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

Please take a look at Cindy Hyde-Smith. The article says "They have a daughter, who they sent to Brookhaven Academy, a school that was established to enable white children to attend a school without blacks." I believe this is a WP:BLP violation, and an especially pernicious one as it implicates a non-public figure minor child. The given source says "U.S. Sen. Cindy Hyde-Smith attended and graduated from a segregation academy ( Lawrence County Academy) that was set up so that white parents could avoid having to send their children to schools with black students" and later says "Years later, Hyde-Smith would send her daughter, Anna-Michael, to Brookhaven Academy." It says nothing about any racial motivation for Hyde-Smith's choice in where to send her daughter to school. In fact, the issue of Hyde-Smith's alma mater being a segregation academy is covered in Hyde-Smith's article in the section about her education. I get that everyone has their undies in a bundle about the Missisippi Senate election, but putting this content in the article about a minor child who likely had no choice about where she attended school (it's quite unlikely that Hyde-Smith herself had any choice about where she attended school either, FWIW) doesn't exactly seem above board. Marquardtika ( talk) 17:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

It's not about the daughter, except to mention that she exists. It is phrased clearly as this is a choice that the parents made, and reflects on the parents, including the subject of the article. We are not making a claim about the motivation for the choice. If reliable sources cover that aspect in discussing the school in relationship to Cindy Hyde-Smith (I've not checked), then that is within reason. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 17:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a family of articles, two of which are new Lawrence County Academy and Brookhaven Academy, and one Cindy Hyde-Smith which was recently updated with an article from the Jackson Free Press based on the discovery of Hyde-Smith's high school yearbook. The changes are coming fast and furious, but the Wikipedia process is being followed. The POV problems and factual inaccuracies (and English errors) are being ironed out. None of this is worth getting one's knickers in a twist about. My two cents. Rhadow ( talk) 18:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Nothing close to a BLP here. It is certainly sourced, it is certainly about the Cindy Hyde-Smith's choice to send their daughter to a segregation academy, the child has graduated from high school and is therefore unlikely to be a minor. This appears to be a censorship attempt thinly disguised as a blp discussion. Jacona ( talk) 18:05, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Additional source involved. [1] Jacona ( talk) 18:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I just started looking at this and agree that it is a BLP violation in the form of coatracking. Unless either 1) Hyde-Smith herself stated that their choice to send their daughter to that school was purposely for the benefit related to segeration or 2) her choice was criticized by a wide number of sources (one source is not sufficient), then including the factoid about the school being white segregated is a coatrack BLP violation. There's also a second coatrack coming from the same Jackson FP article about her own schooling: The school's team nickname was Rebels; the mascot was a confederate general who carried a confederate flag ... and the point about that is? That's two major BLP violations. -- Masem ( t) 18:21, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Masem, I gently disagree on the topic of coatracking. There is a long and consistent history of segregation in Cindy Hyde-Smith's life and hometown. From public school segregation sixteen years after Brown v Board of Education, to the establishment of a school whose mascot is Rebels and whose students carry confederate flags, to the new incarnation of these schools as "Christian" but with one black student in three hundred, it all goes to support a single narrative. I suggest you read the article Segregation academy. Rhadow ( talk) 18:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Masem, I disagree about the coatracking argument, I agree that it is a point worthy for discussion in terms of article content, but not in terms of BLP. In any case, I agree with Rhadow that the content is very appropriate to the article which discusses (reliably sourced) the senator's confederate and segregationist views. Jacona ( talk) 18:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I don't disagree that there's the potential for understanding her schooling and her daughter's schooling in a larger picture to explain her political position, if that was reasonably documented by multiple sources. It can't be made without sources (that's OR), and right now there's only one source which begs if the matter is UNDUE or not, which makes it a coatrack issue and thus violating BLP. -- Masem ( t) 19:22, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I would agree on it being too speculative (not that the school was segregated which is a fact, but that of casting bad light on Cindy Hyde Smith as a result - which seems to be goal of many of the editors above; the Jackson Free Press does not actually explicitly state any sort of criticism for it) for a BLP; this is discussed in personal life too. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 19:01, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Jacona, there is a complaint that the Jackson Free Press is an insufficient source to support an assertion that Cindy Hyde-Smith holds an old Mississippi worldview and that it is criticized. Here is a second citation from the Washington Post. ^[1] Rhadow ( talk) 19:38, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Jacona ( talk) 19:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Here is another source that shows that this is a relevant topic for this discussion. ^[1] Jacona ( talk) 19:51, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello Jacona, now that Galobtter put a sanctions warning tag on us, we can expect a visit from John from Idegon. Rhadow ( talk) 19:59, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The Philadelphia Inquirer opinion piece is clearly not a reliable source for the claim it makes that Hyde-Smith is a racist from a racist town, and it cannot be used to support making that claim (or anything remotely related) in Wikipedia's voice. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 20:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

At least two sources mention that a relative (Noah Smith) of Cindy Hyde-Smith's husband Michael murdered a black man to keep him from voting in 1955. While in light of her "public hanging" statement and statements that it would be good to make it harder for liberal people to vote makes it relevant, I think placing this in the Cindy Hyde-Smith article would be coatracking, even though it is mentioned by more than one reliable source. But sending her daughter to a segregation academy. That's something she personally did and that is covered in reliable sources. And as of the assertion that Anna-Michael Smith is a minor non-public figure, It appears that she is not a minor, and she is mentioned by Hyde-Smith on her senatorial website and numerous other places. Jacona ( talk) 20:13, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure that this is a BLP violation against the daughter, but it's problematic nonetheless. The phrasing there implies a criticism of Hyde-Smith, but it does so by saying something in Wikipedia's voice rather than citing and attributing these criticisms to other people. If there are notable opinion pieces that criticize Hyde-Smith for her ties to this school, then those opinion piece could be mentioned and attributed in text. But we shouldn't imply those opinions using innuendo. Nblund ^talk 20:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

I personally would want several more sources, but Nblund hits a core factor here, in that it is phrased in a way to make it sound like WP is accusing her. One can say "Critics of Hyde-Smith point to her schooling at a segregated whites-only school that they state has influenced her political position" (or something like that). -- Masem ( t) 20:19, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

power~enwiki, I don't see why you say the Inquirer piece is not a reliable source. I don't often get involved in these current-events discussions, what is the issue? Even if it is an "opinion piece", doesn't WP:PARTISAN state these are acceptable? Jacona ( talk) 20:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Hello power~enwiki, just so I know -- the opinions of the writer of an op-ed are off limits. What about the assertions of fact in an op-ed in a publication like the Philadelphia Enquirer, or the Washington Post, or every single article in Foreign Affairs?

Arguing over strength of sources, or presentation, etc. is one thing but coatracking? Where she went to school and sent her daughter is biography not coatracking. [2] It is also news that these assertions came up, so we have to decide how to handle that in a NOTNEWS fashion, one way may be to discuss just noting the issue about her life came up depending on sourcing. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 20:27, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Identify where she went to school is fine (and usually expected). Purposely identifying that school as white-segregated without explaining why that fact is important or relevant, or the same with her daughter, is coatracking. To explain why that's important requires sources to avoid the OR aspect. If there are sources, then its just a matter of stating that outside of WP's voice, but again, UNDUE is a question to be asked. -- Masem ( t) 20:31, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The sources listed above say "another segregation academy" and "an all-white school". Jacona ( talk) 20:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

But those sources also explain why it that fact is important and how it fits in to a broader debate about Hyde-Smith's relationship with Mississippi's past. The WP:COATRACK problem comes in, in part, because the mention of the school is being tossed out off-handedly in a seemingly innocuous section of her biography without making the subtext explicit. This is problematic from a neutrality perspective, and it also is not especially informative for readers who will think this is a non-sequitur unless they already know the background. Passive aggression works great for in-laws, but it's not a good look for an encyclopedia. Nblund ^talk 21:12, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Also, just one other thing to add, as I'm seeing this report is now being spread across news sources (in that I didn't realize this was news "today"), keep in mind both the number of sources simply repeating the school info details without additional commentary/analysis, as well as RECENTISM. We should wait to see if this information "sticks" after a few days or a week. If people are still talking about this next week, then adding it makes sense. -- Masem ( t) 21:23, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Masem for your fulsome criticism. You have found many reasons why these articles are substandard. These reasons change by the hour as you read the articles and their sources. You personally wanted more sources, they were provided, then you criticized them as being too recent. What I don't see is any attempt to make the articles better. You have not added so much as a character to any one of them, yet you have time to describe the many failings of the people who have added to them. It is your right this Thanksgiving weekend to be an armchair quarterback. I'm sorry that I will not have time to response to your next disapproval. Rhadow ( talk) 21:35, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

This is a board for opinions, to come to consensus. It would disruptive to edit to what I consider proper (in which case I would have outright removed the information). Add that the whole school thing is a developing story - sources have come around in the last few hours changing how to consider the information. -- Masem ( t) 22:08, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

The original discussion started claiming this was a BLP for hyde-smiths daughter who was a non-public minor, which is totally false as she graduated in 2017. It's then devolved into accusations about unreliable sources (false), lack of sources (false). It's hard to discuss simultaneously against UNDUE and "passive-aggressive" which are opposites. The article content is sourced and accurate, this quote "Cindy Hyde-Smith sent her daughter to a private school created to help white kids bypass integration" from this source? seems much like the article content. It really seems to be a case of let's censor this because I don't like it! Jacona ( talk) 22:18, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

No, we'd be "censoring" it because this is a fairly blatant attempt to add negative content to a biography THREE DAYS before the subject is in a high-profile election. I'd be shocked if you or anyone else beating on this drum particularly cares after Wednesday. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 22:20, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

@ ν, feel free to stalk my edits to see if you can find any evidence to back up your accusation. I rarely bother with current politics - I became involved in this article because I was working on the article of an individual who was murdered by a relative of Hyde-Smith's in 1955 in order to suppress the (presumably republican) black vote. They never were tried, in spite of the murder being in broad daylight in front of the courthouse and scads of eyewitnesses. They are buried in the cemetery of the same church Hyde-Smith now attends. I think these edits are very mild in the light of her family history. Jacona ( talk) 00:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

@ Jacona, accusations like that don't help your case. It looks like more notable national outlets are picking this up, so I think there's a reasonable case for including a brief mention of this. Even if that happens, however, we would still need to cover it in the context of the campaign and the accusations of racism rather than slipping it in to the biography section without offering any meaningful context. Even if you don't accept the NPOV argument, it's just a weird place to discuss it given its obvious relevance to the campaign. Nblund ^talk 22:37, 24 November 2018 (UTC)

It confuses me that editors who never had interest in the 140 substantially similar articles on segregation academies would take interest in them today, THREE DAYS before an election. On weekdays, there is a rush to create articles on the latest shooting or semi-notorious public figure within minutes of a headline. This IS news. Someone gave a yearbook that makes a very ugly case against Cindy Hyde-Smith. It sounds as if there is a request on the table to embargo changes to the article until Wednesday. We are no longer living in the 1940s, when it was impolite to take a picture of FDR using crutches or in a wheelchair. That changed forever with Gary Hart. Rhadow ( talk) 01:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

There is a vast difference between a shooting (which is principally made up of objective facts and details), and claims and accusations against a BLP (whether this was just before an election or not) which are subjective factors. BLP supercedes nearly all other policies so we are required to be more careful with it, particularly with brand new accusations that haven't had the test of time to be vetted across the board. -- Masem ( t) 01:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Another thing here; all of this is really related to the campaign - or at least there's no indication of importance beyond being a campaign controversy. Meaning any criticism/controversy over these things should be contained in Cindy Hyde-Smith#Special election campaign, 2018. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 06:58, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

But it is not only related to the campaign it is also details of her biography. But yes to the extent it is also campaign related it should also be detailed in the campaign section. There appear to be at least three poor assumptions that have been made in this discussion: 1) that this will hurt her campaign, an assumption made by editors, here, who are not experts in Mississippi politics, (perhaps it help her candidacy, if you know Mississippi) -- eg., it is a fact that people in Mississippi have some connection to these schools, have supported, and support these schools and a fact that the schools were set up for segregation; 2) that somehow where one went to school and the details of that school is not valid biography; and 3) that somehow the details of her biography won't matter after Tuesday. Whether she is elected on Tuesday or not, and perhaps even more so if she is elected a US Senator, the details of her biography will always matter to her biography. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 13:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

On point #1, given the number of national articles that exploded once the JFP released their article, its clearly a net negative, but even if one considers that it could be taken as a positive, it's still needs to be sourced (as I will explain), and evaluated within the context of UNDUE and RECENTISM. On #2, it is not where she went to school but the insinuations that that grounded her political position. We should absolutely document a notable public figure's education, but the question of it being white-segregated is something that WP editors cannot raise on their own, we need proper sourcing on that (otherwise, its OR and POV). On #3, this is where some caution until the election is completed is necessary. The whole reveal of this school issue is political mud-slinging, and why the core fact (where she and her daughter were/are being schooled) is there, the assertions of what going to white-segregated schools means is unclear if it has any long term effects; it's akin to the cause we use for BLPCRIME, and don't report on every accusation made against a person unless that proved to be true (or at least by a court), or had a significant effect on one's life. Again: objective facts are fine to include, like where she went to school, but nearly everything else at this point is opinion and analysis which should only be added if that has some significance in the long-term. -- Masem ( t) 15:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

"WP editors cannot raise on their own?" These sources are not written by Wikipedia editors, they did not raise them on their own. So, your claim has to be false. She is not being elected by the national media, she is to be elected by Mississippians, that the national media notices just means it is a matter of national notice. You also have no sourced basis for your denial of facts that are established in sources. Your reference to some unknown and unstated crime is unfounded, and unsourced, and has no place here. Also, you are the only one responsible for whatever insinuations you wish to draw, no one else is responsible for your insinuations, and certainly not other Wikipedia editors.-- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 16:10, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

