel is a news organisation, so we can safely ignore NEWSBLOG) that lack editorial oversight are questionable sources and hence they are not reliable sources for controversial claims about living persons. ATTRIBUTEPOV does not give us a blanket permission to include biased opinions for that requires sources be verifiable, which Jezebel fails per WP:QS. Jezebel does not exactly have a good track record of accuracy and corrections. For instance, Anna Merlan wrote an opinion column about UVA rape story and made one relatively minor correction with a snarky comment "This is what a professional journalistic correction looks like", but did not retract the column or correct the major errors when it was revealed that the Rolling Stone report was, in fact, riddled with errors. Merlan did admit that the premise of that column was wrong and apologised for being "dead fucking wrong", but the so-called correction is included in the original column only as one link among six others.

If Jezebel is cited in multiple reliable secondary sources (for example, I have not heard that Jezebel's reporting of sexual assault allegations related to Al Franken [10] [11] has been called into question) we may cite those secondary reliable sources and possibly attribute the claims to Jezebel.

If editors who restore disputed content are aware of BLP discretionary sanctions, e.g. through {{ Ds/alert}}, they may be reported to WP:AE (see example). Politrukki ( talk) 14:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not really possible to verify an opinion. I think the reference to verifiability in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is simply saying that we need to verify that Erin Gloria Ryan actually made the statement being attributed to her. If we required editors to verify the content of quoted statements, it would be pretty much impossible to write about flat earth advocates or other cranks. I'm all for using some caution and common sense when it comes to quoting opinions about a BLP, but this is just one of several opinions expressed in the section. It's not particularly outrageous, and it's not any better or any worse than sources like the National Review that are cited in the same section. Nblund ^talk 19:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you know very well that conforming to WP:V does not mean that we should "verify an opinion". Verifiability means lots of things: I mentioned WP:QS, but WP:SOURCE is also a part of WP:V and I have argued that Erin Gloria Ryan's opinion in Jezebel is not a reliable source for contentious statements about living persons (clarify: who are not Erin Gloria Ryan). The major difference between Jezebel and National Review is that the latter is a news organisation. But I would tend to agree that in this case the content cited to a column in National Review may as well be removed. Politrukki ( talk) 12:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Continual posting of unbiased articles from a party directly involved in a dispute with Robert Quigg. Only intent of reposting reference note 16 & 17 is to harm Robert Quigg's reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckaroo Jeff ( talk • contribs) 16:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

This article libelously describes Jordan Peterson as Alt-Right after he has repeatedly repudiated the movement and disavowed the label. It appears to be deliberately attached to his name in this article as a way to discredit him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.91.11 ( talk) 17:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

User Grayfell continues to insert unfound claims about Nagle copy-and-pasting and plagiarizing her book using anarchist blog Libcom.org as his only source. This source qualifies as extremist and low quality (the blog has no fact checkers and is full of all kinds of highly ideological, dubious accusations against people) under Wiki living biography guidelines. I have asked Grayfell to use a more reliable source for the Libcom claims of plagiarism but he refuses. The Daily Beast mentions the accusations but, contrary to what he claims, does not corroborate any copy and pasting/verbatim lifting/etc.

The only reliable source he uses is The Daily Beast, which merely accuses Nagle's book of 'Sloppy Sourcing'. There is a retraction of the original accusation of "copying content" in bold at the top of the article but user Grayfell refuses to engage with this fact.

These are very serious and potentially libelous accusations that require immediate investigation when promoted on the internet's encyclopedia.

FriendlyKor ( talk) 08:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)FriendlyKor

Minor cavil. Read WP:NLT and the fact that accusing editors of libeling others is fraught with peril. Nagle appears to have had a "demand letter" sent to The Daily Beast or the like, but the gist of the criticism rests on whether Nagle went beyond "close paraphrasing" or not, as neither source asserts lengthy plagiarism as much as non-attribution of sources. What the sources would support is a claim that Nagle failed to list all sources used, nor credit such sources for certain claims made by those sources. Pretty serious, alas. Collect ( talk) 12:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Can we have a different template for Robert Mandan?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The template does not directly say he is alive, but says the article is a BLP and falls under those rules. Since he is deceased, there is a pretty strong argument for removing the template entirely. However, BLP rules still apply to those who are recently deceased, so there may be a good argument for leaving it in place for the time being. (Difficult to say without delving into the edit history. See: WP:BDP) What I would suggest is opening a discussion on the article's talk page about whether or not it should be removed at this time. Zaereth ( talk) 21:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The person is "recently deceased" and there is no "deadline" for Wikipedia. Unless you create a "recently died but still covered by BLP - template", no reason to have a fit. Collect ( talk) 12:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anyone having a fit, just someone raising a reasonable concern. This template is awkward on this page for anyone reading "biography of a living person" in actual English rather than through Wikipedia editor lingo. Using the non-BLP template may be a better choice, barring a rewording or development of a new template. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 13:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Should all the addresses and contact info really be listed? Seems to me this is BLPVIO-- Kintetsubuffalo ( talk) 14:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

IPs have been repeatedly inserting statements into this BLP that she has died. The only sources offered have been Reddit and a former colleague's Facebook post. I can't find anything. I'm not 100% sure she's notable, but AfDing would be a nuclear option and especially sad if she has died, and I don't want to request semi-protection since there have also been good IP edits; and the IP editors adding the information may be the people best equipped to find an acceptable source. Help, please. Yngvadottir ( talk) 12:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Closest I found was this where a variant spelling was used for a relative (brother). Other than this - there is the reddit post and a change.org petition (on next season). Taking this to AfD - I don't see how this individual is notable. Icewhiz ( talk) 14:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

I have been trying to correct a page created on me by @Seraphim System, which has been (according to him) been vandalized continuously for months. But the vandalism is, oddly enough, the lesser problem. The article itself is seriously flawed, and with the vandalism added, it is in the demeaming-to-defamatory range. @Seraphim System has caught some issues, but has not been responsive for weeks and is obviously busy. A user named @SPINTENDO identified several factual or demeaning issues on the Talk: Alan Sabrosky page. And a volunteer editor named Lawrence Devereaux has been very responsive but apparently cannot do much.

I have tried to have the errors corrected and an accurate entry crated, but to no avail. Let me tell you what happened in the hope that we can reach an amicable resolution, and yes, I'd be willing to undertake an edit at your request for your review before it would be posted. I created an account and looking at the entry, found that an editor named "Seraphim System" had created the page and had been forced to deal with ongoing vandalism for months. A user named "SPINTENDO" had caught several factual errors and identified them. I tried to address SPINTENDO's errors but did NOT attempt to edit my entry myself, which would not be ethical. I did post an explanation of what had happened on my Facebook page and asked any Facebook friends who were interested to take a shot at correcting things. I did suggest that they do searches using "Alan Ned Sabrosky" rather than "Alan Sabrosky" (and mentioned the same thing in a message to Seraphim System and on the "Alan Sabrosky" Talk page), since without my middle name almost all of my academic and government work and publications are not visible, leading to the scarcity of sources noted by Seraphim System.

So after a week or so, I got an information copy from a Facebook friend of a major revision to the entry which he (with help of other Facebook friends) intended to use to replace the existing entry. I put it in the Talk section for information, and let the others proceed. They indicated it lasted a day or so before Seraphim System reverted it to the page he had originally created, factual errors and all, after which one of the usual vandals added his two shekels worth.

What do I mean by factual errors? The first sentence starts "Alan Sabrosky is a retired Marine officer and a former mid-level civilian employee ....", and there isn't a word of truth in it: I am not a retired Marine, I was never an officer nor claimed to be one (I was a sergeant), and I was a GM-15 (senior civilian) at the Army War College not a mid level civilian employee, as SPINTENDO pointed out. And so it went.

I am more than frustrated by all of this. I get enough flak for taking "politically incorrect" but factually accurate positions, and simply do not need this type of disinfo out there - particularly on Wikipedia. I was flattered to have an entry, but only if it is accurate. Seraphim System is at a minimum too busy to respond. If you can designate another editor to take over this issue, I will ask my Facebook friends to give it another shot, after which the page needs to be protected to avoid the endemic months-longvandalism to which even Seraphim System referred. If you cannot do that, then pull the page (for the second time) and block any attempt to re-insert something. I would prefer greatly the former, but I'd rather the latter than what is now there.

Many thanks, Alan Ned Sabrosky Docbrosk1941 ( talk) 19:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Alan Sabrosky

Not investigated the content . Govindaharihari ( talk) 20:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• I reverted to an earlier version to remove some uncited additions due to BLP concerns and have protected the article for the moment to encourage talk page discussion. MilborneOne ( talk) 20:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Article nominated for AfD as "No evidence subject qualifies under NAUTHOR or NACADEMIC." I can't edit the article to add that tag to the article, but Twinkle did the rest of it, I think. HouseOfChange ( talk) 14:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Subject passed on June 26, 2018. I have made edits with reference. Do I need permission to remove the BLP header? Thanks! BenBurch ( talk) 01:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

BLP still applies to people that are recently dead. ( WP:BDP) Natureium ( talk) 01:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll check back in a few months then. BenBurch ( talk) 01:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Long term subject of promotional, unsourced and BLP violation content. I've requested page protection, but consider that a temporary band-aid. What's necessary is further copy editing and watchlisting. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 03:24, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

I am bringing this issue to this board a bit preemptively and as a way of getting outside input. On the article on Koniuchy massacre, User:Icewhiz has made a quite ridiculous allegation [12] that there is a BLP violation in the article. There isn't. But there's no way he will listen to anything I say, hence, this posting.

The issue is that there was a massacre in the village of Koniuchy during WW2, perpetrated by Soviet partisans. The town was in interwar Poland, today it's in Lithuania. In the past 20 years, there have been two separate investigations into the massacre, a Polish one and a Lithuanian one. Icewhiz keeps on insisting that the two investigations were "the same investigation", which is completely false and something he just made up himself. Strangely enough, Icewhiz himself provided a source which says that these were two separate investigations [13] even as he kept insisting they were the same. That's Icewhiz for you. But nevermind, that's not the alleged BLP vio, it's background.

