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

Is this edit [1] a BLP violation?

The BBC source [2] is reliable, but by contrast our Pope Francis page doesn't mention that he believes that he has an invisible friend in the sky who talks through him or that he believes that he gives someone bread and wine there are two miracles; first, that by a divine miracle it literally becomes human flesh and human blood, and second, that by a second divine miracle it appears to still be bread and wine. My point is that we don't as a rule highlight silly-sounding religious beliefs. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Just looking at the BBC article, it frames his beliefs in a manner consistent with WP:FRINGE (as being unorthodox beliefs). That said, are those sources going hyperbole on the beliefs or those more his actual words? Does he use "aliens" or "beings from a higher plane of existence"? In WP's voice, it should less hyperbole, borrowing where possible direct quotes and sounding less "insulting" , but a broad read tells me that its going to be hard to make his beliefs sound any less weird, and thus, its not as strict a BLP issue as to be removed but it is a tone/wording issue to properly frame it in Wikivoice. -- Masem ( t) 17:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

I don’t think its a BLP violation but as Masem said more a tone/wording issue. I’d also add that the better comparison would be to Catholic Church rather than Pope Francis as the page in question here is Falun Gong not Li Hongzhi. In that context I’d say the overarching issue is one of due weight, I just don’t see the justification for going that in-depth on the page for the religion itself. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 17:39, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Well, the founder of any religion/belief/cult (or whatever this may be) is obviously a big part of that religion. This doesn't seem any weirder than Scientology to me, but many people believe that too, and L Ron Hubbard is a huge part of that. This isn't like a religion like Christianity, which has been molded and shaped by Roman beliefs in the Sun and many other gods, and the Germanic/Norse/Celtic belief of the British Isles, for example. Christianity is a completely different thing than it was back when it began, but even it's founder is a huge part of that belief.

I have to wonder why this has so many sources, and are the Chinese sources really reliable. All news in China is run by the state, and they obviously have a bias in this. I don't see that they are really necessary, since all this is really in the English sources, unless they are added to give a little extra negative tone to the info. I would work on the tone and maybe pare it down to the sources that are necessary, and make sure we're not lending any extra weirdness to it, but ultimately we should report his beliefs, because it is highly relevant to the movement. Zaereth ( talk) 17:53, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

On a side note, I can see why these types of religions attract people. It's not that strange if you think about it. Older religions were created to explain the unknowns, using only the knowledge available at the time. Through something Carl Jung called the "collective conscious" (DNA memory), they reveal secrets of the universe and ourselves in the form of metaphors and symbolism. As our knowledge grew, the old religions adapted quickly. Jung said the worst thing to ever happen to religion was writing it down, because now we have religions stuck in the Middle Ages, and our knowledge keeps growing. The more our knowledge grows; the more we understand just how little we really know, and the universe is more mysterious today than it ever was. It makes sense that people would start inventing new religions built around the mythology of modern times. Not that I believe, but it makes sense why people would be attracted to them. Even Jesus was considered a weirdo by the majority of people in his time. Zaereth ( talk) 19:33, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

What this reminds me of, from Zaereth's comment, is the South Park episode covering Scientology. The episode actually quotes direct from Scientology literature but all with the cartoon visuals and "this is what Scientologists really believe" plastered on screen. Truthful but scathing. We don't want to do that, but we still need to tastefully and respectfully describe the base beliefs without any wording that could be taken as sarcasm in Wikivoice. -- Masem ( t) 19:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

That's an excellent metaphor, and great symbolism. I agree. You gotta be careful with people's belief. For example, that was the episode when "Chef" (whose real-life voice actor was a Scientologist) quit the show. Zaereth ( talk) 19:58, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

To the point of this matter, I found (with a quick G Scholar search) "Chan, Cheris Shun-ching. "The Falun Gong in China: a sociological perspective." China Q. (2004): 665." which is available at HeinOnline (WikiLibraryCard to the rescue!) that had a good academic (read: tasteful) take on the FG's/Hongzhi's core beliefs, including comparing it to broader religions. 99% sure that we can use more scholarly sources to replace mainstream media here to get the same point across. -- Masem ( t) 20:10, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