My point is that without sources, WP editors cannot make a statement of why the relevance of the white-segregated school matters. We needed sources to exist, otherwise it is a classic coatrack and a reason to keep the info about the schools out of the article (outside of naming them). Originally, the only source that existed initially was a local one (Jackson FP) but now there's a whole lot of national sources on that, and those are generally the RSes we are going to pull from, and because it is a Senate seat on the line, we have to be aware of political mud-slinging. Its clear that some of these media sources do not want someone with white nationalist views as a Senator, and thus are calling out the white-segregated school that she and her daughter went to as a skeleton in her closet. WP doesn't engage in mudslinging unless it turns out to have long-term impact. -- Masem ( t) 16:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Your POV-pushing on the national media's alleged motivations also has no place, here. In addition, use of 'mud-slinging' is just your personal view for facts that you do not like. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 16:28, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I see no other way to read the original JFP story [3] as an attempt to cast doubt on Hyde-Smith in light of her recent statement related to her "public hanging" comment and the special election in a few days. This is media acting as usual to pull out all the skeletons from a candidate's closet; they've done this for decades. Wikipedia needs to be more cautious on what accusations and implications there may be raised to see if they have sufficient long-lasting implications. -- Masem ( t) 17:35, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

You already told us your personal view, which does not matter (no matter what emotive words you use to denigrate journalists). I take it there is consensus there is no libel, here. There is nothing untrue. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 18:50, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Who said anything about libel? It's coatracking, see WP:BITR, and we should take such caution when dealing with BLPs until we know its long-term significance. -- Masem ( t) 18:59, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

It is total nonsense to claim that in a biography what school a person went to and what kind of school is coatracking -- your claim is nothing but your POV-pushing - personally not approving of what sources cover and say. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 19:21, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Is it coatracking to say that she has a daughter? Is it coatracking to say her daughter attended a particular school? Is it coatracking to say what kind of school that is? I can't imagine that being the case in any biographical article. Isn't removing because it might reflect poorly on the person whitewashing or outright censorship? And why would we consider the Jackson Free Press to be a "local source"? The Brookhaven Daily Leader is a local source, but the Jackson Free Press is a "black newspaper", widely distributed throughout Mississippi and beyond. Would you call the Jackson Clarion-Ledger a local source when it covers a woman from Brookhaven? Jacona ( talk) 19:17, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The coatrack is specifically calling out on the schools as white-segregated without assigning any importance to that fact. I fully understand the logical concerns of a potential Congressperson, who has also established a platform that seems to tend towards white nationalist views, having had gone to a white-segregated school and sending her daughter to another one, but it outside any WP's editor ability under NOR/BLP/NPOV. We need sources for that, and while there are sources that try to draw a connection, I would also point to RECENTISM that we don't know if this has any long-term importance, hence we should be careful until we know this is a significant factor. (Eg we don't rush to include yet-proven accusations against persons until we have a better idea how they will affect that person).

To be clear: Naming her school, or naming her daughter's school (assuming the daughter is not a minor) is fine. It's specifically calling out the nature of the school, which we do not routinely do for any other person on WP. -- Masem ( t) 21:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

I would venture that it's more because other people on WP don't routinely send their children to these type schools, so it's not worth a mention, wouldn't you say? It's what the sources say that matter, and they all use some variation of avoiding black children, segregation, etc., because that's what it is. It's not a coatrack when it's front and center in the lede of these many, many, national souurces. Jacona ( talk) 21:30, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

This story has received some additional coverage since yesterday - with mentions on USA Today, CNN, the Washington Post (editorial), and the AP, as well as a response from the Hyde-Smith campaign itself. I think we can make a case for expanding some of the discussion of the controversies in this campaign. Here's what I would suggest:

I would suggest placing this here, right after the paragraph discussing the public hanging remarks. Nblund ^talk 22:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

!Support Very logical. Jacona ( talk) 22:44, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

• Given the widespread coverage of the issue, and the fact that Hyde has responded to the claim but hasn't denied it, there is no longer any BLP issue here, IMO. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

My comments here are strictly about the two secondary schools that are part of this discussion. I couldn't give two hoots in a henhouse about the bio.

1. On Lawrence, clearly we need to mention Hyde-Smith as a notable alumni, which we have. The current kerfuffle is quite off-topic, as it post-dates the school's closure by many years. We are already using sources from the current thing to support the description of the school as a seg academy. I think the status quo there is just about where we should be at for any content pertaining to her.
2. On Brookhaven, it's already well-established that this is a seg academy. The daughter is not and will likely not ever be notable, so we really have no reason to discuss her, especially considering the long standing convention documented in the school article guidelines against discussing non-notable students. Mention of the controversy regarding her mother's choice for her daughter's education does not add any more information to help a reader understand that this is a seg academy; that's already quite well established. In my view, that makes any mention of Hyde-Smith COATRACK, in that anything added is much more about her than about the school.

As someone mentioned earlier in this discussion, politics are now about everything (a state I do not disagree with). But please remember that just because politics are about everything, that does not make everything about politics. John from Idegon ( talk) 23:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

The coverage is there (with Nblund's wording appropriate), but I still concern myself with the RECENTISM fact. If after today, this was never at all mentioned again by any RSes, then it would not be reasonable to include per UNDUE/BLP. I have no idea if that will be the case, but we should use caution. I don't expect the story to go away but the direction it will take will likely depend on the results of the election. -- Masem ( t) 23:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

!Support Nblund's text.

A couple of other things to note: (1) there is only one source for CHS schooling - JFP. The rest are all copies. (2) "calling out the nature of the school, which we do not routinely do for any other person on WP" is not true. Britney Spears went to a school formed as a segregation academy when it was still all-white. As of 2005, it had never had a black student.

Hyde-Smith was never "a alumni." She was an alumna or one of the alumni.

Cries of WP:RECENTISM ring hollow when Hyde-Smith attended a school forty-five years ago. Rhadow ( talk) 01:58, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It's the fact that this information was just recently discovered and how it affects her politics is the "new" story, hence RECENTISM. Again: it is not that she went there that is a problematic addition, but instead the connection that the press make between her going there and her white nationalistic views in the days prior to a runoff election. -- Masem ( t) 14:36, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

This is indeed "recent" from a news standpoint, but ancient from a fact story, but this has lasting importance. As the story develops and more is learned, Wikipedia:Recentism#Recentism_as_a_positive will be the portion of RECENTISM we will be looking at, because this is not something that will go away; it's something we will be finding more about. Jacona ( talk) 14:48, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It is a story that is barely 48hr old. There is no way at this point to just how important it will be, that's the whole point of RECENTISM. A mass blip of coverage doesn't mean much without knowing the long-tail of this. Next week this time it could be a non-issue, or it could be a major issue. We cannot predict that, that's the whole point and per BLP policy we should be careful about what is included. -- Masem ( t) 15:15, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Today and in 100 years from now, the historical details of a subjects schooling are and will be part of their bio. This is especially so, because it makes no sense to expect encyclopedic readers to intuit information on it (today, or in 100 years - we write bios for readers around the world with multiple different ideas and knowledge of schooling contexts). It is without logic and not in the service of any policy/guideline/essay/explanatory supplement to claim you can name and link their school which contains this information in her bio, but are somehow totally prohibited from saying even one more word or phrase about it in the bio. And inventing a requirement that schooling context be a so-called "important", "major issue" for a single subject is bizarre and insensible for a biography -- it already belongs as part of biography. Nothing that has been written or proposed by Wikipedians has the bio anywhere near the realm of being "majorly" about schooling, and it's most doubtful it ever will, as it will always try to be a full biography (and if it ever becomes a "major issue" we will summarize then split it from the bio into Schooling of . . .). Alanscottwalker ( talk) 16:59, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

It is the presumption that "She went to a whites-only school and sent her daughter to one, thus she must be a white nationalist" angle that the press are pushing that is the issue. It's trying to establish a "guilt by association" and can easily be seen as an attack on her character. As Nblund points out aboard, discussing the press's angle related to her schooling in discussing her politic views could be reasonable, but to tie it with the naming of the school is coatracking the issue out of place. And we still don't know if her past schooling and daughter's current schooling is going to be a long-term issue. (And this keeps getting lost but there is no issue in naming the schools, and even considering below, simply identifying their type as segregation academy. It's any additional comments about the school or type of school in the section about her early life that makes it a coatrack problem, as it makes WP looking like we are judging her - which we can't) -- Masem ( t) 17:40, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

So Wikipedia articles are based on independent, reliable sources except when Masem determines that the sources' motivations are unsatisfactory? Is this written in policy somewhere? Right now, it looks like numerous reliable sources cover Hyde-Smith's schooling, specifically in the context that she attended a segregation academy - that is, an all-white private school founded to circumvent integration. Some sources also mention that she sent her daughter to former segregation academy. Hyde-Smith's schooling raises absolutely no BLP concern, so we can stop discussing it here. Her daughter's schooling is more of a gray area; while there is no BLP concern per se, its suitability for inclusion would turn on how extensively sources cover it. MastCell  ^Talk 20:29, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

"White nationalism"? Are you misrepresenting the sources? I do not recall seeing "white nationalism" used in any of them. What sources are you talking about? Nor have editors used, "white nationalism" to my recollection. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 02:12, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

There have been no edits that mention white nationalism in the article at any time, and I haven't seen it mentioned by any sources, just Masem, repeatedly, in this discussion. Masem, why have you kept bringing white nationalism up when it's not at issue in any way? I can't find any reason for it, maybe I'm missing something. Is it some sort of code? Jacona ( talk) 02:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It's to describe the stance what the press that are pushing the school angle story seem to want to call it eg [4], that (to these sources) her views are racially-charged. I can't figure out any other short-cut term to best describe the picture that the sources seem to want to give Hyde-Smith.

I will say at this point, that the approach that Nblund suggested, in the context of the election, that mentioning the issues brought up by the press with the white-segregated schools is likely unavoidable (eg today [5] still discussing it as a challenge what was likely to have been an easy victory). But again, it needs to be in context of the election, not scattered in other parts of the bio outside of naming the school there. -- Masem ( t) 15:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No. That you turn to a single opinion writer to blanket every source and you do not like is just wrong-headed on many levels of policy and common sense. As for the rest, it's not a matter for this board, anymore. BLP is fine with something like what multiple editors have been saying for a long-time now. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 15:40, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

BLP still matters because 1) the solution proposed by Nbland still hasn't been implemented yet so the problems still exist, and 2) there's still coatrack language in the article (a description of the school's mascot which has zero relevance to her bio outside the context of the special election) -- Masem ( t) 16:03, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No. That's not a BLP issue. Your coatrack claims are nonsense. And anyone can go put something like what Nblund wrote in right now and could for a long time. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 16:07, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

The white nationalism assertions aren't coming from the article, they're not coming from the sources. They're coming only from Masem. Masem also stated the type of school could not be mentioned, only to pretend that wasn't the point later. Red herrings (perhaps dog whistles?) keep being brought up, then ignored when called out. This is gamesmanship. Jacona ( talk) 16:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Comment on content, not the contributor. And while not all sources on her use "white nationalist", I felt it reasonable to use that as a shortcut NOT to describe her, but to describe the pigeonhole that I felt the press was trying to funnel her into with the focus on her racially-insensitive language and her schooling, and hence why I see there's still a BLP problem with the state of the article. I certainly would not suggest using the "white nationalist" label on her bio at this point. And yes, I did change my mind on the mention of the type of school after ASW posted the comment below that it appears on other BIOs (though its not as universal), but I still stress that means one can mention a "segregation academy" as describing her school, but we do not need to go into any other details about that, like the Confederate mascot which has no place on her bio. The issues I bring up are not red herrings, they are the types of long-running BLP issues that are difficult to come to comprise about. (But again, I support Nblund's wording within the "Special Election" section as these are issues relevant to the controversy over the election.) -- Masem ( t) 16:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Actually, the problem is that your arguments, perhaps because of your pre-conceived notions or otherwise, seemingly misrepresented sources, and in so doing, seemingly, other editors. As for being a cheerleader in HS for the Rebels (part of her biography, naturally) take that to the talk page, if you really think it matters. But don't raise bogus policy (or essay) arguments. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 16:59, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

As to the content, making a straw man argument, putting controversial words into the mouths of both contributors and sources, is inappropriate. Jacona ( talk) 17:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It is false Wikipedia does not describe the nature schools in bios: Donald Trump, "At age 13, he was enrolled in the New York Military Academy, a private boarding school"; Barack Obama, "He attended Punahou School— a private college preparatory school"; Amy Klobuchar, "Klobuchar attended public schools in Plymouth and was valedictorian at Wayzata High School." All in Wikipedia, describing schools in bios. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 02:24, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

This seems a pretty reasonable addition to the campaign section. Like I said above, I don't think there are any issues if we cover it appropriately in the campaign section. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 16:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment: I think this is thoroughly reprehensible thing to put in the article. It's badly sourced, completely POV and UNDUE and editorialization, and the daughter is an innocent bystander. It goes without saying that Cindy Hyde-Smith is disgustingly racist, but to drag her daughter in there too without cause, and to impute intentions to why her parents enrolled her in the school is against Wikipedia policy. There are plenty of noteworthy events to include in the article to demonstrate Cindy Hyde-Smith's racist beliefs, actions, and ideology, but there's no reason to add this POV undue assertion. Now if Cindy Hyde-Smith herself had founded the school, and she explicitly stated it was to keep whites segregated, that would be one thing. But that is not the case, and we don't actually know why any specific parent enrolls their child in Brookhaven Academy.