The Polish investigation was carried out by Institute of National Remembrance (IPN), an institution which is obliged to conduct a formal investigation whenever there is enough evidence that a possibility of a crime has occurred. Earlier this year, in February, the IPN closed down its investigation because it found that it was not able to establish "beyond a reasonable doubt" that any perpetrators of the massacre were still alive

Icewhiz believes that including this information in the article, that the IPN said that there were no known perpetrators of the massacre still alive (at least ones which it could be proven were involved) ... is the BLP vio. Seriously, that's his claim.

Note that this info - that it was closed down and why - is sourced. It is sourced to a secondary source , yet Icewhiz keeps insisting that this is a primary source [14]... or something like that. It's not clear. He says the original IPN report is primary, and if a secondary source uses a primary source then that makes that source primary too... or something like that. And that makes it a WP:BLPPRIMARY issue. Icewhiz continues to repeat this nonsense [15] even after it's been pointed out to him several times that this is not a BLP vio (his WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT is exactly why I'm bringing this here). This is all blatantly absurd (since all secondary sources use primary sources, that's what makes them SECONDary) but wait, it gets better.

Icewhiz believes that saying that this agency found that there are no known perpetrators of the massacre still alive is a BLP vio because.... some perpetrators of the massacre might actually be alive! So, I don't know, that's like an insult to them or something. I have asked him several times to actually name the individuals who this is suppose to be a BLP violation against [16] [17] [18], but each time he has refused to answer that very simple question and has deflected, and then just repeated the claim that it's a BLP vio. It's sort of driving me crazy - I don't see how one can have a constructive conversation with someone who does this stuff. Hence, this posting.

Oh wait! It gets even more confusing. Based on this comment it appears that Icewhiz thinks that the individuals who participated in the massacre, who are still alive, but who are getting BLP-violated because IPN says there are no such people, did not actually participate in the massacre. Yeah, it gives you a headache. IPN says "no individuals alive who participated in the massacre". That's a BLP vio because such individuals might still be alive. But if they're alive, then they're the ones who did not actually participate in the massacre and any such allegations are slander. But somehow the IPN statement is still wrong and including it still violates BLP. Even though Icewhiz says the same thing... ... yeah, I don't know what to do with that.

Honestly, all of this is just one big WP:GAME excuse for WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT removal of a source/information, and apparently Icewhiz couldn't come up with anything better. The strange thing is that IPN - which Icewhiz really really does not like - is basically clearing any individuals who are presently alive of being guilty of this massacre. Icewhiz likewise thinks there are no individuals alive who are guilty of anything. But having the info in the article that IPN found no one to charge with a crime - and effectively agrees with Icewhiz - throws a wrench in Icewhiz's attempts to portray IPN in the most negative light possible (which he's been attempting to do across several articles). How dare they agree with him??? The nerve. It's a BLP vio!

Note that the page is under discretionary sanctions. It was recently protected by User:TonyBallioni. Another admin, User:Ealdgyth, has also been active on the article doing gnomish work. Input appreciated. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 07:44, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

To be clear - I was referring to WP:BLPPRIMARY press releases from the IPN itself - [19] [20]. The IPN The IPN has been criticized for being "overtly nationalist content of its mission led to its over-politicization" [21], has been ordered by the government to popularize history as an element of patriotic education" and oppose so-called false allegations that "dishonor" the Polish nation" [22]. The IPN has also been promoting the fascist NSZ, and has promoted a music CD with skinhead nationalist bands in their honor. [23]. In this particular case, the IPN is acting under its role as a investigator / prosecutor of alleged communist crimes - the investigation itself was a criminal investigation against living people (some of whom were named over the years, and at least one of the people falsely connected to this over the years - is alive). The IPN's investigation received fairly little notice world wide, however the parallel Lithuanian one (already closed) - was seen as a contemptible farce by some Lithuanians and the outside world. [24]. My assertion of BLP is solely in regards to PRIMARY material from the IPN per BLPPRIMARY (this being akin to a press release from the police / DA). In as much as there is reliable coverage of IPN's claims in WP:IRS - it is a different matter - however the IPN should not be used directly. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:54, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

" To be clear - I was referring to WP:BLPPRIMARY press releases from the IPN itself" - well, that's strange because that press release says nothing about the investigation being closed down and there being no known perpetrators still alive. Probably because it's from 2012, while the investigation was closed down in 2018. So all this time you were complaining about a source which did not actually say what you claimed it said? So why were you complaining about it, and why were you pretending it said something which it didn't say? Do you withdraw the allegation that there is a BLP violation in the article?

(And thanks for illustrating the point that you're on a little crusade there against IPN, by cherry picking a source from the head of the Polish version of Antifa who's had a bone to pick with IPN for awhile now (the IPN actually did no such thing, but nm, that's a separate discussion. As always, Icewhiz is trying to hijack the thread with irrelevant stuff)) Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:02, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Rafal Pankowski is the director of the Polish Never Again anti-racism network and is quoted in RS,( Newsweek) as well being a habilitated dr. of sociology and a member of staff at Collegium Civitas, [25] the cited work was published by Routledge.

IPN Primary sources are being used in the current article (either by themselves or in conjunction with other sources) to support:

1. The Koniuchy (Kaniūkai) massacre was a massacre of Polish and Byelorussian carried out by a Soviet partisan unit along with a contingent of Jewish partisans [26] (one should note that per Foreign Policy Facts about the raid are heavily disputed, including whether the villagers were acting in concert with the Nazis. [27]).
2. The Soviet units surrounded the village and then attacked at five o'clock in the morning. The attack lasted between one and a half to two hours [28]
3. One of the groups was from the Kaunas Brigade of Lithuanian Headquarters of the Partisan Movement (subordinate to the South Branch of the Lithuanian Communist Party) while others were from the Vilnius Brigade. [29]

The use of a 2018 Do Rzeczy piece is also questionable to Polish censorship following recent legislation [30] (Criminal provisions are apparently going to be removed as of last week, however there were other “tools” it could use to “protect Poland’s good name”. in the bill. [31]) - however this is a more complex issue than the BLPPRIMARY situation above.

There is at least one current BLP (Arad) who has been mentioned in the course of this investigation (there have been other individuals who were BLPs at the time - not sure of present status). Any assertion about the details of the event is pertinent to a BLP. In general we should not be using WP:PRIMARY sources (all the more so when they are press releases by a much criticized government agency that has been investigative the event as a crime (in this case - the prosecutor's office in the IPN)) - WP:BLPPRIMARY outright forbids it when BLPs are involved. Icewhiz ( talk) 10:05, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

You're trying to deflect. The question of reliability of IPN is for WP:RSN (which you have refused to consider). Here we are concerned with your strange claims that there is a BLP violation in the article. Your strange claim that the BLP violation is present because we have the text which says that the closed IPN investigation found no one alive responsible for the massacre. You claimed the BLP vio was present because IPN was a primary source. But we weren't using IPN as a primary source. And here is the basic question which you have repeatedly evaded answering: who is the BLP vio against? Is it Arad? Well, the IPN never said anything about Arad nor investigated him (please stop falsely insinuating otherwise). YOU are the one who added info about him to the article. So why are you complaining?

Please explain how the statement that "the investigation found there is no one alive who was responsible for the massacre" is supposedly a BLP violation. Don't talk about other stuff (reliability of IPN, NSZ, some legislation or some other lame attempts at deflection). Just explain that simple thing. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 14:53, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Arad was in the article in Aug 2017 and in March 2009 - before I edited the article. As for the BLP issue - I listed 3 instances above in which a primary IPN press-release is being used to make an assertion in Wikipedia's voice about the details of the IPN's criminal case which involved BLP/BDPs (Arad is known to be alive. AFAICT Fania Brantsovsky and Sara Ginaite are still alive. As for the more than 100 members of the units alleged to have been involved - WP:BDP applies as they were born after 1903). Use of a such a press-release is shockingly poor in terms of WP:RS, however using such a police-like primary document is a WP:BLPPRIMARY issue as well. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

"I listed 3 instances above.." - your original argument was that the BLP violation occurred because we had text which said that the investigation found that "no perpetrators of the massacre were alive" (beyond reasonable doubt), and you thought that some of these people were still alive, but that they also didn't commit the massacre (yes, that doesn't make any sense, but that was what you were arguing). Now that I've brought this to the attention of BLPN, you're making up OTHER supposed BLP issues to distract from the fact you were making stuff up. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:33, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

My original argument - diff 23 June, diff 28 June was in regards to the replacement of secondary academic RSes with primary sources (IPN included), as was done in this diff. We should be covering this "investigation" (or farce - per [32]) as it is covered in reliable secondary sources - and not by coverage in press releases by an investigating agency. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:04, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

No, that is completely false. Your diff from June 23 makes no BLP vio allegations. Stop making stuff up. Your diff from June 28 does make a BLP vio allegation but failed to explained WHY it was a BLP violation. When I asked you to explain you started up with this "IPN is a primary source" nonsense, even though the IPN says NOTHING about Arad. Stop making stuff up. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 20:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Wrong diff - 23 June. The IPN is a primary source. A press release is generally not an acceptable source - all the more so in an investigation of an affair that involves BLPs (at least on the Lithuanian side) which we name in our article. Icewhiz ( talk) 20:19, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

No, this has nothing to do with IPN which does not mention Arad. Your old allegation was as hopelessly incoherent as your new allegations. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 06:12, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: Icewhiz were making similar weird BLP allegations in the DYK nomination page related to Israel-Palestine and hence I can understand what Volunteer Marek says. Did he really say that "if a secondary source uses a primary source then that makes that source primary too"? That IPN is criticized for its nationalist content does not make it unreliable (see WP:BIASED). -- Mhhossein ^talk 11:16, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Explicitly, he said something like that on a different, somewhat related article [33] ("That this is quoted via a secondary source does not make the information itself less primary") at roughly the same time. On this particular article, after he was called out on incorrectly invoking BLP, he switched to referring to the alleged problem as a, ahem, "BLPPRIMARY situation" [34] [35]. You know, it's not actually a primary source but a secondary source using a primary source so he's going to refer to it euphemistically as a "BLPPRIMARY situation" to keep pretending that there is an issue here. Icewhiz has a serious problem backing off when he's clearly incorrect and dropping the stick. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 15:11, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