See, now that's a great idea. I'm always for using the highest quality sources whenever available. While news outlets may be reliable (by Wiki standards), they are at the bottom of the barrel by comparison. Zaereth ( talk) 20:15, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Isn't the BBC the gold standard of reporting. Honestly, if we can't depend on the BBC as a reliable source for controversial information, what source can we depend on? Infinitepeace ( talk) 01:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think anyone said it's not reliable; in fact Guy started by saying that it is. To clarify what I said, in the "pecking order" of reliability (so to speak, because reliability often depends as much on the type of info given by a particular source as it does the source itself) news outlets in general are at the bottom of the totem pole. That's generally speaking, and mostly because they deal with events in real-time for the most part, and have neither the benefit of time, hindsight, or quite often in-depth knowledge. Now, for current events and things of that nature, news is great, or, at least, as good as you can get. In cases like this where there are academic reviews by expert sociologists, I would opt for the more-reliable source every time. Zaereth ( talk) 01:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

James Rodríguez ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) It may be useful to lock this page for now, due to an internet copypasta that some people have tried to edit in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:6464:3300:A1C6:CC88:AA06:85C3 ( talk) 23:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I have asked for PP, several Vandals at work. CommanderWaterford ( talk) 09:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

 Done Giant Snowman 10:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Aimee Challenor (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

It might be useful to get some more BLP aware eyes on this. Recently these's been a big controversy relating to Reddit that involves this person. While the controversy has received a lot of attention, there is a risk of it becoming WP:UNDUE as unlike with many Streisand effect type cases, it's not really clear whether the person played much of a role in it blowing up. I.E. It may be more relevant to Reddit than to the subject of our article. Nil Einne ( talk) 05:09, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It might be important to note that the article already existed prior to today's events related to reddit. In fact, today events currently comprise only one small paragraph of the otherwise average-sized article. 2804:431:C7CE:9849:29E4:EF6B:A01E:AA8C ( talk) 05:20, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I'm not suggesting the person isn't notable. However if you look at the talk page, there are already editors suggesting this should be added to the lead with questionable bombastic claims like "This is most likely the biggest event of this person's public life and that's compared to her expulsions/suspensions/resignations from two political parties." It's possible this does belong in the lead since the subject left or lost her job as a result, but while the reddit stuff has cause a lot of controversy and drawn significant attention to the subject, it's not clear that it's really that significant to them. It seems to be more about Reddit than about the subject, especially as while the subject may be the cause over the previous controversy which lead to her position to be controversial, she doesn't seem to have been the cause of the blow up. Indeed even when subjects significantly contributed to the blow up e.g. gorilla glue girl, we still have to be careful to evaluate weight which is very difficult when the issue is so new. (Yes I know she wasn't notable but I can't be bothered trying to remember another example so let's just imagine she was.) In other words, 10 years from now assuming there are no significant changes, how significant will this controversy be in an article on the subject (instead of an article on Reddit)? As said, in an ideal world we could tell by looking at the sources 10 years (or whatever) later. But since the nature of Wikipedia means that we do cover current events, we have to do some complicated evaluation based on current sources, and apparent relevance to the subject. This is what BLP aware editors can hopefully bring to the discussion, which I think is sorely needed going by existing comments on the talk page like the one I highlighted. Nil Einne ( talk) 13:11, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I made a major error in my original version suggesting she was fired based on stuff I'd read on the talk page, I assumed this was what Reddit had said. However it seems what they actually said was she is "no longer employed" which could mean she was fired or anything else (mutual decision, resigned). Since no one had replied to my followup, I've corrected my error. I apologise to all involved for this mistake. Nil Einne ( talk) 13:19, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

In any case, the article could use some more eyes; e.g., I'm not sure we even have the subject's name right. Newimpartial ( talk) 06:05, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Chris Berry

Inaccurate information given with no citation:

Claim: "...co-wrote for Paul Winter's Grammy Award Winning 2009 "Winter Solstice" album[citation needed] "

Fact: Paul Winter has won 6 Grammy Awards, none in 2009, none for an album called "Winter Solstice". In 2005, Paul Winter won a Grammy Award for the album "Silver Solstice" https://www.grammy.com/grammys/artists/paul-winter/15700

Fact: Chris Berry is credited as a 'special guest' on the "Silver Solstice" album credits, but nowhere as a co-writer of any material: https://paulwinter.bandcamp.com/album/silver-solstice-paul-winter-consort-friends-3

Proposal: change to accurate statement in same format, thus: "...guest musician on Paul Winter's Grammy Award Winning 2005 "Silver Solstice" Album" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Correctme21 ( talk • contribs) 00:31, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

This was a terribly promotional bio. I've made a start, but more sourcing is needed. Fences& Windows 23:36, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

An editor inserted OR, non-RS supported (partially heinous) accusations relating to a living person, as (now) indicated here. [3] The edits he reverted had fixed the problem.