  By the way, I grew up in the South, and my parents were racist, and when desegregation was mandated in 1970, my parents switched their three youngest children to the local private day school (my older brother finished at the public high school; he had only one year to go); they explained that we would get a better education. The private school was excellent, and I blossomed there and had a great education, regardless of my parents' mixed motivations for sending us there. Later, my college best friend teased me that I went to a segregation academy. Maybe it was one -- it was founded in 1957 -- but it was an excellent school and I'm glad I attended it. Many if not most of my teachers were Northerners, and very liberal, and apparently corrupted us, in the eyes of my father LOL. Point is, not every private school in the South is a sinister white-supremacist stronghold, and not every motivation for sending Southern children to private schools is 100% race-based. Softlavender ( talk) 17:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Fortunately, whatever personal issues or memories you have do not matter, here. Everything you have said policy-wise though is based on nothing except your personal POV-pushing, and therefore does not belong. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 17:46, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Alanscottwalker, policy is policy. And your claiming that everyone who disagrees with you is POV-pushing is text-book POV-pushing. Softlavender ( talk) 17:56, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No, You are clearly, blatantly, POV-pushing. You based your whole comment on the POV of your personal history. Your comment showed no interest in what the facts are. The sources say she sent her daughter to a school started as a segeregation academy that still today is virtually all white in a town that is mostly not white - those are just facts. Whether you like those facts or not does not matter. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 18:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

No, I based my position on policies, which I cited. Meanwhile, you have accused people on this thread who disagree with your position of POV-pushing four times so far: [6], [7], [8], [9]. -- Softlavender ( talk) 18:23, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Yes, I commented that you and one other editor are POV-pushing when you are POV-pushing. I said you cited policy, your argument was a personal POV-push. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 18:28, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

And I corrected you. Softlavender ( talk) 18:35, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Your comment based your entire argument after you cited policy on your personal POV, and at length. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 18:38, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments, Softlavender. Why do you say it's badly sourced, POV, etc.? The information is not from the editors but from reliable secondary sources. The bios of other children of politicians, e.g. the Obama childrens includes reliably sourced information about the schools they went to etc. She isn't even named in the article. What we have is multiple reliable sources that say it, and say it as an issue, so while it may be POV, it's the POV of all the major news outlets, not editorialization by wikipedia editors. These sources have deemed that Hyde-Smith's choice to send her children to Brookhaven Academy is noteworthy, what difference does it make if we like it? Jacona ( talk) 17:52, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Compare Cindy Hyde-Smith's parents' choice of schools for her and CHS's choice for her daughter with the choice to join a segregated golf club. The choice may have been based on the challenge of the course and the smoothness of the greens, but the fact that the club excluded Blacks at the time of enrollment IS a relevant topic in today's politics. Rhadow ( talk) 17:54, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It's cited to a single article in the Jackson Free Press, a free alternative-press weekly. That's not "all the major news outlets"; it's not even one major news outlet, or even one paid local or regional outlet. And the article is about Cindy Hyde-Smith, not her daughter. It barely mentions her daughter; she is just a passing mention. It doesn't matter that the daughter is not named, it's still a BLP issue. Softlavender ( talk) 18:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, why do you describe it as badly sourced? In addition to multiple national news sources covering it, when questioned, Cindy Hyde-Smith tacitly acknowledged it. No sources have questioned the accuracy that Hyde-Smith's daughter attended BA, nor that BA was founded as a seg academy. Jacona ( talk) 18:05, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It's cited to a single article in the Jackson Free Press, a free alternative-press weekly. That's not " multiple national news sources"; it's not even one major news outlet, or even one paid local or regional outlet. And the article is about Cindy Hyde-Smith, not her daughter. It barely mentions her daughter; she is just a passing mention. It doesn't matter that the daughter is not named, it's still a BLP issue. Softlavender ( talk) 18:08, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Per the sources multiple publishers find the Jackson Free Press credible, so your personal ideas on being "free" or alternative" do not matter, here. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 18:18, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

It's cited to only one single source, not "multiple publishers". And the cited article is about Cindy Hyde-Smith, not her daughter. It barely mentions her daughter; she is just a passing mention. Softlavender ( talk) 18:25, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Per multiple reliable sources the Jackson Free Press is a credible source. Alanscottwalker ( talk) 18:41, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

While the Jackson Free Press is a black newspaper, it has won numerous writing awards. The information has been picked up by all the national news sites, and I haven't seen the information refuted, even by right-wing outlets. I do not see any reason to doubt the Washington Post, New York Times, Fox News, etc. They fact check before they republish a story like this. And when Hyde-Smith was asked, she did not deny, but acted mortified. This is tremendously well reliably sourced. Jacona ( talk) 18:20, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Jacona, please learn to indent properly (I've fixed your indentation several times by now), and please do not duplicate your posts. The information has only one single citation, which is a free alternative weekly. It is not cited to "the Washington Post, New York Times, Fox News, etc." And by the way, if you think Fox News is a WP:RS, then you need to learn more about RS. Softlavender ( talk) 18:32, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, other sources are discussed in this discussion, we are not discussing only what is in the article, but the information available. I mentioned Fox News because it is an example of a source that would be oppositional to information that might be detrimental to Hyde-Smith's campaign, and they accept it as true. Thanks for fixing the indentation. Jacona ( talk) 18:37, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

In the Wikipedia article, the claim is cited only to the Jackson Free Press. If people wish to provide major independent RS, then they should add major major independent RSes as citations to the claim in the Wikipedia article. Right now the claim is badly cited from an alternative free weekly publication and to an article that mentions the daughter only as an aside. Softlavender ( talk) 18:44, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Softlavender, this is a discussion about what should be in the article. What is currently cited is irrelevant; what is relevant is what can be cited. Jacona ( talk) 18:51, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Even though JFP is not as great an RS as the NYTimes or the like, I don't think there's a doubt regarding that Cindy Hyde-Smith went to Lawrence County Academy, or that that school was white-segregated, or that Hyde-Smith sent her daughter to Brookhaven, or that Brookhaven is similarly set up aiming to be white-segregated. It is important to note that while JFP could have faked the yearbook, Hyde-Smith has affirmed she went there, which corroborates the yearbook. And the state of Brookhaven is easy to determine today since the school still exists. These facts are all relatively objective, and thus by themselves are not BLP issues. It's the implications these facts supposedly mean to Hyde-Smith that remain a subject of discussion -- Masem ( t) 19:16, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Focus

This has drifted pretty far afield. The specific issue is whether it is BLP-compliant to note that Cindy Hyde-Smith attended a segregation academy (that is, an all-white private school founded to defy integration), and later sent her daughter to a similar school. A non-exhaustive list of sources includes the following:

• Jackson Free Press: notes that Hyde-Smith attended a segregation academy and later sent her daughter to one.
• Washington Post (1): notes that Hyde-Smith "graduated from one segregation academy while sending her daughter to another."
• Washington Post (2): describes Hyde-SMith "attending and enrolling her daughter in a so-called segregation academy, a private school intended to skirt around integration by enrolling all or overwhelmingly white students."
• NBC News (1): describes "her attendance, and that of her daughter, at private white 'segregation academies'".
• Washington Post again: mentions reports that Hyde-Smith "attended an all-white segregation academy in the 1970s
• Politico: covers Hyde-Smith's attendance at an all-white segregation academy, mentions that "Hyde-Smith would go on to enroll her daughter at Brookhaven Academy, another Mississippi segregation school"
• NBC News (2): "Smith graduated from a so-called 'segregation academy,' one of hundreds of private schools founded by white parents in the 1960s and 70s after courts ordered public schools to desegregate."
• NBC News (3): mentions that Hyde-Smith "has come under fire again over segregation academies — this time for enrolling her daughter at Brookhaven Academy, also considered a segregation academy."

So there are multiple high-quality reliable sources attesting to the fact that Hyde-Smith attended a segregation academy. Some, but not all, of these sources also mention that she sent her daughter to such a school. These sources satisfy the requirements set forth in WP:BLP, so there is no BLP concern with including this information. That Hyde-Smith attended such a school is a fact, and one that reliable sources deem relevant to her biography. It's our job to present relevant, well-sourced facts, and if we can't do that job, for whatever reason, then we need to take a step back. The reader can determine what they think of the fact that Hyde-Smith attended an all-white segregation academy, but we don't get to decide for them by suppressing that relevant, well-sourced fact (and here I'm looking at you, Masem). I don't see the point in continued discussion here, especially since this thread seems to have degenerated into a platform for increasingly bizarre and policy-ignorant claims about the press, white nationalism, and so on. MastCell  ^Talk 19:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Support I agree 100%. Jacona ( talk) 19:47, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

This part might be an interesting analysis elsewhere, but we need to recognize how the media works here. There is technically only one source here: a yearbook given to the JFP by an anonymous reader, which they then reported on. Every other source is piggy-backing off the JFP's news story (or those that followed off the JFP) of this. Hypothetically, what if that was a faked yearbook to include her name? I doubt it was, and as she's acknowledged she went there, that's no longer a question, but again, what if it was? Just because multiple media sources jump on a story does not make it true if they are piggy-backing off a source of unclear reliability. (At least most of these sources acknowledge JFP was the original source, showing their trust in the source. It is completely fair to discuss how a fact propigates through the media. And I've said repeatedly at this point that naming the schools and their type is not an issue.

What is the issue I see goes beyond the original question, which is that current language in the article leaves implied criticism in WP's voice. The article still has a massive coatrack, in, alongside naming of her school, that the school's mascot was a Confederate icon, without making any statement why that's important. As Nblund wrote above, describing the controversy raised over her education as part of a section related to the special election on her bio page is fully appropriate, and their language is 100% suitable to describe that. It's the attempt to ascribe this points elsewhere that create a problem with neutrality and tone, both treading into BLP. We should not at all be engaging in mud-slinging, and instead only to document that it happened when it creates a significant issue (as it has now). -- Masem ( t) 20:04, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

Masem, you've made these points repetitively. Some are irrelevant, and some actually betray a fundamental misunderstanding of basic site policy. For Wikipedia's purpose, the source is not the yearbook; the sources are the reputable journalistic outlets I've listed above. More to the point, you don't get to suppress and ignore reliable sources simply because you personally question their motivations, or because you have a set of beliefs about how the media operate. You cannot simply characterize any potentially unflattering material as "mudslinging" and seek to suppress it on that basis. You cannot suppress relevant context found in numerous reliable sources simply because of your personal ideas about white nationalism, or whatever. In any case, since you've said your piece (and, frankly, bludgeoned this discussion to death), maybe give it a rest and see what other people have to say? MastCell  ^Talk 20:19, 27 November 2018 (UTC)

I think the fact that she was sent to the segregationist school be mentioned, as well as the fact that it's a segregationist school, but the additional language basically gave away that we have a normative judgement against that. Ideally readers will not know the ideological biases (anti-racist) of the editors. Happy monsoon day 00:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Marriages section says he married Sophie de Niverville in 2003, and subsequently suggests he spoke of their divorce "a year earlier" in 2001. Someone with proper information should update this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.151.236.217 ( talk) 09:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I removed 2003. Palmer isn't explicit on the marriage date, but it seems like it was about 1993. She was fifteen at some point between 1990 and 1992; they married when she was 16. Larry Hockett ( Talk) 09:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Raël (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Having found some big problems in that article, I have nominated it for WP:GAR. It would seem that 11 years of decay have likely affected its "Good Article" status. (Hint: CNSNews is not a reliable source.) Elizium23 ( talk) 09:45, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

At Hell's Kitchen (U.S. season 18) there have been several unsourced claims about contestants regarding ages and names/nicknames. Several editors are supporting claims with dubious references and even resorting to WP:SYNTH, which seems to be a BLP violation. One editor involved in this has used a YouTube source (see here) but when I try to view it I get a mesage that the content is blocked because I am in Australia, not the U.S. Could someone in the U.S. please verify that this source is valid? There was another source added in this edit for "Roe DiLeo" but that times out for me. I'd like to ensure that all of these edits are valid. Thanks. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 16:07, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I just checked the first ep of the season, and when each roookie chef/contestant is introduced, their chevron gives their "name" (nickname that is), age (at the time of filming, most likely), and hometown. The vets have only their name and hometown and original season they were on. The first ep has each rookie introduce their position verbally as well. So everything in the Rookie table - outside full names - can be validated by the primary source (first ep of the season). Full names can be found in the season's presser (eg [10]). This only leaves the ages and positions of the veterans. I am 99% confident that ages can be estimated +/- one year by the same fact that on their original season the introduction chevrons would have given their ages then too. (The video in your first link appears to be an copyvio to a recording of the first episode) -- Masem ( t) 16:32, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

• 1984 anti-Sikh riots (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The infobox of this controversial article says "Perpetrators: Congress Party members". I raised a concern about it on the Talk Page thread stating that although there are several reports alleging members of the Congress party as perpetrators, no court of law has convicted The Congress Party for this riot. In fact the legal Enquiry commission has exonerated Congress leaders. Accordingly User:Britmax who agreed with the concern, removed the defamatory piece of information from the infobox.

An editor promptly reverted it [11] and added these 2 sources Book 1 and Book 2. Quote from book 1 says ..assassination, was followed by pogroms against Sikhs organized by elements within the Congress Party.. The book 2 notes that few arrested were quickly released on the behest of Congress leaders...Official inquiry known as the Mishra Commission gave a blanket exoneration to Congress (I) leaders... Congress Party leaders have repeatedly and vehemently denied any involvement in the rioting. I note that these sources are only accusatory neither of these sources claim a conviction. The second source in fact notes that Congress members were exonerated. hence our article infobox should not include this parameter since it is not established. WP:BLPCRIME states that A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. This defamatory and accusatory content in infobox is now being fiercely supported on the talk page by some editors.