• I cannot see how it is a BLP violation to say, with inline attribution, what IPN claims. If they are mistaken and missed one or two people that are still alive, we're not saying it as fact, but what IPN reported. Only issue I would have is making sure that the IPN report itself was considered sufficiently "authoritative" by sources, even if there's issues with bias on IPN. -- Masem ( t) 15:26, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  @ Masem: - current use is unattributed - The Koniuchy (Kaniūkai) massacre was a massacre of Polish and Byelorussian carried out by a Soviet partisan unit along with a contingent of Jewish partisans [36] (one should note that per Foreign Policy Facts about the raid are heavily disputed, including whether the villagers were acting in concert with the Nazis. [37]) .... The Soviet units surrounded the village and then attacked at five o'clock in the morning. The attack lasted between one and a half to two hours [38] ... One of the groups was from the Kaunas Brigade of Lithuanian Headquarters of the Partisan Movement (subordinate to the South Branch of the Lithuanian Communist Party) while others were from the Vilnius Brigade. [39]. >=3 of people named during the course of this much maligned "investigation" are alive (or to be precise - Arad is, two of the women named do have recentish coverage (e.g. 2016) and no indication online that they are dead). Icewhiz ( talk) 15:42, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

  The logic here is still odd. As I read this, is it the case that IPN is aware Arad is alive, but concluded that they were not involved (even if that's a biased statement due to IPN's princples)? Or is it just the case that IPN never knew about Arad, or, separately, couldn't determine if they were alive or not? Either way, I'm not seeing a BLP violation here. The worst case I see from what I read here is that this might be IPN clearing Arad and the two women of any involvement, which is no way a BLP violation; if other sources contest that finding by the IPN, then that can be included to summarize what those sources say. -- Masem ( t) 15:55, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not just strange, it's downright nonsensical. IPN never wrote ANYTHING about Arad. Or investigated Arad. IPN just said "there is no evidence that anyone who participated in the massacre is still alive". Icewhiz added (or at least expanded and edit warred to include) the info about Arad, which is unrelated to IPN, then claimed that because we are discussing the unrelated IPN findings in the same article that made it a BLP vio (presumably against Arad, though this is the first time he's been explicit about who he thought the BLP vio was against). NONE of this makes any sense. It's just some stuff Icewhiz made up to justify his reverts. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 19:37, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

A user keeps adding names of various political figures here, based on his own interpretation of sources (none of which actually mentions the term). I've reverted several times, warned the user and wold like to request a second opinion for WP:BLP-violations and WP:OR. Thanks. Kleuske ( talk) 16:47, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Presented without any relevant sourcing, the naming of prominent politicians in Muslim countries as Munafiqun is certainly a WP:BLP violation, in my opinion. I'll watchlist the page. Neiltonks ( talk) 08:08, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh joy, an article sourced to CreateSpace, the Qur'an and a random website. Guy ( Help!) 16:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

This wiki and likely the other HI01 Congressional candidate pages needs protection. Newly created user "Progresshawaii" added 4500 characters of negative/contentious content to the top of the wiki. Same user appears to have added negative content to the Donna Kim entry as well. Rolled back both, but perhaps you could temp freeze HI01 candidate wiki pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.8.255.108 ( talk) 20:32, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, you seem to be doing just fine on Kaniela Ing so far, but I would encourage others here to watchlist that article and Donna Mercado Kim. Such badly WP:COPYPASTE and perhaps WP:COATRACK material cannot stay. However, well-sourced and due weight material -- even if negative -- about notable people is something that will, eventually, stay on Wikipedia, so you can save yourself some time by not bothering to keep removing that sort of thing. The help of neutral editors on these two articles would be appreciated -- I think they are American politicians or something. MPS1992 ( talk) 23:24, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

One or more editors using new-style IPs beginning with 2601 have been doubting the veracity of a statement by the article subject and have been adding WP:CLAIM disclaimers and most recently blanking the section, in addition to posting to the talk page. Drmies previously reverted the disclaimers and responded on the talk page. I have now reverted the blanking and stated that I would bring it here for more eyes on the matter. Yngvadottir ( talk) 22:51, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

• I believe that the "disclaimers" added by the IP basically say "we don't believe you"; this is not acceptable. I am considering either semi-protecting the article or placing a rangeblock, invoking the BLP. Yngvadottir, thank you for your diligence. Drmies ( talk) 01:10, 4 July 2018 (UTC)
• I am very tempted to block 2601:447:4101:41f9:8c7:9dfb:72cc:2f6f/65, certainly after another BLP violation on the talk page; for now I am going to semi-protect. These disgusting suggestions/accusations have been going on for long enough. Drmies ( talk) 01:14, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

I am bringing this here on the advice of Voceditenore, and mainly incase I am off-wiki for some days or the subject does something new that I might not have access to. There are three issues here, 1. Caroline Danjuma wants to change her date of birth without providing a reliable source or sending a confidential birth certificate to Wikipedia that was issued in the 80s or 90s. 2. She also wants to change her Wikipedia name to something that violates WP:COMMONNAME. 3. Failure to achive (1) and (2) has led her to get disgruntled and lay false accusations on me. I thought she had understood how Wikipedia works after a discussion with her representative on the talkpage until when I saw this publication, where she libelously laid accusations on me. Going forward, I want to make the following assertions and propositions:

• I have never at any time communicated with Caroline Danjuma, or anyone that claims to be her representative, either through mail or in person outside my WP talkpage or the article tp. Infact I haven't spoken to anyone at all concerning the article outside en-Wikipedia.
• From the discussion on her tp, and the manner so many experienced editors became involved in the discussion, it suggest to me that she has been in conversation with some Wikipedia representatives, I don't know how this works, but I want to suggest she is made to understand that paid editing is not allowed here, and encouraged to forward any evidence that will assisst in fishing out the Wikipedian that requested for it, although my guts tells me she made that up. Finally, those Wikipedia representatives that responded to the request of her supposed rep privately should also make her understand that Wikipedia works with reliable sources, and does not make up information. She is fighting the wrong battle, instead of calling out Pulse, Eagle and other respected news platforms that published correct info on her, she is calling out WP.
• Finally, I think she has deleted her IG account so you would not have access to the original post. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 19:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• Took me a while, but finally found her official IG account, although she changed her username, deleted the post about paid editing, then added a disclaimer to her bio that reads "...I DO NOT own a Wikipedia Page" (per WP:OWN people need to understand that nobody owns a Wikipedia page). If you're as curious as me her handle is @st_lilybeth. I don't think disclosing her IG handle is a violation of WP:OUTING, since she's a public figure and the account isn't private. If I'm wrong please delete this edit. HandsomeBoy ( talk) 17:15, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

Continuing a discussion at Wikipedia:Reference_desk/Humanities#People_born_in_countries_foreign_to_their_heritage (who sent me here)

Venegas' parents are Mexican, she is probably the most famous living person from Tijuana. But she was born in California, so her article has said at various times "Mexican", "Mexican American", "American-born Mexican" and probably others.

They all seem accurate. I'm not that bothered which one is used, unless there is a definitive rule for this situation. I'm trying to avoid further edits.

Fuddle ( talk) 19:55, 4 July 2018 (UTC)

There is a flag on the top of Jeffrey Eggers page citing This biography of a living person needs additional citations for verification. The page looks fine to me, how do I remove this warning or what needs to be added to improve it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by PennyLS61917 ( talk • contribs) 20:29, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

I have to say, after reading some of the interviews with this guy, I really like him. Most of his ideas on "our culture of fear" are right in line with my thoughts.

That said, out of nine sources, six are corporate websites (two of which repeat, leaving four, of which three he's affiliated with). The Whitehouse source is a good one, and so is the source from Harvard, but all of these are primary sources. The one source that is a legitimate newspaper and a secondary source is not really about him, but only mentions him as the keynote speaker of the event (just two sentences at the end), and doesn't even say what our article attributes it as saying. So, no, the sourcing definitely needs improvement. What we need are secondary sources, such as books, book reviews (if he's authored any), magazines, legitimate news outlets, reliable websites, etc... I hope that helps. Zaereth ( talk) 00:09, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd like more eyes from editors who are knowledgeable about BLPs on this article, please. GrecoArm is edit-warring, and ignoring Talk page discussion on the topic, to keep in a DOB figure that is at best a WP:SYNTH, and is almost certainly contrary to WP:BLPPRIVACY to boot, as Spiridakos‎ has very carefully avoided any coverage of her age in WP:RS's and presumably does not want this kind of info publicly covered (as per BLPPRIVACY). Thanks. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 21:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Ping Ad Orientem to this, as they've looked at this article before, and I respect their opinion... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 00:03, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi GrecoArm. You need a WP:RS source for this claim. Twitter is not RS. Even assuming that the person behind the tweet is who they claim to be (likely but not an absolute given) famous people have been known to make false statements on twitter before. (Do I need to mention any examples?). Please don't re-add a DOB w/o citing a reliable secondary source. Thanks. - Ad Orientem ( talk) 01:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Can I get some more eyes on this article? I've just blocked Ringerfan23 and Jdweisner84 for an insane edit-war on this article over the infobox photo. The photo that Jdwesiner84 wants has been apparently requested by the article subject here, but doesn't have an appropriate free license so is (understandably) up for deletion. I personally think the new image is better than the old one which looks rather "unfortunate", so is it simply a matter of getting the right approval for OTRS? Either way, these two shouldn't be reverting that much, it's not a clear open and shut case of disruption in my view. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 10:36, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

It would need to be freely released via OTRS. History on WP indicates that is unlikely to happen as the subjects do not always own the copyright to photos of themselves, and when they do, are not always amenable to releasing it free and clear. Otherwise as a living person any freely available photo takes precedence. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:40, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

You also probably need to unblock Ringerfan23. WP:3RRNO - removal of clear copyright violations is exempt from 3rr and not edit-warring by definition. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 10:47, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure it meets the definition of "clear", given only WP:COMPETENCE appears to be stopping the new image from having an appropriate license and people are trying (and failing) to do the right thing. I will unblock Ringerfan23 if he promises not to revert again now other eyes are looking at this (I simply indiscriminately blocked everybody first to stop the disruption then came here). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:02, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Its clear to anyone who works with NFCC. Photo lacks valid release. Clearly scraped from instagram. Even should the subject wish it as her photo, as it has an indentifiable photographer (who isnt her) she couldnt give permission anyway. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 11:06, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Indeed it is, but when the subject of a BLP dispatches a lynch mob via their twitter feed, it's difficult to keep control of the situation. Copyright policies and NFCC are one of the most misunderstood concepts for non-regulars. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:30, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Is it OK to add the following text to Jim Jordan's page [40]?:

Jordan was an assistant wrestling coach with the Ohio State University's wrestling program from 1986 to 1994. In July 2018, former wrestlers that Jordan coached at the Ohio State University accused Jordan of failing to stop a team doctor from sexually assaulting them and other students. The former wrestlers said that it would have been impossible for Jordan to be unaware and one wrestler said that he told Jordan about the sexual assaults at the time. Jordan rejected the accusations that he had knowledge of the alleged sexual assaults.