(The editor then - after I complained to him about this on his talk page - requested that the page be protected with the effect that he could continue to edit it, and I could not).

-- 2603:7000:2143:8500:245F:81DC:F4FB:745E ( talk) 23:50, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

It's this edit by CommanderWaterford. Both says the other is engaging in OR, so quotes from the sources would be helpful. Fences& Windows 23:58, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

• Sure. I will start with just the first two items in that diff. They give the flavor. Lmk if you need more.

1) I had written in the text, "Boylan further claimed that Cuomo had given her an unsolicited kiss in 2018."

2) He changed it to "Boylan further claimed that Cuomo had forcibly kissed her in 2018."

3) The NYT article says: "... unsettling episodes, including an unsolicited kiss.". [4]

Forcible? No - the other editor just made that up, and substituted it for "unsolicited." A clearly damaging BLP violation here.

Next,

1) I wrote in the article: "Boylan said Cuomo asked her multiple questions that led her to conclude that he was "trying to sleep with me... Without explicitly saying it, he implied to me that I was old enough for him and he was lonely."

2) The other editor changed that to: "Boylan said Cuomo propositioned her for sex, saying, "The governor's trying to sleep with me."

3) The CBS article says: "Bennett... told "CBS Evening News" anchor and managing editor Norah O'Donnell that during a one-on-one meeting on June 5, 2020, Cuomo asked multiple questions that led her to the conclusion that "The governor's trying to sleep with me."" [5]

Another terrible BLP violation.