I am posting here for the opinion of neutral editors at BLPN about the content in question and the source. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 16:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

This content dispute is not relevant to BLP or this noticeboard, IMHO, as no individual is identified or named. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 16:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:BLPGROUP makes clear that BLP policy can be applied to named groups rather than just named individuals. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 17:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

It can if the group is particularly small and identifiable, but this was the ruling party of India. I don't think BLP applies here, but I also don't think it's a great idea to have a "perpetrators" section in articles on mass violence unless an identifiable group is described in reliable sources as participating directly in the riots - e.g.: the Interahamwe militias were among the perpetrators in the Rwandan Genocide, or the Klan's participation in the Tulsa race riots. It's true that some have accused the Congress party of fanning the flames of the riots, but that's contested and it's not really the same as describing them as the perpetrators. Nblund ^talk 18:18, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

Folks, I believe whoever has added this in infobox is trying to suggest that "some" of the Congress party members who are mentioned in the article as accused Hence WP:BLPGROUP clearly applies here IMHO. Instead of trying to argue if this is relevant to BLPN or not, per WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY we should rather focus on improving the article at Wikipedia, if an editor believes it is applicable there is no harm in discussing the matter at hand.

• Nat Gertler and User:Nblund Thank you for commenting on the actual issue. I agree with your opinion and I feel that this is not a black and white case where controversial and contested claims can be put in the infobox. -- DBig Xrayᗙ 15:25, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• That is not an opinion that I've stated; I merely addressed the suggestion that BLP only applies to named individuals. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

NatGertler apologies, I misread the comment. I have corrected-- DBig Xrayᗙ 15:34, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

Again, this is not a BLP issue. Clearly WP:BLPGROUP does not apply to the Indian Congress Party or any grouping within that entire political party (in any case, noting that no sub-group or individual is named in the disputed content). This content argument/issue is not about a biography of a living person, and on this noticeboard it's irrelevant and continuing this discussion here is a waste of time. Best Alexandermcnabb ( talk) 16:15, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

An IP has recently piped the text "A. Wyatt Mann" to link to the article Nick Bougas on the page about Ben Garrison (see here). Apparently a Buzzfeed News article seems to strongly imply that Bougas drew a bunch of offensive cartoons under the pseudonym "A. Wyatt Mann" without exactly definitively stating as much. Note also that the article on Bougas now flatly states that he drew many cartoons under this pseudonym as a fact, citing the aforementioned Buzzfeed article as its source. I am concerned that this single source is insufficient to be making these kinds of serious claims about a living person. IntoThinAir ( talk) 01:50, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I see that claim repeated using the Buzzfeed article in Wired and Mic, but in the Buzzfeed, it's basically resting on the word of two close associates of Bougas; there's little else corroborating that is not linking to the Buzzfeed article. I would definitely tiptoe on that, removing the piped linked, and (IMO) removing the statement about that from Bougas' page, or if it needs to state, asserting that it is claimed he is Wyatt Mann but he denies it. -- Masem ( t) 01:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Gordon-Banks -- the details of whose name haven't been stable -- is a politician whose article has been contentious for some time, as seen in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive220#Matthew Banks (2015), Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive256#Matthew Gordon Banks (2017), to a minor degree in Wikipedia talk:Arbitration/Requests/Case/BLP issues on British politics articles (2018; related: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive299#Philip Cross, Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 130#User:Philip Cross, Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive983#User:Philip Cross has COI), and again in the forefront in Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive276#Matthew Gordon Banks (2018), its talk page (as recently as this month), and its very recent edit history. As recently as two weeks ago, I'd never heard of the man. (I stepped in when I read of the article at WP:BLPN/Archive276.) It might help if I returned, but right now I lack the time. In view of the recent edit history and recent comments on the talk page, could some disinterested, level-headed people willing to digest the talk page and familiar with BLP-related policy please tackle this? -- Hoary ( talk) 01:35, 30 November 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I participated in the initial discussion, and my position then, and still is, that Banks falls under WP:BLP - WP:PUBLICFIGURE, which states - If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out (emphasis per BLP). At the time of the original discussion, there was only one article in a local source that documented the incident, so it was removed. Now the argument is that a local source has published two articles, so therefore, it meets the definition of multiple third-party sources. I disagree with that conclusion, my belief is that multiple third-party sources means sources independent of one another. I'm staying out of it, Banks himself, at one time has edited the article I believe as an IP, had others edit on his behalf, he has left a message on my talk page, and there are several others who insist that the incident remain in the article at all costs. Banks also regularly posts on the talk page as well. Good luck, I'm done with that mess. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:06, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

Clearly "multiple third-party sources" does mean "sources independent of one another." It doesn't mean if the same outlet publishes the same idea twice. That ought to be obvious to all of us. Happy monsoon day 00:51, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm still busy, but I budgeted 20 minutes for a return. I've removed the material, and explained this on the talk page. Isaidnoway, please stick around. Continue to cite policies and guidelines. If these are flouted, then say so here, at WP:ANI, or on my talk page. Thank you. -- Hoary ( talk) 14:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)

• Comment - I believe the issue with your edit User:Isaidnoway was that we have two sources, one from the Oxford Times and the Oxford Mail. Likewise I believe that this fulfils the requirements outlined in WP:PUBLICFIGURE. I say that the edits should be put back as they meet wiki guidelines. Moist towelett ( talk) 18:17, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The Oxford Mail is a sister paper to The Oxford Times. Both articles you linked above to were written by Erin Lyons and both articles contain the exact same content. So that is not multiple third-party sources that are independent of one another. They're both exactly the same, just in different papers. And WP:BLP is not a guideline, it is a policy. You have been trying to shoehorn this content into this article for two years now, why? You can clearly see what the policy says - If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. I am truly flabbergasted that you don't understand this. And why are you only pinging me, I'm not the only editor who has objected and removed this content in the last two years. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:25, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

A user is deleting a sourced statement regarding the end of Greg Goff's tenure as head baseball coach at Alabama, stating it is inaccurate and libelous. Other users (including me) have restored it, stating that it is properly sourced, and requesting a source to contradict the information. We've tried taking it to talk pages, but still seem to be at loggerheads. Can some uninvolved editors take a look and weigh in? Billcasey905 ( talk) 01:17, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

I've provided an additional reliable source for support and have watchlisted the page. Will keep my eyes on it. Meatsgains^{( talk)} 03:17, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

While patrolling RC, I have observed quite a number of edits adding ethnicity or heritage to BLPs, and have also seen many articles where this information is already present.

Do we have a policy or informal consensus of any kind on whether this information is relevant? Are there any special sourcing requirements?

The Uninvited Co., Inc. 17:08, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

WP:ETHNICITY and Wikipedia:Race and ethnicity may be starting points. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:08, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Multiple sources say Nguyen is training to be an astronaut. An editor has been repeatedly adding that Nguyen "claims to be in training" and "is not a member of any official training class". The editor has also continually added that her Nobel Peace Prize nomination "is contested by the Nobel Peace Prize committee official nomination procedures and dates." CowHouse ( talk) 10:02, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Eli Erlick (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Eyes needed on this article - see recent edits. Mezigue ( talk) 21:46, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

• Simon Wessely (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A "new user" tag teaming with another to insert material that draws a novel synthesis from a published source in order to say "In a 1993 meeting with a minister for the disabled Simon Wessely claimed that “Benefits can often make [ME] patients worse.”" - this is not in the source, and the article has been the subject of a sustained hate campaign by a minority of activists. Guy ( Help!) 18:42, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

I am reverting this again, the cited source is an Independent article by Nathalie Wright, and it's the only article under her byline I can trace in the Independent. Nathalie Wright is an "ME" activist. Per WP:BLP we need to be sure that a contentious interpretation is not represented as fact, so we need a reputable source for this, not an activist. Guy ( Help!) 00:11, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Someone continues to add the name "Soumaya Mekouar" in the list of children. But that is not correct. The ambassador has only one child: "Camil Mekouar"

Could you please ensure that this change does not occur again?

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IsmaelBelkhayat ( talk • contribs) 02:12, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

The name of the child(ren) has been removed from the infobox per WP:BLP. The mention of the child should be removed altogether unless it can be backed up with a reliable source. — C.Fred ( talk) 02:15, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

Josh Hawley (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Josh Hawley's birthplace is currently listed as Lexington, Missouri, but should be listed as Springdale, Arkansas. This violates the Verifiability policy because Lexington, Missouri is not backed up with a citation. Lexington, Missouri as Hawley's birthplace also violates Verifiability because the article's first cited source, Josh Hawley's Worthy Climb | National Review, contradicts the article's information about his birthplace and instead says he was born in Sprindale, Arkansas (top of fourth paragraph). — Preceding unsigned comment added by MallenSchulde ( talk • contribs) 00:27, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Someone has posted an utterly offensive photo in bio of Mr. Barr. It should be removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VerbatimCT ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

@ VerbatimCT: A vandal repeatedly re-inserted that image into the article, but the vandal has now been blocked. Thank you for your vigilance! -- Dylan620 ( talk) 17:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

It seems that this individual has been in the news due to a recent arrest. I have removed this material pursuant to WP:BLPCRIME but it is a borderline case.

IPs are adding the accusations to the article in a titilating and unencyclopedic fashion. I'm not going to get involved futher, but I would encourage others to watch the page and clean up the worst of the text.

Uninvited Company 22:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Articles being used to attack or promote their subjects, obviously for political reasons.

I have no interest in looking through the background and history of these articles, but my inclination would be to remove large portions of the articles (which I started to do before seeing the scope of the problems), protecting the articles, and notifying all relevant WP:SPA editors. Maybe there are sanctions beyond BLP that apply?

• January Navares-Duterte (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mocha Uson (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Paolo Duterte (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Ronald dela Rosa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sara Duterte (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Sebastian Duterte (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Those are from the the edits of Juanelo1931 ( talk · contribs). I've not looked further. -- Ronz ( talk) 18:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)

Since there's been no reply, I've further trimmed the articles. There's still a great deal that's appears to be poorly translated into English, and content more suiting a tabloid than an encyclopedia article. -- Ronz ( talk) 21:18, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

I've done some futher trimming and brought it to Wikipedia_talk:Tambayan_Philippines#Reviews_needed_of_some_articles_related_to_Rodrigo_Duterte. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:42, 1 December 2018 (UTC)

when it doubt, throw it out (for BLP certainly). Happy monsoon day 00:41, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

A new editor has reverted and commented on my talk, at Talk:Sara Duterte, and at Tambayan_Philippines. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:28, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

John Roxborough Smith (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Incorrect spelling of middle name in article title (correct spelling is: Roxburgh).

^{[1] [2] [3]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Articleroamer ( talk • contribs) 10:56, December 5, 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the article's references are either offline or forego the full middle name; the one online reference I can find that is definitely the guy we're talking about goes with Roxborough. This is a move for us to be cautious about. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:45, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

The Parliamentary guide ref [12] uses "Roxborough", so I'm guessing that these others are misspellings.-- Auric talk 19:40, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

My apologies, as I am new to editing Wiki articles and not certain if I responding to this properly, but is someone able to help update this page based on this recent obituary? Date of birth, date of death, and middle name all require corrections: ^[1] -- Articleroamer ( talk) 17:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

I will take this as sufficient source. I have moved and updated the article. Thank you for your patience. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 17:27, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Vinjay (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Unsourced material keeps being added to this article. Subject doesn't appear WP:Notable. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 01:49, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I have proposed the article for deletion. MPS1992 ( talk) 05:32, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Over the last year some unreliable and possibly slanderous information has been added to Australian National EL class. The changes are not backed by any reliable source (and nor could I find one) so I suspect they may be a BLP violation. I'm requesting that the article be reverted to Special:Permalink/805627865 and revdel applied to the intervening edits. There has been no other substantial editing activity. Triptothecottage ( talk) 07:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Triptothecottage: I've removed the offending sentence as being inadequately sourced (you could have done that yourself?) and watched the article. There are instructions for requesting revdel here but my uninformed guess is that the content will not be found to meet the threshold for deletion, though I agree that it violates BLP. Best, Wham2001 ( talk) 13:25, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Any admins around who can have a look at this page? Greywin and Simonm223 are in a dispute--Greywin, do not restore those names until this is resolved. Drmies ( talk) 19:32, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Also pinging @ NatGertler: - who redacted this information prior to me. And a note that Greywin has disregarded your instruction, reverted my edit and gone over the WP:3RR brightline in the process. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:34, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• And Ivanvector. Drmies ( talk) 19:35, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Users are constantly violating WP:TPNO, editing my posts, removing even sourced material covered by highly reputable sources like Frankfurter Allgemeine. This is no joke anymore, this is MASSIVE CENSORSHIP and a violation of basic WP principles like WP:RS, WP:V, WP:NPOV, freedom of speech and so on.-- Greywin ( talk) 19:36, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Sorry, but you're mistaken. Please refer to WP:BLPCRIME - when an individual has not been convicted of a crime and they are otherwise not notable, we don't name-and-shame them or bring them up as a suspect in a crime. This is to protect the independence of criminal proceedings, avoid trying people in the court of public opinion and avoid making Wikipedia vulnerable to libel suits. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:38, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Majd H. passes even WP:GNG. What's your problem (except that you don't like the information for whatever reason?)-- Greywin ( talk) 19:41, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Aside from being a suspect in this crime (of questionable notability, as I've previously expressed), what is this person notable for? The answer is nothing, and that's what matters for WP:BLPCRIME - which I think you need to read. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:44, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

He is notable, because he is being covered in multiple, highly reputable sources. You should know the basic principles of this project.-- Greywin ( talk) 19:46, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

That's not what independent notability means. See also WP:BLP1E. Simonm223 ( talk) 19:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• Didn't notice this here until I was pinged; I had already started a topic ban discussion at ANI. Ivanvector ( ^Talk/ _Edits) 19:39, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• WP:BLPCRIME has us "seriously consider not including material—in any article" - but it does preclude discussion (backed up by sources) on the talk page on the subject of whether to include or not (and implies this should be discussed, considered, in talk). Icewhiz ( talk) 19:42, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