The text is sourced to NBC News [41] and USA Today [42], but there are a lot more RS available. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 21:43, 5 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, BLPCRIME doesn't really apply since he is a public figure. (However, combined with the timing of this it smells a lot like political S-slinging.) Two things strike me as off balance or incomplete. The first is "former wrestlers". This should be quantified. Is it all of his former wrestlers, or a selected few? (From the sources I count three). The second is that its impossible to say with 100% certainty what someone else "knows", because that requires not only being able to prove what the person saw or heard but also how they perceived and comprehended it. In my opinion, what would be far better is to show us the facts that lead to these allegations rather than relying on a witness' theory of mind. Zaereth ( talk) 00:42, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

There were reports of a fourth wrestler today [43]. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 00:56, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Ok, but as Hullaballoo, says below, I think the wording should be a little more precise (yet concise). Zaereth ( talk) 01:00, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I don't mind changing the wording. It's more about whether the topic can be broached at all. Also, a fifth OSU wrestler, Mark Coleman (a huge UFC name), has stated that Jordan knew. [44] Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 02:50, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I believe the phrasing needs to be more precise, possibly even quoting key language from the sources. However, this is an extremely high profile matter concerning a high-ranking political figure, and should not be excessively downplayed. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. ( talk) 00:49, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

I'd argue just a "wait and see", for about a week, per NOT#NEWS. It is high profile, if it accusations affect his position or the like, they definitely should stay, but at the moment, it is unproven accusations that hasn't had yet any immediate impact on his career. We should wait and see a few days to see how it plays out and to know how much significance to give to it. -- Masem ( t) 21:55, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

• Leaning towards include: The categorical denials are now: " Locker Room Conversations Different From Reported Abuse", per Fox interview he gave. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Val Shawcross (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The biographical site about me - Val Shawcross is now out of date. I retired from the role of Deputy Mayor for Transport at age 60 in June 2018. I have however been appointed as a member (Non Executive) of Transport for London Board and curently hold this position.

heidi Alexander took over the role of Deputy mMyor for Transport in London in June 2018.

The article also refer to me inaccurately as being a member of the Assembly Budget committee - I relinquished this when I stood down from the London Assembly in May 2016.

As I retired I no longer maintain a Website or Facebook page. I'd be grateful if these points could be corrected.

I am still contactable via Linked In and Twitter

Thanks

Val Shawcross. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.198.77.229 ( talk) 09:55, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

This all looks correct and easy to change. I'll make a start. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 10:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

All done, except that I have used 21 May 2018 as the retirement date for consistency with the Heidi Alexander page. This probably needs checking. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 11:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Boots_Riley includes a lengthy op-ed accusing Riley of instigating violence, written as if the author was talking directly to Riley. It serves no purpose and isn't in reference to anything in the article. Weirdly, it's been left there for six years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.15.59.197 ( talk) 07:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

I have removed the personal commentary from the talkk page. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Abecedare ( talk) 00:50, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The Dominic Raab page is being repeatedly vandalised and should be protected until further notice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nt1192 ( talk • contribs) 09:52, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

@ Nt1192: Already semi-protected by User:Alexf. For future reference, reporting protection requests at WP:RFPP may get a quicker response. Thanks for keeping an eye on the page. Abecedare ( talk) 00:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Craig Becker (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This concerns the photograph of Craig Becker that popped up on a sidebar with attribution to Wikipedia when I did a search on his name. The photo is not Craig Becker, as you will see if you go to the AFL-CIO website. The photo is not included in the actual Wikipedia article about Craig Becker. It needs to be deleted or replaced on the sidebar thumbnail sketch of him.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.27.50.128 ( talk • contribs) 21:36, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi IP user. As you mentioned, the Wikipedia article does not currently include a photo of Becker on the wikipedia page, Craig Becker. You may be referring to the image that appears on the side bar of Google when searched for him there. If that's the case, that is something that would need to be addressed with Google, as Wikipedia has no control over images that aren't sourced here. -- HunterM267  ^talk 21:40, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

FWIW, the photo that shows up when I google Craig Becker is in fact Craig Becker. And I know what Craig Becker looks like. - Nunh-huh 00:27, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The funny thing about Google is that is doesn't always give the same results for everybody, but instead tries to refine its results based upon your individual search history. Go to Google images and you can see lots and lots of "Craig Becker"s (some of them apparently even women) and the correct or most popular photo doesn't always show up first. (Try as it may, Google is not a mind reader and couldn't possibly tell if you're looking for Becker the attorney or the guy on facebook you might have went to elementary school with. In my opinion, a lot of these "helpful" features only end up hampering the search for what I'm really looking for.) The thing is, if Wikipedia doesn't have an image, Google simply puts up whatever image it "thinks" is best, but that is completely out of our control. Zaereth ( talk) 00:49, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, that's why I included "FWIW". There's no way to know what photo the original questioner sees on google; I'm just saying it's not always wrong.- Nunh-huh 01:51, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I stumbled across this article while patrolling recent changes and am very surprised this hasn't been fixed. This BLP article is a complete advertisement for the singer and will need a fine tooth comb through to remove promotional content like this while still keeping the article intact. Will probably need the help of someone who is more familiar with this BLP or Indian music and culture to help add non-promotional content and references. HickoryOughtShirt?4 ( talk) 06:06, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Page still needs some work and additional reliable sources but most of the promotional language has been removed. Meatsgains^{( talk)} 02:09, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I have edited this particular section to include facts that were documented in a televised special. However, I notice my source is removed and someone appears to be in an editing war with me on the subject of Kidada being called Tupac's fiancee. I included a clip from BET Networks Death Row Chronicles that aired February 23, 2018. In the clip, Kidada refers to Tupac Shakur as her boyfriend. The other sources used in the marriage and family section are not her words. I would like this dispute resolved promptly.

Source: Kurupt, Kevin Powell Relive Hearing Tupac Might Die | Death Row Chronicles [[ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2qADD7VpXk]]-- Facts Only ( talk) 16:01, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Kidada is a primary source. We prefer secondary sources, and almost every single one over the years (including where talking directly to Kidada) states she was engaged to Tupac at the time of his death. So 'fiance' is correct. That she in a TV documentary refers to him as her boyfriend does not invalidate that. You dont magically start calling them your fiance all the time once you get engaged. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 16:15, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

moved from the talk page on behalf of @ FreedomtoAssociate:, and page link fixed. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 21:23, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

The 2011 Christchurch earthquake had a devastating impact on Harmon and Carolyn Wilfred's finances. ^[1]

Harmon Wilfred (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is the First Appellant in this Judgement of the Appeals Court of New Zealand (CA184/2013 [2013] NZCA 457) is Harmon Wilfred as he attempted to regain control of the surviving assets of LaFamia after the Christchurch Earthquake. The appeal was dismissed by judgement of the court on 4 October 2013. The court reported several facts. [Source redacted]

The effect of the the three earthquakes in and around Christchurch has been omitted as content in the Harmon Wilfred article, especially his financial difficulties. An earthquake in nearby Canterbury (4 Sept. 2010) causes a public announcement by Harmon's recently acquired (financially distressed) Floyds Creative Arts, "It’s business as usual... committed to ensuring the creative space and its services will continue... providing arts activities to people with limited access opportunities for more than 35 years." The next earthquake on 22 Feb. 2011 is catastrophic to the population and infrastructure of Christchurch. ^[2] The city dropped from second to third most populace of New Zealand. ^[3] LaFamia's building on Fitzgerald collapses. ^[4] This is a major financial event to a struggling charity beset with labor troubles. The timing could not have been worse for Harmon and Carolyn. A third earthquake causes more damage to the already paralyzed city and infrastructure.

The Appellate Court facts demonstrate that the financial impact was felt soon after the earthquakes. Also, sympathy for the plight of the plaintiff's was mentioned when it ruled against them.

The Biography is missing an important fact about the financial problems that caused the bankruptcy. He took over a failing, long-respected charity to fully restore it to prominence and provide a needed service for the people of Christchurch, New Zealand. The devastating earthquakes effectively ended any possibility of the Harmon's success when the building on Fitzgerald collapsed. I am asking for a wiki-editor to resolve this critical omission of fact!

Also, what is an acceptable source for personal information such as date of birth and military service. FreedomtoAssociate ( talk) 21:19, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I removed the court documents because those are a clear violation of BLP. Please see WP:BLPPRIMARY. The subject's own website is not really a reliable source for such information where there may or may not be a personal stake or bias in the situation. (Besides, it doesn't say anything about earthquakes.) Wikipedia is also not a reliable source, and we most certainly cannot use stock images of the quake for anything. We most certainly know and believe the quakes occurred, so that in itself is easily verified. We need sources that specifically say the information you're telling us. What we need are secondary sources, like news articles, magazines, books, etc... We need far less of the primary sources, and most certainly not court or other official government documents which may contain personal and private information.