The fact that the editor engaged in a series of these is disturbing. I complained to him on his talk page - and while he did not respond to me, he then gamed the system by asking for page protection. Leaving him to edit the page. While I could not. A separate but related issue. I find it troubling. 2603:7000:2143:8500:245F:81DC:F4FB:745E ( talk) 00:25, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you, you're correct. I've revised the wording to match what those two sources support: [6]. Fences& Windows 22:11, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. Do you need me to also detail the other similar BLP violations that were part of the edit linked to above? For example, the editor changed "she concluded that Cuomo "implied" to her" to indicate that in fact Cuomo implied to her. And of "accused Cuomo of calling her into his office, reaching under her dress, and fondling her." - when that is all OR, not in the ref - it is not indicated who called her, and the reaching under the dress and fondling is not in the ref either. This is very bad stuff. (and so on). 2603:7000:2143:8500:C198:5222:3CE2:FBCC ( talk) 23:41, 24 March 2021 (UTC) 2603:7000:2143:8500:C198:5222:3CE2:FBCC ( talk) 23:39, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I disagree about the "implied" edit, I think that's OK because it's clear that's the complainant's statement. On the other allegation, there was an update on 11 March that supports the edit: [7]. I'll add that source. Fences& Windows 23:16, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi Fences and windows, since El C logged ArbCom for my edits I would be very happy to know where and how exactly did I violate WP:BIO in this case? CommanderWaterford ( talk) 16:28, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford, your edit included Cuomo allegedly "forcibly" kissing someone and a statement that he had allegedly "propositioned her for sex"; the sources used didn't support an allegation of force being used (though it allegedly the alledged kiss wasn't consensual) and the complainant had concluded from what he said to her that he was trying to sleep with her, but she didn't say he directly proposed it. Fences& Windows 23:08, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't agree with the IP at all, and I am somewhat concerned over the IP's wording. Do you not realize what "unsolicited" sounds like to an average female reader? Prostitues solicit sex and kisses. The allegations by these women are seemingly being spun by the use of poor wording. At the very least, it was an unwanted kiss. I can certainly understand dispassionate and neutral, but we typically state the facts accurately using our own words to summarize. According to Vanity Fair: "Lindsey Boylan, claimed the governor forcibly kissed her on the lips. Another, Charlotte Bennett, said he asked her if she had ever had sex with older men. On Wednesday, the Times Union of Albany reported that after summoning an aide to assist him with a “minor technical issue involving his mobile phone,” Cuomo “allegedly reached under her blouse and began to fondle her.” I don't see anything wrong with this diff, or that it even comes close to an issue that should have been brought here, or that administrators should be involved with copy editing in an admin capacity. Fences and windows, it was probably inadvertent on your part - we all make mistakes, slip in a gaff here and there, and say things we regret later - but your comment "though it allegedly wasn't consensual" implies that she may have wanted him to kiss her, which aligns with the IPs wording. I suggest that you strike it. If the concern is that CommanderWaterford needed to use "in-text attribution" which is what you alluded to above (and really isn't necessary in this case), then here is a RS that uses some of the precise wording that can be quoted; i.e., she thought "Cuomo was propositioning her for sex." We didn't pull any punches for Trump or Kavanaugh, and I see no reason to pull any punches for Cuomo. He is a public figure, just like Kavanaugh who now sits on SCOTUS. Let's look at this BBC article, What does 'believe women' mean now? and how the women who made allegations against Biden were treated. The young women who have come forward about Cuomo's behavior should not be treated any differently from the way Ford was treated. In fact, her sexual assault allegations against Kavanaugh have been presented in graphic detail in her BLP, which I believe is totally unnecessary because it was an allegation, but there it sits, and it is not a good look for WP. We also have inline clean-up templates available such as ^{citation needed}, ^{attribution needed}, or ^{editorializing} and the like, without having to change another editor's text. Atsme 💬 📧 01:49, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I revised my comment above. I've already edited the page to fix the errors CommanderWaterford reintroduced, so Atsme you can edit further if you have an issue with the text as it stands. El C gave a formal AE warning, so it wasn't just my objection. BLP applies to Cuomo just as much as any other person accused of crime or misconduct and we need to make sure what we say in articles matches what the sources actually say and not our own loose interpretations. If other sources support "forcibly" then it can be reintroduced, but the source used did not. There's no need for grandstanding, we're not "pulling punches" for a liberal - we're aiming to be precise. Fences& Windows 11:31, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Tillie Kottmann ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Looks to me a WP:BLPCRIME, till now "only" being accused, no conviction. Since not being really a Public figure the whole accusation would need to be removed per WP:SUSPECT. I PRODed it, before removing 80% of the article I like to have some more opinion on this. @ Zaereth: ?! CommanderWaterford ( talk) 19:22, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Definitely looks like a BLP1EBIO1E/BLPCRIME. The 1E being the Verkada breach. The information would be more appropriate for a Verkada article which does not even exist. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 19:57, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Kottmann is not a low-profile individual, so 1E explicitly does not apply. They've willingly given media interviews and are public about what they did. This is not a BLPCRIME, and the indictment is relevant information to what reliable sources have reported they've done. Elli ( talk | contribs) 20:59, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I meant BIO1E, hence the comment about Verkada, and have corrected it as such. However, I also believe she is a low profile individual, and BLPCRIME applies like it did to Christine Fang. An AfD may be appropriate here. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 23:10, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, I’ll reiterate here what I said on the article talk page: there is media coverage of Kottmann unrelated to the Verkada breach. I’m away from my laptop and can’t add more content to the article right now, but you could! Googling “tillie kottmann intel” and/or “tillie kottmann disney” is a great starting point. BIO1E doesn’t apply here. ezlev. ^talk 23:48, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I did a Google News search of Kottman prior to March 2021 [8] and the quality of sources WP:REDFLAG and the amount of coverage WP:SIGCOV are not strong. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 00:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