The "discussion" has included repeated statements by Greywin that a specified individual has committed crimes of which they have not been convicted, which is a pretty blatant BLP problem. He has also included that claim in the article itself. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 19:48, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

If backed up by RSes, that is maybe IDHT. If these assertions on talk are not reliably sourced - then it is a BLP issue. Icewhiz ( talk) 19:54, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

A BLP issue for a suspected gang rapist who committed nearly 30 crimes according official information the State Ministry of the Interior (and surely was convicted for some of them in the past), who is covered in numerous reputable sources as a high profile criminal? But he is defended by some as if their lifes would depend on that, while other criminals are covered with name and picture even when not convicted. Balance was completely lost here. -- Greywin ( talk) 20:00, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

You'll note that in this diff Greywin claims the individual whose name we redacted "committed 29 crimes" for which the arrest warrant wasn't issued in time. Not that they've been accused of or suspected of these crimes, committed. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:01, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

Greywin You're wrong that we're going to the wall to protect this person. What people are going to the wall to protect are: 1) Wikipedia. 2) Due process in criminal proceedings. Those are both things your WP:BLPCRIME violations cause risks to. Simonm223 ( talk) 20:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

You are wrong, terribly wrong, as I am protecting the basic principles of this project. You are maybe defending an ideology or something like that. And the 29 crimes were published not by me, but by the State Ministry of Interior. But it's easier to kill the messenger. When he's dead, the world will be a better place.-- Greywin ( talk) 20:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)

• A question. Whilst shocking, is this incident even notable? Looks a bit WP:NOTNEWS to me. I can think of similar incidents here in the UK that have had very high news exposure but don't have articles for this reason. Black Kite (talk) 00:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

• I also note that Greywin has been blocked indefinitely for persistent BLP violations. Black Kite (talk) 00:35, 8 December 2018 (UTC)
• That is a good question. It does seem like a lot of these articles are created recently. Ratatosk Jones ( talk) 06:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

  We talking about Category:2018 crimes in Germany? There are categories for 2017 and 2016 and it seems like we have far fewer articles on such things in preceding years. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Former naturopath Britt Marie Hermes claims to have been converted away from naturopathy after reporting her then boss for importing an unapproved substance to treat cancer. Accordingly, in a couple oif interviews explaining how she came to oppose naturopathy she has mentioned this event and her ex-boss. [13] [14] Her boss was reprimanded by the Arizona Naturopathic Physicians Medical Board and was never charged. To what extent should we cover this in the two articles? Under WP:BLPNAME should we be naming the naturopath in the two articles? - Bilby ( talk) 22:34, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

This is a very well known story by now. Of course he was not charged (naturopathy is basically a cult) so the reprimand is as strong as it would get. This guy was illegally importing unapproved drugs to prey on cancer patients. That is... not cool. Guy ( Help!) 09:54, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Given he was not charged, much less convicted, you can't really say he was "illegally" doing anything. As far as "well known stories" go, I'm happy to accept that if there is sufficient secondary coverage of this. I haven't seen it. I couple of passing mentions and no coverage in mainstream press doesn't cut it. - Bilby ( talk) 09:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

He was doing it, and admitted it, hence the reprimand. The cult of naturopathy circled the wagons, as it usually does, but what he did was not only unambiguously illegal, it was shamelessly so. He was, by his own admission, importing and administering Ukrain, a non-FDA-approved medication, and injecting it into patients, in the full knowledge that this was illegal - he claimed it was in the "grey area", but there is nothing grey about it. It is a federal crime. It's a crime to which he admitted, whether he was charged or not. In fact there are more details that make it much worse than merely illegally importing and administering a drug, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion. The main issue here is that the quacks think of illegally importing and using drugs as being not just defensible, but a good thing: they are deeply vested in conspiracist claptrap about "big pharma" suppressing "cures" for cancer. Guy ( Help!) 18:26, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

That's great and all. But do we have any secondary sources to back this up in mainstream publications, other than two passing mentions in regard to Hermes? I'm not seeing any. - Bilby ( talk) 20:01, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The article is using a secondary source. Three sentences on this event seems WP:DUE. I notice the case made Casewatch too. [15] Alexbrn ( talk) 03:15, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Case watch is nothing more than a copy of a primary source, and thus doesn't add anything to this. My issue is with WP:BLPNAME - do two passing mentions, only in relation to Hermes, provide enough justification for naming an individual who was not convicted or charged with a crime? - Bilby ( talk) 03:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Casewatch adds some commentary (look at the top of the page). Uzick is named there and in the STAT story where he is the focus for a few paragraphs. [16] So I'm not seeing an issue since his name is already "out there". Alexbrn ( talk) 03:34, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Casewatch adds a total of one paragraph, and the rest is just a copy of the primary source. What is missing form all this is any news source covering his case - there's none. Nor is there a charge or a conviction. We've always been cautious of this - just because a name exists somewhere online, we don't necessarily name someone who is non-notable, has not been charged or convicted of a crime, and who has had very little secondary coverage. My question here is simply if two brief mentions in relation to someone else, and no significant coverage of his case on its own, is significant enough to name him on WP. - Bilby ( talk) 03:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

There is an ongoing RFC which may be of interest to the watchers of this page at Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson#Request_for_comment_(RfC) ResultingConstant ( talk) 00:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

There is no ongoing RfC as it was closed. This page is for reporting issues regarding biographies of living persons. Your efforts to include possible BLP problems may indeed come here at some time; but I don't see how they currently exist in the article. But, if you see any BLP issues in the article, please point them out. O3000 ( talk) 01:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The article is missing that info currently, the absence of which violates BLP WP:WELLKNOWN it belongs in the article. allegation belongs in the biography, citing those sources. In any case, the noticeboard here may be interested in building consensus for a particular text. ResultingConstant ( talk) 01:57, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Could WP:BLPN regulars take a look at this bio? It seems overly concerned with a spat between the subject and another individual, and does little to establish notability. 86.133.149.178 ( talk) 02:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, that's not a proper biography.- Mr X 🖋 13:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The photograph of the tennis player on the Cliff Richey bio page is not Cliff Richey. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:F800:F500:F5E2:E2D6:6865:232C ( talk) 23:28, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

If you mean the photo on the Google box, they both appear to be the same person, albeit the one on Google is an older photo. Or do you mean that File:Cliff_Richey_1972.jpg is of another tennis player?-- Auric talk 19:20, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Michael Seed Michael Seed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I removed references to people in lists on this subject s they seemed to be false. Much of the article is true but with unreliable sources used but some seems false on purpose.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2a02:c7f:383c:ec00:5ba:222:8c63:f09f ( talk) 14:33, December 11, 2018 (UTC)

Note: the linked people removed were Fred West (as an MP) and Mrs Mills (as a celebrity figure).-- Auric talk 19:28, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

• Jerry Speziale (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• 24.46.0.211 ( talk · contribs)

Can someone take a look at the linked article and the IP's contributions to it? They seem NPOV and done by a connected contributor, but I don't actually know much about the guy so they could possibly be correcting an existing bias in the article. Not sure here, figured we could use a few extra sets of eyes on this. cymru.lass ( talk • contribs) 20:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

That article has a long term issue with COI editing. See here. The latest edits appear to be a continuation of the same problem (unexplained removal of stuff that might reflect badly on Mr. Speziale, addition of unsourced puffery). Fyddlestix ( talk) 20:41, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

@ Fyddlestix: could you help me figure out a last good to revert to? This one seems to be the edit immediately previous to the recent COI editing, but I don't know if it's still affected by the earlier COI editing. cymru.lass ( talk • contribs) 21:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

This is just a heads-up so people know what they're seeing... we've attracted a chap in Portugal with a rather unusual MO and access to a hefty range of IP addresses, who is active across a number of BLP articles. His standard practice is to add a mass of unsourced genealogical information (usually relating to the European ancestry of American individuals) and to expand the place of birth location to include every conceivable level of geolocation. He will edit war (no edit summaries or discussion) using a variety of (usually Vodaphone) IPs to keep this information in the article. A fairly standard example showing both behaviours is this. A smattering of the articles affected so far:

• Katee Sackhoff
• January Jones
• Nicki Clyne
• Kelly Carlson
• Gina Carano
• Alexandra Daddario
• Amber Smith
• Russ Smith (running back)
• Trieste Kelly Dunn

There are many more, however. I'm posting this so that people are aware of this user; given that he has access through his ISP to a wide pool of IPs and seems fairly persistent, affected pages should probably be raised at RFPP if more than one revert is needed. Yunshui  ^雲 _水 08:39, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

At Joe Mercola many of Mercola's views are cited to his own website, followed by statements debunking them sourced to RS. I didn't think all this self sourcing was how wikipedia is supposed to be written(even with the debunking statements after), so I started removing this [17], with plans to add secondary sourced material as I found it. My content removal may have been too aggressive, and was mistaken for whitewashing and reverted by User:JzG [18] I have since added some snopes sources and an SBM article, but I don't want to turn the article into a copy of snopes, and i cant find that many sources debunking mercola. I would like to add more from SBM, but am concerned about WP:BLPSPS, there seems to be some consensus that SBM is not an SPS, but if I remember correctly someone suggested that SBM used to be an SPS so what about their older articles? and what about articles on SBM that are written by Gorski himself? Thanks for any advice. Tornado chaser ( talk) 00:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Surely Snopes should never have been used as a source on any such article? The claims in the article would be medical claims, therefore WP:MEDRS applies. Removing any Snopes sources and all content sources to such sources, is the obvious way forward. MPS1992 ( talk) 00:48, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I removed the snopes sources, but the question about SBM remains. Tornado chaser ( talk) 00:52, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The article is full of synthesis and original research. It lists a number of his views, then rebuts them with scientific sources that do not mention Mercola. It also provides a list of his "controversial" views, which is sourced to his writing, but no source that they are controversial. A better approach would be to use reliable secondary sources about Mercola, explaining his views and the degree to which they differ from orthodox views. TFD ( talk) 01:27, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree, but when I removed the SYN, I was reverted [19] and accused of "buffing up articles on charlatans", but I can't find many secondary sources Tornado chaser ( talk) 02:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I thought this general issue was worked out: FRINGE and treating Wikipedia as a mainstream encyclopedia, vs BLP concerns over adding basic background around fringe claims and beliefs.

I thought the agreement was we take great care with what we say about a person, but we make sure to document mainstream science whenever fringe claims and beliefs are being presented. -- Ronz ( talk) 04:08, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

That is correct. Tornado Chaser is editing a lot of articles on antivaxers right now and, not yet being well versed in WP:FRINGE, keeps falling foul of this problem. Guy ( Help!) 10:34, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Concur with The Four Deuces and others who have said that there are issues with original research. That edit summary was totally uncalled-for. The article is under discretionary sanctions, obviously ARBBLP, but also ARBPS. Has JzG been made aware of DS?

I have never heard of SBM and that site may have some content that is not self-published, but the source you added does seem to fail BLPSPS as it openly admits in the first paragraph that (a) it is a blog and (b) does not represent mainstream. Moreover, the source suggests reading disclaimers here, which tells us that "Dr. Gorski must emphasize that the opinions expressed in his posts on SBM are his and his alone and that all blog posts for SBM and elsewhere are written during his own time during evenings and weekends." Case closed? Politrukki ( talk) 18:05, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

The fact that you have never heard of SBM is a pretty clear indication that you are not much of a student of quackery on Wikipedia. That's fine, by the way, I can totally understand anyone not wanting to get ionvolved with the never-ending stream of apologists for charlatans that turn up at these articles, it is a completely thankless task. Guy ( Help!) 18:14, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Good talk. First, I have to correct my previous statement: I only meant that I don't remember hearing of SBM. Peter Gulutzan linked to an RFC, which refreshed my memory and I now remember reading some bits of the RFC and preceding discussions.

Righting great wrongs has been invoked in this discussion and not entirely without merit. Some defects in the article date way back. One example is the self-sourced content (claiming manifestations of AIDS (including opportunistic infections and death) may be the result of "psychological stress" brought on by the belief that HIV is harmful) that Tornado chaser removed [20]. The original version was added in 2011, to debunk some claims no reliable source deemed noteworthy at the time, I assume.

• In 2011 an editor adds content citing Mercola's web site [21] and claiming that the site calls AIDS denialists "a fringe group which denies the existence of AIDS and/or the role of HIV in causing it". The two links are now dead (they redirect to another page), but the implication that Mercola's site directly supports a claim that (a) Mercola's site has promoted AIDS denialists and (b) AIDS denialists is a fringe group, defies logic.
• An edit that adds content and sources that apparently don't mention Mercola at all (one of the sources was published in 1988, i.e. years before website posts).
• In 2013 another editor adds [22] adds a citation to a secondary source (Chicago Mag, which by the way cites Gorski's opinions), but the claim is not adjusted to match the source. The source may be a reliable for a claim about Mercola or Mercola's website, but not for the specific claim that still – five years later – is in Mercola's bio.