I looked through the article and see a lot of newspaper coverage, but absolutely nothing from those papers about financial losses due to the earthquakes. (Perhaps I didn't look closely enough, for I didn't go through all of them. But from reading the news it appears most of the monetary losses were due to failed business ventures. I see nothing about the cause of those failures. Although it is likely the quakes were a contributing factor (as they were to everyone else in the area) we can't speculate nor synthesize that information from a bunch of "connect-the-dot" sources; we need ones that specifically say it. So far, I haven't seen any that go into detail other than they failed.) Plus there is a lot of information from those sources which seems to have been conveniently omitted. For example, our article says David Carter praised him and wrote letters championing his citizenship, but conveniently omits the part where the subject was a large campaign donor of Carter's. I think it may be worth looking a little more closely into this article to see if it is balanced with the sources, if anyone has the time to dig deeper into it. Zaereth ( talk) 22:42, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

Bit of an odd one this. Ochs-Sulzberger_family is basically a family tree. Some notable people, many not. Quite a lot of dead people, but also it includes the names of many living people. I'm about to go through and remove anyone not notable who is still living or presumed to be living who doesnt have an article, or is directly the spouse of someone with an article. WP:BLPNAME appears to apply here. Any further thoughts welcome. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 23:11, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

I have posted here on a number of sections of this article which could do with some attention. If anyone has some time to look at some of them that would be a great help. Thank you. Tarafa15 ( talk) 13:59, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Would folks please check the discussion here - has to do with arrest record for case that appears to have been expunged.. Really not sure what we should do with this. Would folks please comment there? Thx Jytdog ( talk) 03:29, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

added a proposal Talk:Eugene_Gu#Proposal_re_marriage... Jytdog ( talk) 14:42, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Is this category notable? It's been added to a number of actors, but is Sandra Seacat influential enough to have a category devoted exclusively to her students? -- Ebyabe ( talk) 05:38, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

I have nominated the category for deletion with the rationale "Not a defining characteristic per WP:CATDEF of any of the actors added to the category (all by the same editor who created it); seemingly intended merely to promote Sandra Seacat." Please comment at the CfD discussion if so inclined. General Ization ^Talk 15:47, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Another potential child prodigy whose article is bathed in tags contesting the accuracy of the claims made. Now at AFD. Mangoe ( talk) 17:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

...and now deleted by consensus. 96.242.88.25 ( talk)

There have been two reverts over changing the initial text to the second one. This sentence is a key part of the lead text.

1. ... he resigned over a week later after many of his offensive Twitter comments were uncovered.
2. ... he resigned over a week later after past Twitter comments were publicised which some took offence to.

I am raising at this noticeboard because the Toby Young article has been controversial, not least of which was that it featured in the press as being manipulated by Young themselves. In my view the first text is preferable as using a "sky is blue" rationale, the tweets are seen to be offensive by the vast majority of people that read them. The tweets are described as offensive in a quote from Sir Michael Barber in the newspaper source, and by the Guardian journalist. I would think that virtually anyone that reads the reprinted comments such as "Actually mate, I had my dick up her arse", or similar (ref businessinsider), would agree. Reducing the description to "some took offence", appears to be introducing an avoidable bias of being unnecessarily mild in describing their offensive nature.

The alternative may be to include more direct quotes of the most extreme misogynist or homophobic tweets, or to include one in the lead of the article itself, so that readers are in no doubt as to whether they are blatantly offensive or not.

@ Cleisthenes2: as involved party.

Thanks -- Fæ ( talk) 19:58, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

• I've changed the wording so that it directly quotes the reference ("after homophobic and misogynistic Twitter comments were uncovered"). This should solve the problem. Black Kite (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Happy with the quote, but "uncovered" seems wrong given that these tweets were always public. Perhaps "pubicised" or "widely reported"? Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 20:49, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Not really. He deleted large amounts of them. They were public, then hidden/deleted. Then subsequently resurrected (and further ones that had little traction at the time of posting, brought up later). It is also fairly standard wording for situations where someone has a social media history that isnt hidden, but is subsequently raised in media. 'Uncovered' being a useful shorthand for 'brought to wider general awareness'. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 21:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Not a public figure. Don't have enough press and also not a notable — Preceding unsigned comment added by Badassentrepreneur ( talk • contribs) 19:40, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

If you believe the subject does not meet the notability guideline for people, then you can prod the article or take it to AfD. - Donald Albury 21:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Can anyone please review and comment at Talk:Fiona_Bruce#Unilever? It isn't really a legal issue but people are editing the article and ignoring its talk page. - Sitush ( talk)

Doesn't look like any one has messed with it since this edit in May. -- GRuban ( talk) 14:01, 12 July 2018 (UTC)

Hi, I have created an RfC to tighten sourcing on article Glenn Greenwald and in that RfC I mentioned users Snooganssnoogans ( talk · contribs) and SPECIFICO ( talk · contribs). A link to the RfC can be found here. Talk:Glenn_Greenwald#RfC to tighten sourcing on Glenn Greenwald. I will ping another uninvolved editor @ Jytdog: in hopes to see if I have done this correctly and ask for assistance in the event that I have not. Thanks! Jtbobwaysf ( talk) 12:35, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Love Jihad (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) With this edit [45] an editor has added a link to an article [46] which mentions the name of the accused and the victim. The incident took place 3 days ago. The second link doesn't mention names, and not surprisingly with edits on this article, neither mentions Love Jihad specifically. But my concern here is the BLP issue. I don't like naming names in a 3 day old investigation where none of the people involved have any notability, even if the names are only in the link. Thanks. Doug Weller talk 18:22, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Should the lead include a sentence about Trump's racial stance?. - Mr X 🖋 18:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

The photo link to the page is not the Michael Thomas written about in the article.See the Grove Atlantic website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.76.104.237 ( talk) 02:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia has articles on three: Michael Thomas (author), American novelist; Mike Thomas (author) (born 1971), British novelist; Michael M. Thomas (born 1936), American novelist of financial thrillers. None have pictures of the person. Rmhermen ( talk) 04:13, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I suspect this is a Wikipedia:You can't fix Google through Wikipedia situation. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 04:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Three out of six books Herve Jaubert wrote are clearly islamophobic - which is just a restatement of some of the titles. I mentioned this and this change was reverted under a claim of neutral viewpoint "All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors." None of the quoted text nor any other statements in wikipedia neutral viewpoint are in any sense related to the revert of my edits. Therefore I strongly disagree with this assessment carried out by the user GorillaWarfare. I would like somebody with higher authority to reassess this case.

Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:E914:6C00:D1E7:9CB9:DC3C:4B03 ( talk) 23:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

To make things easier for those of you weighing in on this point, these are the edits in question to Hervé Jaubert and our discussion about them is at User talk:GorillaWarfare#Herve Jaubert. GorillaWarfare (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

To make the discussion even easier these are the book titles in question

2015: Comment contredire un Musulman (French Edition) " (ISBN 978-1507506561)

2016: " Misere sexuelle des musulmans et violence (French Edition) " (ISBN 978-1540654960)

2016: " How to bust a Muslim in 20 questions: Islampology"

Especially one should note word choices such as "bust", "Islampology" and that Muslims are directly dirogatorily called violent in the second french title. There is no interpretation here! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:e914:6c00:d1e7:9cb9:dc3c:4b03 ( talk) 23:37, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

None of which addresses the key point: you will need a reliable seondary source to make that claim. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 07:16, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Though to be frank the whole article is pretty terrible, with usourced and poorly sourced material. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 07:22, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I have made a start but it's going to take a while. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 07:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Newly created biography about a non notable local pol who is the subject of a publicized scandal. I've tagged this for speedy deletion per notability, but also have concerns about WP:BLP violations, and WP:NOTNEWS. No indication of lasting significance beyond this weeks' tabloid headlines. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 16:32, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Non-notable person, attack page, agree that PROD is solution. HouseOfChange ( talk) 16:46, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Speedy template has been removed, so I've prodded it. An AfD would be well in order. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 ( talk) 12:32, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I have been pondering about this lately. I understand that for WP:BLP one should be especially careful about including compromising material. News recently reported trials concerning people like Swami Nithyananda and Adnan Oktar. Since they are well known, WP:WELLKNOWN appears to cover these rather than WP:BLPCRIME. While I find plausible that these "gurus" were frauds, the cases are politicized and in countries with a history of media freedom/control and human rights issues. I understand that this is somewhat complicated, but should particular care be taken to select sources which report about those, i.e. should sources from the country's newspapers be considered suspect, favoring third party (tertiary) coverage that may include criticism in relation to human rights? Should editors search/query WP:RSN (or maintain/consult a list) for individual papers instead, assuming that some local/national papers are still considered reliable? Or is it something that is assumed to be out of the control of Wikipedia/editors by default, as long as several papers mention it? Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 12:23, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I can see the argument that accusations made about persons who are well-recognized to be critical of their government, with the accusations from a state-run paper, that independence is not really there, and appropriate caution should be made, and agree that third-party sourcing should be preferred to avoid the dependency; the fact that third-party sources (ideally outside that country) pick it up demonstrate the relative importance of those accusations. -- Masem ( t) 17:45, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Swami Nithyananda has multiple, ongoing, unresolved disputes and issues:

• There are multiple legal cases both against and filed by the subject
• The article mostly dwells on these.
• Much of the Indian press are notoriously unreliable (i.e., amount to primary sources)
• Indian court documents are difficult to find and interpret (and are also primary sources)
• The page is inundated by waves of both followers and haters of the subject, pushing contrary points of view with little apparent regard for facts much less reliable sourcing.
• There are apparently sourceable claims to notability that are not scandal-related, including world records (though some may pertain to his organization(s) rather than to him personally).
• Etc. It's a trainwreck, basically.