[9] Ars Technica is listed as a RS at WP:RSP. That article alone isn't significant coverage of her, of course, but it is a different event they were involved in that could reasonably mentioned in her article. Elli ( talk | contribs) 02:00, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say WP:RECENTISM applies, as well as BLPCRIME and possibly even 1E. At this point it's just not ripe, and we really don't have enough coverage (yet) to say this passes WP:WELLKNOWN. Regardless of whether this person has given interviews and perhaps wants to use this as some platform for her issues, Wikipedia is not here to create public figures, and I would say delete this and wait to see if it ripens for picking like Julian Assange or just fizzles out like most every other story of the week. We just can't tell yet if it has any staying power. Zaereth ( talk) 21:36, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Respectfully disagree, I think this is conflating two different issues. 1E applies to people who intend to remain low-profile which Kottmann doesn't - notability isn't relevant for that. I think we do have enough coverage of her, at this point, that she would be considered notable - so there isn't a good reason to delete her article. Elli ( talk | contribs) 21:46, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you're misreading 1E. It has nothing to do with what the person wants or intends. It refers to people who are and are likely to remain low profile. Just because someone wants to be famous doesn't mean they pass notability guidelines. 1E begins, "Wikipedia is not news, or an indiscriminate collection of information. Being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should be the subject of a Wikipedia article." Wikipedia's policy is that they should be notable for more than one thing. And even if this event becomes highly notable --even high-profile-- that doesn't always make the people involved notable. (Keep in mind that "high" and "low profile", have very specific meanings, and public figure has a very specific legal definition. High is like the level of Harrison Ford, Elizabeth Taylor, Donald Trump, Mary Kay Letourneau, or Charles Manson. Low is anything that is not high.)

I'll give an example. Casey Anthony was at the center of a very high-profile case. It got a huge amount of coverage, and at one point she was even a household name. She is only notable for one event, thus any article we could create about her would only be about that event, not her. There just isn't enough about her to make a decent article about her --the person-- that will ever be anything more than a stub. So, we simply redirect her name to the article on the event.

In this case, we don't even know if the event is notable enough to have an article, let alone the person. It's too soon, and by BLP rules we need to see if this has any staying power, and if so, what exactly to do with the info. To be exempt from BLPCRIME, there needs to be such widespread coverage that there is no longer any point in trying to protect her right to be innocent until proven guilty, which generally only happens to public figures. It's too soon, so I still say delete it for now. We can always resurrect it when the time comes. We're not a newspaper, so there is no rush. Zaereth ( talk) 22:14, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding 1E. All of the criteria have to be met. Do reliable sources only cover them in the context of the event? Iffy, I'd lean towards no, Ezlev might also be able to find more coverage as their edit summary claims. Was the event significant? Clearly. Was their role well-documented? Yes. And finally, are they a low-profile individual? According to Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual, no. Especially per the "Promotional activities" section, they've spoken to media about their actions with promotional intent. Again, BLP1E is not a notability guideline - it's one meant to protect the privacy of subjects who would likely wish to remain unknown. Elli ( talk | contribs) 22:44, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Let me put it like this. Just go to the edit screen, and delete everything to do with the hacking case. Don't save it. Just look. Is what you have left enough to have a decent article on this person? I don't even mean a good article, but a decent one. Is it more than a stub? More than a start? Is there any potential that someday it will become a good article? Are we going to have her background, schooling, interests and hobbies, views, and all of the things that make a bio, well ... a bio? Because, all I see is the beginnings of an article about an event under the guise of a pseudobiography. But 1E is really moot, because BLPCRIME says we should not name people of crimes unless they have been convicted, and that's one rule that has always been strongly enforced here. (For example, that kid who shot up some school. I actually thought he had enough coverage to warrant naming him, but I was out-classed by a bunch of really compelling arguments.) Zaereth ( talk) 02:14, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Again, your experiment is irrelevant because BLP1E only applies to low-profile individuals. This is not a BLPCRIME issue either. BLPCRIME does not say "editors are not allow to include information about their subjects being charged with crimes". Elli ( talk | contribs) 02:26, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

And this person is an extremely low-profile individual. The exception to BLPCRIME is WP:WELLKNOWN, and this person doesn't pass WELLKNOWN by a long shot. This is not a public figure we are talking about, nor is it a high-profile case, so BLPCRIME most certainly applies. Zaereth ( talk) 14:25, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

BLPCRIME applies to individuals who are not public figures, i.e. people who are low-profile individuals. Who is a low-profile individual? Well, luckily for us, there's an explanatory supplement to tell us that A low-profile individual is someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event. Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable. Kottmann is very clearly not low-profile by that definition, as they have deliberately spoken with multiple media outlets on multiple occasions about multiple events. ezlev. ^talk 18:15, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