If the goal of adding links to Mercola's site was to generate ad revenue for Mercola's site, then congratulations folks, you succeeded. If the goal was to adhere to BLP, V, and NOR, you have failed. Politrukki ( talk) 20:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Take a look at David Wolfe (entrepreneur), a BLP of a well known promoter of pseudoscientific alt-medicine. I think that article basically handles the issue correctly. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 05:15, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

• Yes. SBM has been discussed here repeatedly: it is a reliable source for critique of quackery. It has a good reputation for editorial quality and is written by known expert contributors. It is challenged routinely by people buffing up the articles of charlatans, and every time it comes here, the decision is that it's reliable. Guy ( Help!) 09:51, 9 December 2018 (UTC)
• Sources cannot be combined to synthesize conclusion not found in the sources, no matter how much quackery there obviously is. Doing so undermines our credibility as an encyclopedia that doesn't take sides. - Mr X 🖋 13:28, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Mr X, and I understand that SBM is reliable, but are some of it's articles self published? because even an RS cannot be used for statements of fact in a BLP if it is self published. I am not challenging the use of SBM, I want to use it in the Mercola article, but I posted here to make sure I would not be violating BLP if I did so. Tornado chaser ( talk) 15:10, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I believe that has been discussed before, although in fairly specific case: Talk:Michael Greger/Archive 2#Request for comments on SBM source. - Mr X 🖋 15:30, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

That was referring to a statment attributed to the author, here I am talking about saying stuff in wikipedia's voice, which that RfC would lead me to think is not allowed. Tornado chaser ( talk) 15:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Probably a separate issue but looking at the page, why do we need to include his claims (sourced only to his stuff) that are not discussed by any RS? Because right now, including his claims and then adding the science-based reasoning against that claim is veering into OR/SYNTH territory, and creating misleading statements. For example, the statement about microwaving food - he is not wrong broadly (you're even linking to microwave chemistry), but the "science" reason only addresses one factor that he gives related to nutrient value. It is better simply not to have his claim to start if no RS has discussed it. -- Masem ( t) 15:35, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

That is exactly what I was trying to fix when I was falsely accused of trying to "buff up" the article, I'm glad that someone else sees this issue. Tornado chaser ( talk) 15:38, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Yes, we should not be elevating his self-published claims, only to then shoot them down by juxtaposing scientific findings. We're not (supposed to be) here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS or to warn the world about quackery.- Mr X 🖋 15:50, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Here is a perfect example of what we can't do:

Mercola has been highly critical of vaccines and vaccination policy, claiming that too many vaccines are given too soon during infancy. He hosts anti-vaccination activists on his website, advocates other measures rather than vaccination in many cases such as using vitamin D rather than a flu shot 15 despite the data not being conclusive 16 and strongly criticizes influenza vaccines.

- Mr X 🖋 15:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

If RSes clearly note he's an anti-vac'er, but do not cover the reasons he is anti-vac, there's definitely no reason to go into any attempt to detail either his claims or the scientifically sound counter-claims. -- Masem ( t) 16:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding that specific claim: this Forbes article directly juxtaposes Mercola's flu shot advise against the scientific evidence. I agree that we should probably avoid repeating those claims unless they have been mentioned in secondary sources, but Mercola's quackery is well-covered elsewhere, and so it should be easy to cite secondary sources for most of the statements in that section rather than removing them. Nblund ^talk 17:57, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Keep in mind Forbes contributor sites like that one above are not RSes. Now, if you can find RSes that discuss his claims and where necessary why they are quackery, then sure, the SPS sources for what specificly he says, followed by those RSes that debunk them directly are fine. I'm just worried about the random including of (otherwise appropriate) MEDRS sources that are not directly addressing Mercola or his claims directly. That's OR from a WP editor to prove it wrong, even if it seems obvious. The exception I would make would be clear psuedoscientific views like anti-vac, Flat Earths, etc, where there's fully clear scientific consensus these are quack views. -- Masem ( t) 18:29, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree that if no independent source has commented on a claim, then we cannot discuss it either. However, SBM is a reliable independent source, so if they critique a claim made by Mercola then we can indeed discuss it by reference to SBM, we just can't say "$QUACK said $BATSHITCRAZYTHING (source: $QUACK saying $BATSHITCRAZYTHING on $SPS), but $BATSHITCRAZYTHING is batshit crazy". What we can say is "$SOURCE has criticised $QUACK for saying $BATSHITCRAZYTHING, pointing out that it is batshit crazy". It doesn't take much to verify that Mercola has promoted dozens of scams and dangerous untruths. Guy ( Help!) 18:12, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

What we cannot do is use an SPS, even an independent and reliable SPS, as a source for a statment of fact about a living person. Tornado chaser ( talk) 21:40, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

You are right, and politrukki was right to point out early in this thread that SBM according to SBM is a blog with apparently weak or nonexistent editor control (the "reply" to that wasn't a reply to the point), and we went through something similar in an RfC where a strong majority opposed making exceptions to WP:BLPSPS for "science-based" SPSs. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 22:58, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I have started an RfC on the use of SBM as a source here. Tornado chaser ( talk) 15:37, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

The diff in question is diff. The source in question is Engel, David. "On Reconciling the Histories of Two Chosen Peoples." The American Historical Review 114.4 (2009): 914-929.. Engel writes the following in a footnote -

23 Ibid., 22. The description of Poland as paradisus judaeorum dates to the seventeenth century. Through the time of the partitions, it was generally employed satirically, as a way of mocking the nobledominated regime of the former Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth for its alleged favoring of aliens over natives. In some formulations it was coupled with similar descriptions of Poland’s purported beneficence toward other groups. On the other hand, Poland was often called purgatory for the commoners and hell for the peasants. Stanisław Kot, Polska rajem dla Z˙ydo´w, piekłem dla chłopo´w, niebem dla szlachty (Warsaw, 1937), esp. 14–15; Janusz Tazbir, Pan´stwo bez stoso´w: Szkice z dziejo´w tolerancji w Polsce XVI i XVII w. (Warsaw, 1967), 28–56. Kutrzeba and his colleague Franciszek Bujak may have been among the first modern historians to employ the expression seriously as a more or less accurate description of the Jewish situation in old Poland. Bujak, The Jewish Question in Poland (Paris, 1919), 6."

Engel discusses, in the paper, the views of other historians as well. Is it accurate to say in our voice that

Historians, such as David Engel have described the label paradisus iudaeorum ( Latin for " Paradise of the Jews") as a "more or less accurate description of the Jewish situation" in Poland at this time.

I have contended that not, as Engel is describing/attributing the position of Kutrzeba and Bujak, and is not making this assertion in his own voice. Note that the term in question is considered antisemitic by other sources, and Engel elsewhere in his article writes (referring to a modern incarnation of the same narrative, the article contrasting historiography views on the question, prior to suggesting a possible way to a middle ground) that "This narrative has never won substantial acceptance among the Jewish public". Icewhiz ( talk) 08:13, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

"Note that the term in question is considered antisemitic by other sources" <-- this is false. Icewhiz has managed to find ONE source, written by a photographer, not a historian, in a hard-to-read-much-less-understand stream-of-consciousness review of a visit to a museum which makes this assertion. Most (all?) other sources DO NOT consider the term "anti-semitic" although it did originate in a satirical 16th century poem with possible anti-semitic overtones (it was the 16th century, not the 20th century). But the meaning and usage of terms changes over time and this is true for how this term has been used as well.

As to the matter of Engel - Engel presents the debate between two camps of historians in interwar period who were arguing about WHY 16th century Poland could be described by this phrase, not WHETHER it could be. The Kurzeba guy, referenced above, following the Polish-Jewish historian Szymon Askenazy, argued that the situation described by the label "paradisus judaeorum" was due to "essential Polish proclivity for tolerance and liberty", while other historians argued that the situation described by the label was due to "mutual advantage stemming from meshing of interests between Jews and certain classes of Polish society". But NEITHER group disputed the overall accuracy of the label (although some did note that it was an exaggeration) and neither does Engel, who refers to it as "more or less accurate".

This assertion by Icewhiz is also misleading: " Engel elsewhere in his article writes (...) "This narrative has never won substantial acceptance among the Jewish public". This is Icewhiz bluntly misrepresenting the source, something which he has been warned about on several previous occasions. What Icewhiz doesn't tell you is that Engel goes on to say "If it (the narrative) is to gain such acceptance now, it will do so only in the wake of far-reaching shifts in the attitudes of Jews towards their history". Engel then goes on to decry the limited influence that historians have on public perceptions. What he is saying is that both Poles and Jews need to rethink their history if a common understanding is to be arrived at. In other words, Icewhiz is trying to pretend that Engel condemns "the narrative", but that is not at all what he's doing. By calling it "more or less accurate" he is acknowledging its relevance. By implying that public perceptions need to change he is also establishing that this "more or less accurate" narrative should be part of that common ground.

There's no BLP vio here. The text accurately reflects the source. Icewhiz got caught misrepresenting a source and this is some "alternative facts" way of trying to deflect the attention from himself. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 08:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't understand what is the BLP relevance of Engel's source here? AFAIK the op added that source himself so is he questioning his own wording...? I am quite confused. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:48, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

In my view, published material The American Historical Review is an excellent source. The BLP relevance is the rather serious, in my eyes, mis-attribution of a statement to a BLP (Engel did describe the views of others - in this case a 1919 publication presented by the Polish government in the Paris peace conference - he did not endorse these views as accurate). If we are falsely attributing a statement to a BLP, it is a BLP issue. This particularly true for potentially contentious statements. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Do we have a copy of the text to which this footnote was attached? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 12:37, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

  @ Ryk72: The article is pay walled (but is accessible on-line). footnote 23 is at the end of a paragraph discussing Kutrzeba and his "1919 essay, La question juive en Pologne, submitted to the Paris Peace Conference". The sentence prior to footnote 23 (which begins immediately after footnote 22) is:

  Kutrzeba’s conclusion was emphatic: “It has been said that Poland is the paradisus judaeorum. It may not have been a paradise for the Jews, but if one compares Jewish liberties in Poland with the restrictions [prevailing elsewhere] . . . , the exaggeration in this name . . . may not appear excessively great.”23

  In the subsequent paragraph Engel discusses the views of "several leading historians of the Jews who lived in the Second Polish Republic—Majer Bałaban, Ignacy Schiper, Mojz˙esz Schorr, Rafael Mahler, Emmanuel Ringelblum, and Philip Friedmann" (who disagree with Kutrzeba). Icewhiz ( talk) 12:45, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

This right here, this comment by Icewhiz, is the deliberate misrepresentation of the source. Engel does mention the above historians but DOES NOT say they disagreed with the fact that 16th century Poland was a "paradisus judaeorum". They didn't. The disagreement was about WHY it was, not WHETHER it was. Indeed, there are several paragraphs in the source which outline the agreement (starting with "On the one hand..." on pg 919, as well as top of pg 920 the part that says "all agreed" - note that when asked to provide quotations from the source Icewhiz purposefully omitted these parts from the source via the use of ellipses "(...)", in order to misrepresent it). Volunteer Marek ( talk) 14:23, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It would be helpful if someone were to provide the unelided text. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 14:27, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

@ Ryk72: It is not relevant to the question of the false attribution of Kutrzeba to Engel, but here goes (emphasis mine):

Although several leading historians of the Jews who lived in the Second Polish Republic—Majer Bałaban, Ignacy Schiper, Mojz˙esz Schorr, Rafael Mahler, Emmanuel Ringelblum, and Philip Friedmann (the first three of whom received the Wawelberg fellowship)—did depart in significant ways from the Dubnowian narrative about Poland’s place in Jewish history, the story line that they substituted for it accorded only in part with Askenazy’s desiderata.24 On the one hand, it stressed that Jews and Poles shared a centuries-long common history, during which relations between the two groups were for the most part peaceful, and Jews developed a strong sense of attachment to the country. It also depicted whatever strains crept into those relations as largely of foreign origin. On the other hand, it attributed the long-term stability of Polish Jewish relations not, as Kutrzeba had suggested, to any essential proclivity of the Polish nation for tolerance and liberty, but to mutual advantage stemming from a meshing of interests between Jews and certain classes of Polish society. Jews did well in Poland for a long time, the Polish Jewish historians argued, only because they contributed substantially to the development of the Polish state and economy. However, political and economic changes eventually engendered a situation where, in their view, the benefits of cooperation no longer sufficed to offset tensions born of mounting competition and religious parochialism. Although the dating, description, and etiology of those changes were matters of ongoing debate among them, all agreed that during the period of partitions, Polish society had increasingly fallen prey to imported traditions of anti-Jewish prejudice that were not in keeping with its historic values. Poles might recover those values, they suggested, but only if they took affirmative action to do so. [paragraph break] Thus oppositional Polish and Jewish narratives of the historic relations between the two groups replaced convergent ones .... If it could be demonstrated that Poles were innately tolerant and had always, when not under foreign domination, helped Jews to flourish in their midst, then, Polish spokesmen argued, there was no reason for Jews to oppose monoethnic Polish rule. If, on the other hand, the historical record called Polish tolerance and beneficence into doubt, Jewish leaders possessed a seemingly powerful argument in favor of a multiethnic regime.

In my view, this text is rather straightforward in presenting a group opposed to Kutrzeba's narrative (paradise and all). Icewhiz ( talk) 14:59, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

The relevant text is " On the one hand, it stressed that Jews and Poles shared a centuries-long common history, during which relations between the two groups were for the most part peaceful, and Jews developed a strong sense of attachment to the country. It also depicted whatever strains crept into those relations as largely of foreign origin.". NOT the part which you highlighted, which is about WHY this happened. Again, this does not present a group "opposed to "paradise and all"". It presents a group opposed to Kutrzeba's explanation for WHY it was a paradise. This is pretty straight forward and you really have to twist it to get something else out of it. Same applies to the other part you highlighted.