The page has few watchers, and none of them (who are neutral-minded) appear to be in a great position to improve the article (don't read Hindi, don't live in India, don't know which Indian newspapers are the best/worst, don't know the Indian legal system and how to extract case documentation out of it, don't know much about the subject's doctrines and life – that stuff that the article should focus more on [absent his follower's claims of his divinity and miracles, at least in WP's own voice] instead of scandal mongering – or his organizations, various claims of world records, etc. The page has been long-term semiprotected, but at least one disruptive follower with an account has been indeffed, and if another attacker shows up their need to receive the same boot.
 —  SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  14:23, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I've read through the cleanup pages and it is very confusing, so need help with johannes girardoni at /info/en/?search=Johannes_Girardoni -tagged as "This article may have been created or edited in return for undisclosed payments, a violation of Wikipedia's terms of use." This was not edited for pay and not even sure who wrote it originally so cannot disclose who the editor was. Any help about what to do would be so appreciated! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2000:F20B:C00:B1F5:BFAA:BD35:B8D1 ( talk) 16:15, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

You can look in the article history ("history" link at the top of the page) and see that the article was created by User:Jeremy112233. This user seems to have a very colorful record, as you can see at Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Jeremy112233/Archive. In the article history you can also see (by comparing revisions) that the person who placed the notice on the article was User:JJMC89 in September 2017. JJMC89 seems active, so if you want, you may go to User talk:JJMC89 and ask them directly for more details, if Jeremy112233's sockpuppet investigation doesn't suffice - it does mention multiple editing for pay episodes. -- GRuban ( talk) 17:49, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello, a lot of knicks fans have been going onto Mitchell Robinson's page and changing things like his birthdate, birth city, and name. Could you please put a little bit of protection on the page so fans stop spamming it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheech60 ( talk • contribs) 03:10, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

 Done Semi-protected for a week by User:Audacity; thank you. -- GRuban ( talk) 17:52, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

There is confusion among otherwise reliable sources about what happened on Skylab 4, especially on December 28, 1973. There is the assertion (in LA Times and others) that astronauts took the day off and ignored their radios for the entire day, but then there are the contemporary reports of a conversation with an astronomer that day, and the various primary and some secondary sources that ought to mention that if it happened but remain mum on the topic, plus an Atlas Obscura article detailing that it didn't happen. Astronauts have given various interviews in which the "mutiny" or "strike" is either not mentioned, outright denied, or explained as a single orbit when the astronauts failed to attend to the radio. The living astronauts have complained (though not directly to me, or, so far as I know, anyone at Wikipedia) about our error. See Talk:Skylab mutiny#Debunked. -- ke4roh ( talk) 02:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure which astronaut you're talking about, but two of the three on the mission do openly talk or write about the event having happened. ^{[1] [2]} I don't get why you don't get this - we're not supposed to be factfinders, finding the truth or anything. Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth. We report what the majority sources say and some major dissenting views. Which we pretty much do already in the article. Not much more can happen now... ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:17, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I also had found The New Yorker article to be the most compelling piece of evidence from a neutral party, and written merely three years after the event itself. As well, I'm very familiar with the works of Henry S.F. Cooper, who honestly deserves a Wikipedia article of his own and who is a highly respected writer and historian (look him up). In addition, the New Yorker is well respected for its rigorous fact-checking and editing, as is cited on the lede of the article on the publication (I can't say the same for Reddit, AO, Hitt, or his publisher). I won't doubt Cooper for a second, taking an online travel magazine or official NASA records as any better evidence than Cooper, backed up by The New York Times, the LA Times, BBC, and the Smithsonian. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 03:43, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

There is no doubt that this incident occurred and I believe that it ought to have its own Wikipedia article. I do have a problem with the word "mutiny" in the article and its title. Mutiny is a criminal conspiracy, punishable by death in the United States, and which was a death penalty offense in the United Kingdom until that country abolished the death penalty. Two of the three astronauts are alive and this article title states that they committed a terrible crime. I see two references in the article that use the word "mutiny". One is LibCom.org, a libertarian communist blog that talks about "class war in space". The other is a brief article in Motherboard, a sensationalistic "gonzo journalism" website. I believe that neither is a reliable source and that both references should be removed from the article. Ɱ, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. What is the basis for use of the inflammatory charge "mutiny" in the title, or in the article at all? I believe that word is a BLP violation in this article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:22, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't arguing term usage there. If I go by what you say, yes that wording should be toned down. I need to sleep, will investigate further tomorrow... ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:31, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Cullen, the incident should be covered in Wikipedia, but the problem is that it is not at all neutrally presented and represents a BLP violation because of promotion of the term "mutiny" chosen by obviously partisan sources. The article should be kept (I don't think even the OP ke4roh believes it should be deleted) but it demands cleanup for neutrality, and possibly a title move. I have taken the liberty to change the header tag from Template:Disputed to Template:POV title. JustinTime55 ( talk) 14:46, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Sometimes urban myths get created by skewed POV of some reporters; a notable example of this is the Bermuda triangle. We cover the phenomenon here because of its popularity, but we don't endorse fringe theories by claiming it's a supernatural phenomenon or evidence of aliens. I believe the same thing happened here; a minor (compared to "mutiny") job action was turned into an urban myth after the fact by a few extremist media. JustinTime55 ( talk) 14:55, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The OP does want the article either deleted or reversed around to say it didn't happen, per their OR thread " Talk:Skylab mutiny#Debunked". As for the title - can anyone put forth more preferable titles? Is "Skylab strike" more neutral? How do most other sources identify the conflict? ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I think we should have the article just like we have chemtrail. -- ke4roh ( talk) 15:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Oh, please. That's crazy, you're like the only one who thinks it's a conspiracy theory. If anything, it's NASA doing the lying, not the New York Times, BBC, Smithsonian, etc. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

( edit conflict) And Justin, in this case, denying or downplaying the event is the fringe theory. See my above coverage of reliable sources, one of which is from around the time the event occured. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 15:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

"There is no doubt that this incident occurred" is too vague. It is not disputed that for one orbit (about 93 minutes) the astronauts didn't talk to the ground. (I'm curious which one.) It is disputed that, for all of December 28, the crew did as they pleased without talking to Mission Control. [47] On December 28, they talked to an astronomer via video link. [48] according to an AP report which fails to mention the radio silence. National Geographic Oct 1974 reports on the over-scheduling and settling of that problem, but not on a day of radio silence. The mission transcripts also include ordinary conversations for December 28. Cooper's book (and New Yorker article [49]) from 1976 disagrees. p. 290. Cooper calls it a "strike" and "rebellion". It is not disputed that they took breaks. It is agreed that they originally planned have 1 day of rest out of 10 days, and that they worked through their first three days off to try to get back on schedule. It is disputed that the crew deviated from Mission Control instructions to take a day off. The day off that they took on December 26 was scheduled. [50] It follows from these disputes that there was no "mutiny", "strike", or "rebellion". [51](Hitt 2008) -- ke4roh ( talk) 15:20, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Your sources are poor. Again, we can't go off primary sources from the first party: NASA. That's not reliable here. The AP article did claim that the talk took place on "December 28", but it's entirely possible that the astronauts' full workday was a broadly different set of hours than the AP's or that astronomer's full workday. It's entirely possible both events could happen during a broader "December 28". And as said again, AO is a relatively poor source, and all of your other sources are SYNTH. You're trying to use Original Research to come to some conclusion, while this is very far from Wikipedia standards. You should stop now. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:02, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

If a NASA official transcript and government documents aren't reliable, then what is? Further: Carr and Pogue were active military at the time. No government body used the term "mutiny" in official records because (1) it wasn't and (2) such terms lead to courts-martial. There are no sources that note any of this action. The use of the term "mutiny" is libelous to the professional military reputations of these astronauts and sensationalist, specifically against BLP (Carr is still living). If NASA, the USMC and the USAF didn't declare it, then all that third-party sources and this Wikipedia article are doing is generating fanciful defamation from inaccurate reporting of the third party sources. - Spencerian ( talk) 17:10, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

[52] is a WP:RS. Hitt is also reliable, though one could argue less so. Primary sources are not excluded from utility, but are not to be used to synthesize an idea - it stands to reason that they should not be excluded in identifying which sources are more reliable to a particular point someone generally reliable has already made. I did not synthesize the idea that the "strike" or "mutiny" did not happen - I got that from AO, Hitt, and several other sources, including interviews with the astronauts and various other sources. I also did not synthesize the idea that Cooper characterized it as a "strike", or that his characterization as such was not universally shared. p. 290 Bluth 1979 addresses and refutes Cooper's characterization directly, complete with response from Cooper and rejoinder. p. 12-13. -- ke4roh ( talk) 17:23, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Spencerian - see WP:SELFPUB. When there are disputes as to the truth of a subject, you should not cite sources published by people directly involved in the subject itself (the people being NASA and the astronauts, the subject being the Skylab strike). And nobody here is arguing for using the term "mutiny" here. Ke4oh, sure the idea that a strike never took place isn't original to you, but you are combining multiple sources (many being primary sources), reading into them and analyzing them, to come to a conclusion that is only backed up by a contemporary space writer, a travel magazine, and an article in a space colony org's newsletter, written by an associate professor at a state school. Great sources. Also, still, that is SYNTH. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 17:41, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Atlas Obscura, L-5, and others, have put forth that there was no mutiny/strike/rebellion. If there were no dispute about the content, I'd leave it at that. But the accuracy of Cooper is impugned by the observable fact that there were communications throughout the day he said they turned off the radios all day. And the other sources that mention mutiny/strike/rebellion bottom out at Cooper, including, best I can tell, NYT and LA Times. I haven't seen any mention of such a thing prior to 1976, and if something like that did happen, surely it would have been reported prior. I don't deny that I've done research to get at the truth, but I deny the originality of this research and the notion that the information might be inadmissible to Wikipedia. We ought not favor mutiny/strike/rebellion over an explanation that squares much better with the contemporary evidence. -- ke4roh ( talk) 18:25, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

The dispute is poorly sourced though, and stands against much more traditionally reliable sources. As said, Henry S.F. Cooper is very highly regarded, and published in a paper with rigorous factchecking. Your research extends beyond reading AO or L-5 to determine your conclusion; that portion is original research. What do you mean by "there were communications throughout the day"? Is that sourced by the first-party NASA records or by the AP article, which as I said, it could've happened to be around the same day, but different times. Days apparently started at 6 a.m. Central Time, a 7 hour difference from Hamburg during December. Still - what exact naming do you propose, Ke4roh? My preferred title, for the record, is "Skylab strike", "Skylab 4 crew strike", or something along those lines. We can put the dispute in the first paragraph of the article, but I still strongly believe that the title and lede should open it as a truthful event based on the more reliable sources. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 18:39, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