Ezlev, well there is a difference in "seeking out media attention" and media who is just interviewing them. Right now I only see one Bloomberg Interview in your article, everything else does refer to the Bloomberg article or cannot be defined as actively seeking media attention. I do not see any proof of your statement of "multiple media outlets on multiple occasions about multiple events" - and especially not seeking attention for their person. Right now I do see very good arguments on both sides and I tend to AfD it in order to get a consensus wether we should delete this article or not. CommanderWaterford ( talk) 20:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

CommanderWaterford, Kottmann spoke with Bleeping Computer following a leak in July 2020, and with Ars Technica following an Intel leak in August 2020. This is in addition to their communication with Bloomberg's William Turton about the Verkada hack, which I read somewhere (and I'm sure I could track the link down if you need) that they initiated because they wanted to speak with a reporter. They also gave Forbes an extensive statement or interview about the hack and about themself, which isn't yet cited in the article. On any of these occasions they could have not communicated with the media or, more significantly, could have done so anonymously – but they didn't. I really don't think the argument that Kottmann is low profile makes sense, and the other reasons for deletion rely on that argument. ezlev. ^talk 21:04, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

That essay you cite is not a policy or a guideline, and is quite silly in my opinion. The definition of "high profile" is "a person attracting much attention or publicity". "Low profile" means "a person avoiding or not attracting much attention or publicity". Those are the dictionary definitions, and what any normal, English speaking person is going to understand. "Public figure" means "a person of great public interest or familiarity, such as a government official, politician, celebrity, business leader, movie star, or sports hero". That is the legal definition, which is very important when it comes to thing like libel and slander. You're trying to argue that any person can be high profile if they want to, and low profile if they want to, but it doesn't work like that. Charles Manson or Mary Kay Letourneau most certainly didn't want to be high profile, but they took that risk when they committed their crimes. The definitions of these words depend on "overriding public interest", and we're too soon to see if there is any yet. You don't get to be famous simply because you want to. Zaereth ( talk) 22:46, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

• STRONG KEEP well referenced article. WP:BITE. The article already survived User_talk:Ezlev#Proposed_deletion_of_Tillie_Kottmann. Infinitepeace ( talk) 01:29, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

  @ Infinitepeace "surviving" a [[WP:PROD]] nomination is pretty easy since everyone can remove this nomination w/o explaining why so this is not a criteria of notability or quality at all - further this is not the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion Discussion, no need to vote. WP:BITE does not apply for nominating an article for deletion or not, this would mean in reverse that every article of every newcomer could not be deleted :-) CommanderWaterford ( talk) 11:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Simple question: is politics.co.uk a reliable source for DOB of members of the British Parliament? I noticed quite a lot of them have this source only as the information available. Most of them are very short, brief paragraphs and usually quote Wikipedia articles verbatim and as far as I’m concerned offer little credibility. Could I have some advice on this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:8541:64EB:5AFF:CEF1 ( talk) 22:22, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi, better place for this question would be WP:RSN. CommanderWaterford ( talk) 09:14, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Okay I will do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:B416:3000:83F:BE8:1CFB:39BE ( talk) 19:26, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Disappearance and death of Jonelle Matthews (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Any opinions on recent edits? I have reverted edits at some other articles and would prefer thoughts on this. In particular, I'm wondering about details such as "lived at 27965 Weld County Road 47.5 at coordinates 40°24′08″N 104°36′41″W / 40.402283°N 104.611523°W / 40.402283; -104.611523". Johnuniq ( talk) 08:34, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I boldly removed the coordinates and the street since they are not mentioned in the citation. A Revdel could be needed. CommanderWaterford ( talk) 12:42, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

If is interested then feel free to take a look at Depp v News Group Newspapers Ltd, an article about a trial between two public figures. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 16:32, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Input from uninvolved editors is needed at Talk:Politics of J. K. Rowling#The lead; and further discussion on lower material. Crossroads ^-talk- 20:14, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm concerned about BLP privacy issues for this article. The subject has asked that the media not focus on his middle name, which he doesn't use except on official documents, and has said his parents probably didn't even know what Hitler stood for. At minimum I think this article should be titled Adolf Uunona, as that is what he calls himself.