You're doing WP:OR and equivocating. Because some historians disagreed with Kutrzeba on ONE thing, you pretend that they disagreed with him on OTHER things. That's not how it works, and it's not what the source says. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 15:54, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

• Bujak, the other source referenced by Engel, has Poland never drove them away, never confiscated their property, which has won for her the name of "the Jews' paradise" (paradisus judaeorum). - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:12, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It's available through JSTOR. Note that Icewhiz never provided a link to the article (paywalled or not) and when asked for relevant quotations stalled until I went and got it and pointed out that the article did not say what he claimed it said. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 14:17, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I think it's fairly clear from the context that neither Kutrzeba nor Bujak use the term paradisus judaeorum in a literal sense; that they do reference it in contrasting the situation for Jews in Poland with that of the surrounding countries (Russia, Prussia, Bohemia, etc); that this is a different usage from previous satirical, ironic or anti-semitic usage. I think it's also fairly clear from the context that Engel is referring to such novel usage by Kutrzeba & Bujak; that he is also not using the term literally; and that he is attributing the conclusion that the Jewish situation in Poland was better than surrounding countries to Kutrzeba & Bujak. It would be a misrepresentation of this source to state otherwise. There are additional concerns in the use of a footnote, devoid of context (cf. WP:RSCONTEXT); and, even if the source did support the text, with the inclusion of this viewpoint, based solely or primarily on this footnote, in the lead section of the article (cf. WP:UNDUE). - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:29, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure how exactly calling any place on earth "a paradise" can be "literal", so I'm not sure what the point of that is. Yes, of course it's meant in contrast to rest of Europe. Engel does call the conclusion by Kutrzeba and Bujak "more or less accurate", which is what the text in the article says. Note that the text was also based on another reliable source [23], but Icewhiz has tried to remove that as well [24]. The sentence also summarizes text in the body of the article itself, which is what the lede is suppose to do. So it's not UNDUE. Regardless, whether it's UNDUE or not is not a BLP issue. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 14:30, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

There's also the issue that the article text includes in Poland at this time; the this time referred to is From the founding of the Kingdom of Poland in 1025 through to the early years of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth created in 1569, which is in the preceding sentence. Engel does not make a claim specifically about this time period (either himself or through attributing Kutrzeba & Bujak); but does date the term to the seventeenth century, outside this period. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 13:46, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

We can be more precise and reference the 16th century specifically. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 14:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

Attributing the statement Historians, such as David Engel have described ... to Engel would be a misrepresentation of what Engel writes. In the context Engel is only describing Kutrzeba's and Bujak's thinking. So yes, misattributing a somewhat controversial assertion to Engel would be a BLP violation. Politrukki ( talk) 23:09, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

There is an ongoing issue of editors calling Steve King a racist, or dogmatically calling his comments racist - in violation of BLP. There is nothing wrong with the material itself, but Wikipedia violates BLP when we make value judgements in section headers. JLaw220 ( talk) 01:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

There are multiple RS (e.g. a dozen) that describe King's remarks as "racist" (verbatim) or "racially charged"/"racially tinged". I also brought this to the BLP noticeboard a few months ago, and if I recall correctly, it was OKayed to reflect the language of RS. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 01:19, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

There is a major difference between an editorial position of a reliable source and citing an undisputed fact from a reliable source. Calling a living person a racist clearly violates BLP, regardless of what a newspaper may editorialize as their opinion. To clarify, no source information is being asked to be removed in the article, just that the section header not conclusively attack Steve King as a racist. That is an opinion that cannot be made in a BLP article. JLaw220 ( talk) 01:28, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

King is not called a racist. Read more closely, 45-minute old account. Rather, his remarks which were totally racist are being described as racist by RS and thus also by Wikipedia. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 01:30, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Living people can most certainly be racist, and this encyclopedia may describe them as such. I would agree that it should be a very high bar, and I haven't looked at the RSes for this subject, but the idea that this "is an opinion that cannot be made in a BLP article" strikes me as categorically incorrect. Cheers all. Dumuzid ( talk) 01:33, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

(EC) Correct, leaving aside the current article, where the reliable sources describe a subject as racist, sexist, anti-semite etc then they can be described as such. Likewise where reliable sources outright state a subjects comments are racist etc, we can describe them so. Back to Steve King, the article does not say he is a racist (because the sources dont support that) the article does say he has made comments described as racist and that others have called him racist. Which is correct and can be trivially easily sourced. A section header that substantially covers his racist comments and the controversies around them titled 'Racist comments, controversies and far-right politics' is perfectly fine. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 01:44, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

What’s the bar for WP:BLP? It’s clear Steve King has been involved in notable controversies, but it is disputed across the political spectrum whether or not he is racist, and this shouldn’t be a judgment, in my opinion, for Wikipedia editors to make. Let the facts speak for themselves. Cite the controversial comments etc. JLaw220 ( talk) 01:38, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The bar is 'Do reliable sources describe his comments as racist' and the answer is yes. That other right wing rich white republicans either dispute or handwave his comments as racism is not really surprising. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 01:45, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The article presents the racism as described by the sources. Excluding it would be a clear case of censorship Jacona ( talk) 17:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

PJS v News Group Newspapers (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views): We've run into a problem over whether to name PJS and YMA in the article, with a revert war brewing over this. I've already had my two cents' worth at Talk:PJS_v_News_Group_Newspapers#Identities_of_PJS_and_YMA but would appreciate some additional input on this.-- ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 19:22, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm the guy who made the edit. I've justified my reasoning on that same talk page as well. I do want to point out I'm not trying to be a jerk about this, but I firmly stand on the side of freedom and providing more information about topics, not less. 66.193.103.195 ( talk) 20:40, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

(copied over from there): What you say there is not unreasonable. But I am looking for little clarity here, in what seems to be a very contradictory situation. How can it be correct for "editors in England and Wales", even long-standing editors with clearly published identities, to have to "exercise caution", while anonymous editors registered at, for example Beaverton, Oregon, can do as they please? Martinevans123 ( talk) 22:31, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I have replied at the article. It is not a BLP issue, its that UK-based editors are bound by UK law which prohibits them doing certain things. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 23:02, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

You're quite happy then, for that information to be added, as long as it's not (ostensibly) by an editor who happens to be located (at the time of their edit) in the UK? Martinevans123 ( talk) 23:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

As a UK resident I cannot opine on the material's inclusion or exclusion lest I be considered to be helping to disseminate it. I can only say that if you arnt in the UK, and are not a UK citizen overseas, then you are fairly safe. Only in death does duty end ( talk) 23:34, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

I think you mean something like: "the onus is on the editor to decide if they are safe, and you won't bother to check for them"? (Not that there has ever been anything remotely like a test case for this type of Dickensain law making, not least at Wikipedia?) Martinevans123 ( talk) 23:41, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

To expand upon what I said over in the other talk page -- I look at including this information as fighting censorship. I personally believe it's okay for this information to be added by anyone, whether inside or outside the UK; I do not believe information like this should be illegal to report in the first place. However, the injunction is apparently still valid in the UK, and thus it wouldn't be wise for a UK editor to do this because they could risk arrest or civil litigation. That does not mean, however, that the information should be off-limits to Wikipedia. The message at the top of the talk page states:

The topic of this article is the subject of an anonymised privacy injunction within the United Kingdom. Editors in England and Wales should exercise caution when editing or commenting on the topic of this article and may wish to consider any personal legal implications.

From this verbiage, it merely warns UK editors that they could face legal action if they added the information. It even implies that merely commenting on the article without the information present could open UK editors to legal consequences. It does not, however, outright ban this information from being added at all. If the intent of the notice was to ban this information, it is not worded in such a way to forbid anyone from adding it regardless of jurisdiction. As it stands now, it does not prevent someone outside the UK's jurisdiction from adding it, provided it's sourced appropriately.

To further show that this addition is about censorship and freedom of information, not merely tabloid-style gossip, I decided eventually to use an article from The Straits Times of Singapore, which reported when the injunction was initially going to be lifted in April 2016. This article explicitly revealed the names of PJS and YMA as "the couple" who requested the injunction, as was done during the case; it does not base its information on a less-reputable source like the National Enquirer. 66.193.103.195 ( talk) 00:36, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

As has been pointed out at Talk:PJS v News Group Newspapers, It was PJS who had the extramarital affair. If it weren't for the fact that he is married to YMA (with whom The Sun has a long running feud) none of this would have been interesting enough to publish in the first place. The Sun used PJS as a way of getting at YMA, which is why news outlets such as the New York Times and CNN decided not to publish the names. YMA is not a direct party in this case, which is the main reason why the edits by 66.193.103.195 are problematic. He/she is falling into the trap of making YMA a major player in all of this, which is exactly what The Sun wants. The plaintiff is PJS [25] but The Sun is really only interested in the YMA angle.-- ♦IanMacM♦ ^{(talk to me)} 02:39, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, I don't really care what The Sun wants. I'm not British, nor do I follow a lot of tabloid gossip, so The Sun's obsession with YMA didn't enter my mind in the slightest when I made that edit. As I mentioned earlier, both PJS and YMA were named as the couple that sought the injunction according to my source, which is why both names were originally included. Despite only PJS being the plaintiff, I'd assumed (probably foolishly) that they sought it as a single entity.

I have offered to revise my edit to only name PJS, so that others could discover who YMA is on their own if they so desired. I feel that is a good compromise solution to this whole mess. However, to fight government censorship, at least one of them must be named. 66.193.103.195 ( talk) 17:14, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

It turns out that an edit was made by someone else to remove YMA from the page but keep PJS. I'm satisfied with this edit. Thank you for being understanding. 66.193.103.195 ( talk) 17:41, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

To be up front, this is not about a BLP: George Dantzig is long dead. However, I'm not sure where else to take this and WP:BLPCAT provides guidance that I believe should apply to all biographies, living or dead: namely, that "Categories regarding religious beliefs (or lack of such) or sexual orientation should not be used unless the subject has publicly self-identified with the belief (or lack of such) or orientation in question, and the subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to their public life or notability, according to reliable published sources." Avaya1 ( talk · contribs) has, to the contrary, been edit-warring to add the category Category:American Jews (a category of religious belief; we have a separate category hierarchy "...of Jewish descent" for people who are merely ethnically Jewish) to George Dantzig, without attempting to provide reliable sources or in-article text relating to any public self-identification by Dantzig or relevance of this claim to Dantzig's public life or notability. Additional opinions welcome. — David Eppstein ( talk) 21:26, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

1. It's not a BLP. 2. The category is not a statement of faith (i.e. almost the majority of people described as Jews in the world today are secular Jews, and certainly the majority described as such on this encyclopedia). This is a project-wide consensus. For example, Netanyahu the Prime Minister of Israel is described as Jewish, despite his personally saying that he is secular. (See Who is a Jew for more information on how the category of being Jewish is defined, under which Dantzig qualifies even by Orthodox Jewish law) 3. Dantzig is described as Jewish in more than one secondary source, including by people who knew him personally and likewise he was American.) 4. You've reverted it three times, so the edit warring is equally shared between us. Avaya1 ( talk) 22:11, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

All I can see in the source provided above that is pertinent to this question is the remark, "Had George not been Jewish he would have got my vote for Pope." That doesn't really say much about his beliefs as opposed to his ancestry — it's a joke, and all the joke really presumes is Jewish descent.

My own feeling is that the guidance of WP:BLPCAT should in this respect apply to all biographies, whether the subject P is L or not. We shouldn't be making stronger claims than the sources warrant. Moreover, the mere fact that we have an entire article on the controversy and various sub-controversies strongly suggests that we should make the most prudent and carefully delineated statement possible, leaving the reader to make their own judgment, rather than doing it for them in the encyclopedia's voice. XOR'easter ( talk) 00:02, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

He is Jewish under all possible interpretations of Jewish law, which is a category based on ancestry, not faith (Just as the category of being American is not a statement of faith). Being Jewish is only related to faith in the case of people who choose to convert to Judaism, and even in the converts' case it is not a question of faith after conversion. So what's the purpose of removing it - it's just a fact, just as his being an American scientist is. As for sources, there are multiple secondary sources, which is more than for most people categorized as Jewish on Wikipedia. Avaya1 ( talk) 14:09, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

I don't think BLPCAT should be stretched to cover people who are dead and have not died recently. That could lead into absurd situations where historians for instance consistently call a person who died 100+ years ago an X and we would be unable to categorise the person as X without self-identification. We already have a guideline CATDEF, which is applied to all categories, and all categories must also be verifiable. Whether Category:American Jews is about religious beliefs (at least when it is applied to persons not covered by BLP) and whether a category is be verifiable is what I would call a "normal content dispute", not a matter for this noticeboard. Politrukki ( talk) 19:13, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

Ryan Fry may have WP:undue and/or too much text about a recent event. 96.55.104.236 ( talk) 20:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done: I agree, and have significantly edited down the content [26]. AGK  ■ 20:35, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Can I get some eyes on Jessica Aguirre? An editor with a changing IP address is repeatedly trying to insert trashy content about her appearance. I don't think anyone is watching this page. Zagalejo ^^^ 14:42, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

There is an RfC at RSN [27] on whether sciencebasedmedicine.org is a reliable source and if it is a self published source, given the fact that their are BLP issues with self published sources, this RfC may be of interest to the editors here. Tornado chaser ( talk) 15:40, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Scott Israel was the sheriff who handled the Parkland shooting, and who became a target in rightwing media shortly thereafter for his advocacy for gun control. Most of his page currently focuses on supposed scandals and incompetencies that he and his department has allegedly been involved in, much of it sourced to non-RS. This series of edits [28] is troubling in particular. I don't have time to look at the page properly right now, but I'm just calling for your attention to what looks like BLP vios at a glance. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 23:39, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

• Jim Rash (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The IPs used Jim Rash's Instagram post to verify his sexuality. However, I could not find any other source that would help the info comply with WP:BLPCAT. What can be done about the info? I tried removing the info, but somehow another IP reinserted it. George Ho ( talk) 07:41, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

The discussion at Talk:2011 Frankfurt Airport shooting#Lonewolf terrorism may interest the community here (this affects a number of other pages + terrorism categories as well). The BLP perpetrator has been convicted for murder and attempted murder. He was not charged nor convicted for a terrorism related offense. Multiple RSes refer to the event as terrorism or lone wolf terrorism (the event, being an early lonewolf event, is studied quite a bit in academic literature on the subject). The question is whether BLP policy precludes us writing and categorizing the event as terror. Icewhiz ( talk) 09:09, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

This is not a "neutral point of view." I attempted to remove language that is intended to create bias in the mind of the reader, but it was immediately restored. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.104.231.183 ( talk) 00:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Three editors appears to have reverted you. The next step is to discuss this on Talk:G. Edward Griffin. A fairly recent discussion can be seen here: Talk:G._Edward_Griffin/Archive_10#Biased_and_Unbalanced. For what "neutral point of view." means on WP, see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. Since you only edited the lead, see also WP:LEAD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 10:06, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

John Leslie (TV presenter) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article reads that Jonathan Ross divulged the name of the acquaintance that allegedly , according to Ulrika Johnson, raped her. It was NOT Jonathan Ross. It was Matthew Wright on the Channel 5 show the Wright stuff.