I am assembling all of the various sources I've found to be involved in the dispute for the purpose of evaluating them with respect to Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources and considering carefully which sources are correct in light of the dispute and undisputed facts. It might take a day or two. -- ke4roh ( talk) 04:11, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

( ←) I don't care about truth, and we shouldn't here. Have you looked at Wikipedia:Verifiability, not truth yet? We should present the majority viewpoint as fact, perhaps with mention of the minority viewpoint and controversy around all of this. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 04:48, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

I have seen the guidelines, and I'm also passionate about having verifiable information, and WP:NPOV. So far as the BLP and NPOV issue is concerned, there are four items of concern:

1. The "unscheduled day off, turned off the communications radio," (Cooper '76) is patently false as proved by NYT [53], video [54], splashdown reports NYT splashdown [55](AWST Mar 4 '74 pp. 19-20)( NatGeo Oct '74 pp. 463-464), and those are supported by transcripts and mission reports. There was no full day of non-communication or we would have heard about it in those round-up reports.
2. Characterization of them taking their first day off after working through three prior planned days off as "rebellion" or worse. The characterization is unnecessary. They took the day off. There was no mention of it in the splashdown reporting (same links as before), some of which did mention Pogue's vomiting incident that the crew had planned to not report, and for which they were reprimanded. We certainly should, for NPOV include something like, "A rest day has subsequently been characterized as rebellion, strike, and/or mutiny. Those characterizations are refuted." with a bevy of references on both sides, which I have handy.
3. The claim that they didn't fly again because of this is refuted by NYT splashdown coverage: "All are expected to be candidates for future missions", but Shuttle didn't come around for another 7 years, and they all left NASA before then.
4. The title needs to change to something more NPOV like "Skylab 4 workload issue" or something similar that doesn't imply cause for dishonorable discharge from the military for the two crew who were active at the time. (Note also there was no court marshal.) -- ke4roh ( talk) 03:26, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

This is a heavily flawed SYNTHESIS of primary sources. You cannot conclude that an event did not take place based on your interpretation of multiple sources irrelevant to the daily stresses of the crew.

Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources. Similarly, do not combine different parts of one source to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by the source...This would be improper editorial synthesis of published material to imply a new conclusion, which is original research performed by an editor here. ( WP:SYNTH)

This is a policy on the English Wikipedia, so I will take no slack in accepting your original research. I won't entertain your notion any further; you have got to stop. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 13:17, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Why do you believe this is original research? AO '17, Bluth '78, Homesteading Space, Carney '16, oral histories by Carr and Gibson all explicitly refute the notion of a strike, as do contemporaneous sources which make no mention of one, and which specifically quote communications from the day of the supposed strike without mentioning a lack of communications. There is a lesson here, and a topic of particular interest, but it is not necessary to call the crew criminals or slackers to make the point. Per NPOV, we need to let the reader decide, and cite all the various sources, and the points of contention are not central to the lesson to be taken from the mission. -- ke4roh ( talk) 17:54, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Most of what you're doing here is OR. Point-for-point: AO is barely a RS. Bluth is not a RS. Homesteading Space is the one decent source. Carney is not a RS. Oral histories are where??? Yet I have linked two oral histories of the crew confirming the notion of a strike. Analysis of contemporaneous sources is WP:SYNTH. There is no mention on the article of the crew being "criminals" or "slackers". You're blowing this up way out of proportion and taking all sorts of liberties here. Wikipedia relies upon the most heavily reliable sources, like the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, the BBC, Henry S.F. Cooper, and the New Yorker, along with sources on a similar level to AO, like Space.com, VICE, and Wired. Minority viewpoints are acceptable in articles if they have sources that directly back up and relate to the exact topic in question, per SYNTH. That is why I included Homesteading Space in the article, and can include AO if you really wish. That's it. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 20:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your assessment. Per WP:OWN, I'm planning to make a contribution to Skylab mutiny, and it is my sincere hope that I manage to do it while adhering to the various guidelines we have set forth here, and that you agree that I have done so. This is by no means a personal attack, an indictment of the existing article, or even so much as my POV on a topic, but rather an attempt to bring to light additional relevant information on the subject, which, incidentally, seems, at least to me, to change the focus of the article from a particular event to the difficulties (primarily workload) the crew experienced and how everyone dealt with it, which is what the sociologists study anyhow. It is important to explain what happened, and to explain how it got straightened out. It's pretty hard to argue for the title "Skylab Crew Took 'Sunday' Off," but that is one possible interpretation of the facts. It is also possible to interpret the facts to arrive at "mutiny" (which is the "criminals" I was referring to earlier), so, by shifting the focus from the "day off" to the difficulties evidently ironed out mid-mission, the page becomes much less POV, more supported by facts, and more open to interpretation. Of course, we want a redirect from "Skylab mutiny" to the new title as well - or, as ජපස proposed at Talk:Skylab mutiny, perhaps merging entirely into Skylab 4, though I'm inclined to believe there is enough differentiation in topics for a separate article on the unrest. -- ke4roh ( talk) 01:55, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

I appreciate your pursuit of the truth, even if it really has no place on Wikipedia. You know that many celebrities have reported their birthdates being incorrect on WP, though we have to ignore them, because sources say otherwise? If we allow personal truths and OR to dictate content, it's a slippery slope down to the bottom for the encyclopedia. As for OWN, I don't own the article, and have never stated, purposefully acted, or indicated as such. As for your edits, I advise you I will follow WP:BRD with any of mine or other people's edits to the article, given its controversial status. I would recommend even suggesting an edit with proposed phrasing on the talk page. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 02:50, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

• The Los Angeles Times and New York Times both call it a "strike". That seems a much better word than "mutiny" for the BLP reasons described by Cullen. -- GRuban ( talk) 16:04, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

Given several contentious AFDs on supposed child prodigies, I am attempting to formulate a guideline for these articles. Feel Free to contribute at User:Mangoe/Prodigy. Mangoe ( talk) 20:35, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Please link to the specific AfDs in question, so, we can see what the community already said (and whether we really need yet another guideline). -- GRuban ( talk) 11:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

We now have rich unpopular people calling ordinary heroic people pedophiles in relation to Tham Luang cave rescue, and people edit-warring to re-add such claims into the article based on single sources that I don't know much about. People re-adding such claims are probably doing so on the defensible grounds that the claims reflect more on the person making them than the target, but even so, it is not a good route to go down. (The rich unpopular people will get their come-uppance one way or another, it should not be through our article about a cave rescue. And the ordinary cave-diving people can probably do without it.) Please could people keep a close eye on this ongoing mess. MPS1992 ( talk) 23:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Stupid spats like that case should be handled by waiting out the event to see if gets coverage a week or longer from the spat, per RECENTISM, keeping it out of the article until proven a notable facet. (I doubt it will be). -- Masem ( t) 23:54, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

There is similar language over at the rich person's page as well. Also some questionable comments on the talk page of that article. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 17:03, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

There are multiple sources for this, unsurprisingly mostly in the UK press. I must say public opinion of Musk seems to have changed quite remarkably and very rapidly because of this. I think a thread at the Talk page there might be useful, by way of explanation, not just the noticeboard template for this one. Martinevans123 ( talk) 17:20, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I can say that my opinion of Musk changed quite remarkably and very rapidly because of this, but I don't have sourced statistics for public opinion as a whole. The BBC News website currently shows this story as the third "most read" on their website, and I believe it was the second most read earlier today. That was after the offending tweets were deleted -- before they were deleted, the BBC were politely ignoring the whole thing. From another perspective, either the fellow will sue or he won't, and whether it is a defining moment in the career of a notable person or company may come out, as Masem says, at some point after that. MPS1992 ( talk) 17:36, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

It's certainly getting more attention, but this seems a common trend. This is the problem trying to write "up to the minute" when we have stories like this, we just don't know what the impact could be. Only because it is BLP (even though Musk would be a public figure and thus lacking some of the protection we'd normally give) I'd still say at this point, hold off on inclusion in both the cave rescue (where) and Musk article, and see what the state is of the story by the end of the week. If sources are still talking about it with the same volume, then it's probably unavoidable to include regardless what happens. -- Masem ( t) 17:42, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

There's also the argument that, although "Musk proposes various cave rescue solutions" or "Musk's cave rescue solutions criticized" are relevant to the article about the cave rescue, "Musk insults person formerly involved with the cave rescue, regarding their choice of abode [etc]" is really not so relevant to the article about the cave rescue. A few days ago we had editors actively arguing that Musk's submarine shouldn't be mentioned at all (because publicity stunt). Now we seem to be mentioning Musk and his opinions and his deleted tweets too much. Perhaps Trump could help us out here. MPS1992 ( talk) 17:53, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Or perhaps Trump could help Musk out here? They both seem to like to get their own way, don't they? Martinevans123 ( talk) 18:06, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Yes, thanks, MPS1992, a useful distinction. I don't have the statistics either. So I'll just say that, personally, Musk's comments disgust me. Yeah sure, "either the fellow will sue or he won't"... it must be that easy for an ex-pat UK diver to sue an American billionaire, mustn't it. Martinevans123 ( talk) 17:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Seems so -- the BBC article I linked even suggested different ways of doing so, cited very positive opinions as to his chances of success, and gave some quite large monetary figures as to what he might expect to get out of it. MPS1992 ( talk) 18:00, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, that's very encouraging. And assuming he does go ahead, at what point are we allowed to mention it in the article? Martinevans123 ( talk) 18:04, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm OK with Masem's suggestion above, which would be a lot sooner than any significant developments on the legal front. As of a few minutes ago, it's all still mentioned in the article -- without the diver's name thanks to thoughtful edit by Suffusion of Yellow -- after a revert justified by an edit summary commenting on legal qualifications being required or something. Strange website, this. MPS1992 ( talk) 18:09, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Could you just clarify why this is a BLP issue and not just a "content relevance" issue? Or is it a legal-and-thus-a-BLP issue? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 18:21, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