You need to amend that as all of these people are still living. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.149.48.43 ( talk) 16:55, 13 December 2018 (UTC)

The article says "It became known that the man was a TV presenter after comments by Jonathan Ross on his chat show. Amid media speculation, television presenter Matthew Wright disclosed on The Wright Stuff that Leslie was the alleged perpetrator." This means Ross started the ball rolling and Wright confirmed.-- Auric talk 14:16, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Grossly excess weight given to details of charges of which the person was cleared. We can say charges were filed, and that he was cleared, but excess details muddy any BLP. Collect ( talk) 16:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• I have challenged this close as not properly assessing the consensus of the discussion. See here. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 00:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• Challenge withdrawn. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:37, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Senator, Narok County, Kenya. You have noted on the page that this text seems to have been written by someone very close to the subject. I would say its probably written by the person himself. It flags up a series of purported achievements, this should be severely edited and scrutinised/fact checked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.245.186 ( talk) 14:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Can you be more specific to which page you are referring to? There is not currently a page for Ledima Ole Kino, unless it was deleted since you posted to BLPN. Meatsgains^{( talk)} 21:47, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Baked Alaska (entertainer) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Calton is restoring a Gizmodo article which describes the article subject in a defamatory way. wumbolo ^^^ 07:42, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Articles we link to are allowed to describe the subject in insulting ways. Neutral point of view is not a requirement for our sources. Meanwhile, it looks like neither of you have taken this content matter to the article talk page. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 18:33, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The last time I posted a news article with such an insulting headline to Talk:Sarah Jeong, I was almost blocked by Abecedare. I don't want to discuss it on the talk page, and then blocked for linking it on the talk page. wumbolo ^^^ 18:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

I added another source, but see no reason not to include the Gizmodo source too. Brad v🍁 18:47, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

If you are capable of discussing it here, then you're capable of discussing it on the talk page. I would suggest avoiding the term "defamatory", as defamation refers specifically to false factual claims, and the appellation in the headline that is pretty clearly being used in a figurative rather than literal sense. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 19:05, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

The last time I posted a news article... That's an amusing rewrite of history: you posted garbage from Breitbart, The Daily Caller, and The Western Journal and tried to pass them off as "news articles". -- Calton | Talk 23:57, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

You don't say, that's what we do, see WP:Press coverage 2018. You're the one using garbage from Gizmodo as a reference for an extraordinary in an article. wumbolo ^^^ 13:07, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

:You don't say, that's what we do...

You mean use garbage sources as an attempted end-run around BLP policy -- especially since, as garbage sources, Wikipedia doesn't count them as legitimate press?

You're the one using garbage from Gizmodo as a reference...

Gizmodo IS a reliable source, unlike what you tried to palm off as such. That it's inconvenient for your whitewashing is irrelevant. -- Calton | Talk 13:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)

No, it's a terrible Gawker blog. It's beyond me that you accuse ME of whitewashing, when you're the one whitewashing a garbage website. Perhaps you need to tell yourself this exact comment you directed at me. As another source was added in the interim, I'm not responding here any further, in order to avoid wasting my time with this discussion in which you repeatedly say false statements and cast aspersions. wumbolo ^^^ 14:19, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

...in order to avoid wasting my time with this discussion in which you repeatedly say false statements and cast aspersions

You already wasted everyone's time with your ridiculous use of "defamatory", your self-serving redefinitions of "reliable sources", and your attempt at free-speech-martyr status by rewriting history. Do better. -- Calton | Talk 00:42, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

• Gerhard Meisenberg

Article reverted to previous versions even though new edits provide valid sources and additional information about the subject while not removing, but only reordering, previous valid information. Reason for editing document provided by user include unprofessional comments such as: "Whitewashing. Update according to reliable source, not primary puffery". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Evangw29114 ( talk • contribs) 00:32, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

The article certainly needs more attention and reliable sources, but whitewashing and WP:CSECTIONs are not the proper solution. Meisenberg is notable for exactly two things: an academic textbook he contributed to, and his involvement in scientific racism, such as Mankind Quarterly. Mankind Quarterly is not a reliable source, and accurate, sourced descriptions of should not be WP:WEASELed as easily-dismissable criticism. This is WP:FRINGE topic which needs to be handled carefully. See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gmeisenberg, as well. Grayfell ( talk) 00:38, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

I also notice that this edit adds Meisenberg's birth date without any reliable source at all. In addition to violating WP:DOB, this is a big red flag that Evangw29114 has first-hand knowledge of this person, which is consistent with the article's WP:COI history. Grayfell ( talk) 00:49, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Olekina Ledama (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Correction from the previous post, this name appears on Wikipedia not as Ledima Ole Kino, but as above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.245.186 ( talk) 14:52, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

I have removed most of the content from this article as it was unsourced and contained an substantial amount of puffery. Tornado chaser ( talk) 00:53, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

There is an ongoing discussion that may be of interest to the members of this board at [ [29]] ResultingConstant ( talk) 18:09, 17 December 2018 (UTC)

Radovan Karadžić (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It appears to be an error in the biography of Radovan Karadžić:he is supposed to be born in 1945 and went to study Psychiatry in 1960 ... at age 15??? I think he was born in 1935 a t least! there was no way to anticipate studies in the former Yugoslavia and the currricula for psychiatry included the previous doctoral degree in medicine. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.49.220.82 ( talk) 18:48, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

• He can't have been born in 1935 as that would make his mother 13 years old - I suspect the date that he went to Sarajevo University is wrong - a number of sources claim he moved to Sarajevo in 1960, but received his doctorate in 1971, suggesting that he didn't actually start studying at the University until after that date. Black Kite (talk) 18:55, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

Source says he moved in 1960 for a high school (for medicine?) and then studied medicine at the university. Galobtter ( pingó mió) 19:00, 16 December 2018 (UTC)

In Education in the Soviet Union high school ended at tenth grade (16) - things behind the curtain were different. As for the source (following what we have written in Education in Serbia#Secondary education) - page 27 - he moved to Sarajevo for a specialist high-school (gimnazia) of medical studies - and then moved on to the university. So the move was for medical studies - but beginning with a high-school for medical studies. 08:46, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Some MEK affiliated sources [30] [31] (see the authors) are saying that Abdollah Nouri, once an intelligence service official in Iran, have admitted that 1994 Imam Reza shrine bomb explosion were carried out by Iranian government himself, not MEK. I can't find any dependent sources supporting this fringe theory. I think having this challenging material in articles are violations of WP:BLP. Any more insights? -- Mhhossein ^talk 17:53, 10 December 2018 (UTC)

It's a claim that is properly attributed to the organization (assuming it's also in the book, which I can't see). If there is a contrary point of view, then that can be included as well. It may be WP:UNDUE if those are the only two sources, but it's not a WP:BLP violation.- Mr X 🖋 13:16, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

(ec) Interesting question - Alireza Jafarzadeh is associated with NCRI which is possibly associated with MEK and has been published by St. Martin's Press ... However, if we were to redact sources possibly affiliated with MEK (when they make assertions involving BLPs associated with the Islamic Republic) - are we to redact sources, on the same grounds, which make assertions on MEK personnel when those sources are affiliated with (or under the control of) the Islamic Republic? This is a slippery slope indeed..... I would think that WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies here. Icewhiz ( talk) 13:18, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Mr:Well, per WP:PUBLICFIGURE the allegation or the incident should be "noteworthy, relevant, and well documented" and it should be left out if there are not "multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident".-- Mhhossein ^talk 17:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Mhhossein, the full context is "In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say." That section is talking about BLP privacy and negative material about a subject. In the case you raised, it is simply referring to something that Nouri is alleged to have said. I don't know whether that claim reflects negatively on Nouri, or not. If we were discussing one or two sources saying that Nouri eats babies, the outcome would be clearer. - Mr X 🖋 18:53, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

@ MrX: The case is certainly reflecting negativity on Nouri, given the words attributed to him. Needless to mention that no third party reliabe source is found the allegations and all the sources I've seen were authored by the MEK members. -- Mhhossein ^talk 12:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

It's not clear to me how that could be the case. You will probably need to argue that point on the article talk page. As I said before, this may fall under WP:DUEWEIGHT if there are only two sources.- Mr X 🖋 13:11, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

@ MrX: Thanks for the replies. I've given it a try. I couldn't find a third party reliable source for this claim. -- Mhhossein ^talk 12:05, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

• More comments are welcomed. Regards. -- Mhhossein ^talk 19:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Amelia Warner Personal Life

There are malicious people continuously changing her personal information. Jamie Dornan and Amelia Warner are the parents to Dulcie and Elva and are expecting their 3rd child in 2019. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carmensandiego62 ( talk • contribs) 23:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Per WP:BLPPRIVACY, shouldn't the names of the children be left out of the article, unless they've done something to make them independently notable? — C.Fred ( talk) 23:31, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

@ Carmensandiego62: Also, per what reliable source are they expecting a third child? As the article stands right now, the mention of the children should be struck from the article altogether for lack of sources. — C.Fred ( talk) 23:33, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

George Pell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

He is listed as a convicted sex offender. This is most offensive, and it would be wise to wait until the outcome of an appeal. He is not a sex offender, but rather the target of a vicious and calculated anti-Church smear campaign witch hunt. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.195.12 ( talk) 08:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

A reliable source states that he was convicted. If his conviction is under appeal, and if the appeal goes in his favour, then it can be stated that the conviction was overturned on appeal. Daveosaurus ( talk) 08:38, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

Clearly not a BLP violation since the fact that he was convicted is neither un/poorly sourced and even if he is later exonerated and this was proven to be a complete witch-hunt the original conviction would still be mentioned along with the fact that it was later overturned. Also we will need something stronger than a unsourced claim that unknown people have organized in a concerted effect to frame this person which if ironically is the closest this to a BLP violation in this discussion.-- 67.68.28.220 ( talk) 05:28, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Mittu Chandilya A user on Wikipedia AKS.9955 has been contributing references articles that are newspaper reports that are not fully accurate and not proven in the court of law. It defames the person as nothing has been proved. the user AKS.9955 is in the same industry as the Biographer article and perhaps points to some professional jealousy, he has taken time to particularly target this biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.206.10.181 ( talk) 08:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Article mentions Amit Singhal was "cleared" of harassment claims, but the references make no mention of this, and I can find no evidence via Google search that he was "cleared". This false statement diminishes the seriousness of the allegations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjnichol ( talk • contribs) 20:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I changed the wording because I couldn't find any sources to say he was cleared either; it seems Google just paid him out and let the matter drop after he resigned. Curdle ( talk) 23:30, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Juan Darthés is an Argentine actor. There was a scandal recently, as the actress Thelma Fardin said that he forced her to have sex back in 2009 (she was 16 by then), and started a local version of the Me Too movement (you can check here for more info). I used the phrase "child sexual abuse" to describe it, but user Irn insist to call it a "rape" instead. Being a highly sensible topic, I prefer to ask others about the right term to use.

I also think that Página 12 should not be used as a source. It is a highly controversial newspaper, and there is a better reference with the New York Times anyway. Cambalachero ( talk) 13:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

We should go with how the sources are describing it; the New York Times describes it as rape, and say that what the complaint lodged in Nicuragura is for, so best to stick with that.

RE Pagina 12; As I cant speak Spanish, not really familiar with that site/paper and its hard to judge using only Google translate. The rest of the article is in urgent need of some refs though. Curdle ( talk) 23:52, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

/info/en/?search=Talk:Neil_deGrasse_Tyson/Archive_7

On this page Objective3000 makes this false statement about a living person, George W. Bush:

"So, Tyson got the quote wrong. A quote suggesting that the President made religious comments that were divisive. But, on other occasions, on the same subject, in the same time period, it is well-documented that Bush made religious comments that were divisive. Basically saying that God told him to kill a lot of people of another religion. Bush made comments to the same effect as those claimed by Tyson. So, what is all this gnashing of teeth about? Why does this belong in an encyclopedia? Objective3000 (talk) 21:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)"

Here is Tyson's claim. That within a week of 9-11 George Bush attempted "to distinguish we from they."

Bush's actual 9-11 speech was a call for tolerance and inclusion. Exactly the opposite of the xenophobe demagogue Tyson falsely portrayed. Tyson has admitted his account is false and apologized to President Bush.

So far as I know, Bush has never made comments against the general Muslim population. In fact he, his family and members of his administration have repeatedly condemned anti-Muslim rhetoric.

President Bush has condemned Muslim terrorists. This is not remotely the same as condemning the general Muslim population. Objective3000's accusation is false. It is libel against a living person. HopDavid ( talk) 16:18, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

Considering the latest post in that archive was made in October 2014 I doubt any action will be taken now.-- 67.68.28.220 ( talk) 03:53, 21 December 2018 (UTC)

Regarding this - diff - an editor is using an opinion piece in the "right-wing wPolityce.pl news website" [32] - to state that the BLP subject of the article has "Datner, however, wrote that 200,000 was the total number of Jews who had escaped from the ghettos, of whom about half subsequently died from various causes. Grabowski later admitted in a subsequent interview that Szymon Datner had not made the claim he attributed to him". Outside input requested. Icewhiz ( talk) 07:27, 21 December 2018 (UTC)