"Content relevance" and "BLP" inevitably overlap if the content involved relates to living persons -- and more so if the content concerns a grievous slur on a named living person's character. I don't give a hang about any legal implications for us or the WMF, although I hope that people who know more about such things will keep an appropriate watching brief. (And obviously I don't plan to do anything silly.) MPS1992 ( talk) 18:28, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I was just asking why you felt the need to open this thread here and not just discuss at the article talk page. Out of concern for Vern Unsworth's reputation? Or just to get a wider view from editors? Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 18:38, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

He doesn't understand the policy or the law. There is nothing at WP:BLP that says we can't name Vern Unsworth as the man who Musk accused of being a paedophile (which in and of itself is not a WP:BLPCRIME; there's no law against being a paedophile). It's all over the news and should be on Wikipedia too... Firebrace ( talk) 22:15, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

I wouldn't argue that the diver's name can never be included in this context, only that we should, out of an abundance of caution, wait a bit and see where it all goes. If it blows up into something as big, (such as the Rush Limbaugh-Sandra Fluke controversy), then of course we have to include his name. But right now we risk defining (or at least helping Musk define) a guy I hadn't heard of until yesterday by associating him with this. Suffusion of Yellow ( talk) 00:18, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

As for "It's all over the news", well, WP:NOTNEWS is still policy, even if it's easy to forget that when passions are high over the latest tech celebrity stupidity. MPS1992 ( talk) 08:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

( Personal attack removed)

I'm just going to the remove the whole pedophile accusation and response from the article on the grounds that it's not really related to the topic of the article, and that it's some silly social media bullshit that happened just a couple days ago, far too soon for us to see if it has any kind of lasting importance. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 11:04, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

I have no strong opinion about this, but would lean towards removal. The article is about the rescue operation, not about some attention-seeking billionaire who haphazardly wants to shove a submarine into a cave, and then calls someone a pedo for disagreeing with it. The information fits better at Elon Musk's own article, where it currently is: Elon Musk#Tham Luang cave rescue. Cheers, Manifestation ( talk) 12:55, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Note: Musk has now apologised: [56]. Martinevans123 ( talk) 12:25, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Hello dear all, I hereby would like to bring to your attention a typical (according to me) example for libeling editing in a biography of a living person - please look at Delyan_Peevski profile. Although the neutrality of the page has already been disputed and a warning note was put on it, there are contributors Jingiby and Quickfingers who insist on putting a disputable and not reliable definition in the main paragraph about the person - namely "oligarch". ^[1] If you checck the definition for oligarch here in Wikipedia, you will find out that this should be a person who (1) is oone of the largest private owners in the country (2) possesses sufficient political power to promote its own interests (3) controls multiple businesses, which intensively coordinate their activities.[3] The person here is an MP from one of the opposition groups in the =Bulgarian Parliament so he does not possess sufficient political power. He does not control multiple businesses either. That means that giving him a "oligarch" definition would violate the NPOV principle. So please comment on the case. Antihatred ( talk) 18:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)Antihatred Antihatred ( talk) 18:08, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Mykel Board (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Please could I ask for some more eyes on Swati Chaturvedi. I have just reverted all this -- notice how it starts -- which had sources like newslaundry.com and Twitter. I would welcome any feedback on whether this laundry content is appropriate weight for the article. MPS1992 ( talk) 22:21, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for bringing this to attention. I've rev-delled the BLP violations (sensationalist claims and characterizations based on poor and questionable sources) and semi-protected the page for three months. If experienced editors can help search for quality sources and expand the current 2-line stub, that would be a bonus. Abecedare ( talk) 06:14, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I was going to post this somewhere in WT:BLP § Privacy re: DOB ( permanent link), which may technically be more appropriate, but decided to bring it here instead to avoid hijacking that discussion and because more people are watching this page. If it is better for this to be over there, then feel free to refactor the talk page and move this over there.

Specifically, I am currently preparing a new biography article that I will be publishing soon and after weeks of researching, I have finally found the subject's birth date. There were occasional reports of the subject's age at the times of those reports' publications, but no dates. Finally, I found a single secondary source that briefly discusses the subject and mentions their birth year, so I included and cited that in the offline draft I'm developing. Much later, today, while watching some conference speeches by the subject to seek more information for the article, the subject their self specified that although they always lie about their age (obviously a joke, the crowd chuckled), they recently had a birthday on MONTH the DAY. Now, although this is an obscure video recording of an obscure conference speech by a notable and public (but by no means extremely public) figure, the only source for the subject's birth month and day is from the subject during their own speech. This was a public speech, though, that anyone could attend. No more than a hundred or so appeared to have been in attendance, but it was not some leaked private conference. Match that up with that secondary source specifying their birth year and lo, there is the full date of birth.

Now, if I were to include that full date of birth in the article, would doing so in this specific situation be a violation of any present policies or guidelines, such as WP:DOB or WP:BLPPRIMARY? If it at all matters, I see no evidence that the subject has attempted to conceal their date or year of birth; it's just not widely reported because most coverage of the subject is focused on their public works and what little biographic coverage exists is exclusively about their public service as an adult.

Any advice here would be greatly appreciated. Presently, I intend to publish the full date of birth, but if there is overwhelming concern about doing so in this particular case, I'll refrain from including it when I publish the biography so that it's not in the article history (though anyone following the sources cited will discover it, since the conference speech video is cited, as well). Thanks. — Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 05:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

I think you have already answered your own question. It took you "weeks of researching" to find a secondary source, so it is clearly not widely reported, and you only got the full details by WP:SYNTHESIS of two sources. So no, you shouldn't include the full date. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 07:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, by "weeks of researching", I mean that I have been researching the subject for weeks and occasionally searched for a date of birth in the process, but only recently discovered it. The reason why it took so long is that the birth year was published in a clearly notable and reliable secondary source (it has its own Wikipedia article), but not a very well-known one and the coverage was brief; and the birth month and day were verbally stated by the subject at a public conference that appears to have no transcript and consequently the only source is video, which would not show up in any search results. I frankly would not waste my time to search for weeks just to find a date of birth. This information just came up during my usual searching. Maybe that was obvious and you already understand that, but I might as well clarify just in case.

I was concerned that this might be considered synthesis, but I judged it was not because this is more of a routine editorial synthesis like arithmetic calculations or determining the birth year from age as of some date. What I am doing is not original research, since the claims are entirely supported by reliable sources. If I were to cite the birth date as "MONTH DAY,^[1] YEAR^[2]" (it's about a US subject), I doubt this would be considered original research by synthesis, but instead simply two verified claims that display text–source integrity. Since nothing is stated that is not totally supported by the sources, I do not think that it is original synthesis anymore than would it be to use two separate sources to support the two claims that (1) the Sun is large and (2) the Sun is hot.

The reason why I'm unsure about all this is because a superficial reading of WP:DOB and WP:BLPPRIMARY seems to favor exclusion in this scenario. However, WP:DOB states that "sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public" are acceptable sources for such information and the subject, who is the closest source one can link to the subject, is the one who stated their birth month and day in a recorded public conference speech, while the birth year is specified in a reliable secondary source, so I do not think privacy concerns apply here. Moreover, since the month and day source is the subject according to their own video-recorded words, that amounts to the strongest possible primary source one could have about information on the subject, which is not comparable to those prohibited at WP:BLPPRIMARY.

Basically, this seems to me to be an edge case that is vaguely on the "exclusion" side at first glance, but is reasonably on the "inclusion" side upon closer inspection. I'm asking here anyway to see if I'm missing anything obvious or grossly misinterpreting the policies and guidelines. Given this probably overlong explanation, do you still think this is a likely original synthesis situation that violates WP:BLP and thus the full date of birth should be excluded? — Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 08:15, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

My position is simple: when it's marginal (as it is in this case) don't do it. But reasonable people might differ. If you do include the full date then yes you should cite the two parts separately so that it is obvious what's going on. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 09:00, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Jonathan A Jones. Unless that difference of opinion starts to favor inclusion, I may just omit it for now and either hope for better sources (the subject's notability seems to be on a clear rise) or reconsider it at a later date, perhaps after peer review. — Nøkkenbuer ( talk • contribs) 09:28, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

• Ann Arbor Hospital Murders (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• User:Overagainst ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) (user page that was a draft)

Please see WP:RSN#Tickle the wire (ticklethewire.com). It was proposed that this noticeboard be notified in case BLP violations are a valid concern in relation to that article. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate – 15:54, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

More eyes on/watchlisting of this article would be prudent right now. The subject has been named in a lawsuit by a man who has alleged sexual harassment. Various newly registered users and IPs have been duelling today to add different showboating, unencyclopedic quotations from the various sides' attorneys. I can't monitor the article 24/7 (more like 4-ish/5) and this has the potential to turn into a BLP poopstorm. Much obliged! - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:11, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Latifa bint Mohammed Al Maktoum (II) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article to large extent is only based on primary sources and doesn't offer much of secondary sources I invite any of you to have a look at /info/en/?search=Latifa_bint_Mohammed_Al_Maktoum_(II) , which is strongly connected to the Herve Jaubert article. This article is beyond poorly sourced and over-quotes what is essentially the same source via proxy sources countless times. More or less all information in this article is only dependent on a (!)youtube(!) video of the person in question and posts made on the website "detained in dubai" - as far as I can see all other sources are derivatives of these. That is almost every "secondary" source quoted has as its only source said youtube video and a website of the company "detained in dubai" that is strongly involved in this case, too, and therefore a primary source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:6000:E914:6C00:F1AB:EEE7:6B05:1757 ( talk) 09:59, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Notwithstanding the above account seems only to be used to draw attention to this issue, the article does indeed seem to be a hotchpotch of allegations derived from primary sources and based on a single media report and its proxies. It could really do with being looked at by an experienced editor? Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 05:02, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

@ Alexandermcnabb: the article borders on incoherency -- very unclear sometimes as to what it is saying or implying. Until quite recently it was WP:OWNed by a pair of editors, one of whom is now indefinitely blocked due to perhaps unrelated issues. I had earlier given up on making sense of it, as pretty much every edit I made was reverted by one or other of this tag team. (Not to mention the mess on the talk page). Other editors seem reluctant to get involved. Perhaps the experienced editor who can improve this article is you -- with help from others here? MPS1992 ( talk) 21:49, 19 July 2018 (UTC)