The article is at DYK now, scheduled for an April Fool's Day slot, which seems very disrespectful to the wishes of a living human being. This person doesn't seem to be notable except for his full name; AfD ended with no consensus. I am really concerned that this is going on the front page in less than a week. —valereee ( talk) 13:58, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The April Fools DYK definitely seems to be a joke at the expense of someone who doesn't appreciate it. The hard part with his name is that it is his real name and a lot of his notability is tied to the unfortunate coincidence of his naming. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:01, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the move and spiking the DYK. Mocking someone is not what the main page is for, even on April 1st. Fences& Windows 18:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I too agree with the page move and on reflection, I think I must also agree that given his stated dislike of being compared with Hitler, it's probably not appropriate to in effect mock his name in a DYK set. Gatoclass ( talk) 18:47, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

A page move appears like the best way forward. Infinitepeace ( talk) 22:59, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

The C of E has previously been warned for inflammatory DYK's related to the northern ireland conflict, so this may be worth escalating to ANI. Definitely rename to Adolf Uunona and spike the DYK. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 12:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Boldly moved the article to "Adolf Uunona" per the concensus of this discussion. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 13:21, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The C of E has previously been warned for inflammatory DYK's related to the northern ireland conflict -- specifically, he's been topic-banned from huge swaths of DYK, plus from British and Irish politics on top of it...and is currently trying to appeal the former at AN. Vaticidal prophet 13:58, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this entry, with the hooks suggested, is quite inappropriate for DYK, and it's also good that the title of the page has been moved. As far as I can tell, from reading the thread Wikipedia talk:Did you know#Proposed April Fools set, the DYK nomination was made by Gatoclass, not by C of E. I don't understand why C of E is getting slammed here. Nsk92 ( talk) 18:53, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@ Nsk92: You're reading in the wrong place. See Template:Did you know nominations/Adolf Hitler Uunona. Vaticidal prophet 18:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Ah, yes, thank you, I see it now. Nsk92 ( talk) 18:57, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I've AfDed the article. I think this is quite classic WP:BLP1E, and I say that as someone who thinks BLP1E is virtually always misused and rarely applies. Vaticidal prophet 21:35, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

The article on Terry Speed references a blog post of mine. A user recently edited the article in a way that misrepresents the content of my blog post, mischaracterizes my statements there, and moreover presents a biased view of official documents linked to in my blog post. This can be easily verified by examining the blog post and the official content it links to. I edited the article to correct this bias, but have now been warned that I may be in [ of interest]. However, while I have an interest in this page, in that I believe claims about me that are referenced on it should be accurate, I don't believe I have a conflict of interest. I am neither a family, friend, colleague of the person not am I currently associated with his company or organization, nor are we competitors. I do agree there may be an appearance of conflict of interest, and therefore I request that another wikipedia editor examine this page and edit it to accurately describe the content of the official documents linked to via my blog post. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lior Pachter ( talk • contribs) 15:50, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

@ Lior Pachter: if you are discussing the inclusion or exclusion or description of a blog post of yours, then you have a conflict of interest in this matter. Perhaps you don't have a conflict of interest in other areas surrounding the subject, but you clearly do in any area surrounding a blog of yours. Nil Einne ( talk) 23:29, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Lior Pachter, you're not going to last long here if you so seriously mislead us. I made the above comment before I looked into what this dispute about and accepted in good faith this was just concerning a blog post of yours and you didn't have any other connection to the subject. I now looked into this dispute and see you filed a formal complainant against the subject alleging sexual harassment (against someone else) and afterwards as you felt your complainant was not properly deal with, you who wrote a blog post commenting on this. This isn't just some minor COI about some blog post. It's fair to say you have a strong COI about the subject point blank. Note assuming what you say happened really happened, I congratulate you for doing that and say we need more people like you. But even though what you did may very well have been a great thing, it clearly gives you a very strong conflict of interest. BTW, I've deleted most of the section. We cannot cite content like that in a BLP when the only source is a blog post and the subject's personal website per WP:BLPPRIMARY and other parts of BLP. It looks the initial investigation etc in 2016 got some attention in reliable secondary sources. Assuming that your followup blogpost in 2018 did not, then we simply can't cover it. Nil Einne ( talk) 23:49, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

I've been looking for sources, and this is one of those tricky cases where it does look reliable secondary sources didn't take notice of the final outcome. They did take note of the investigation and finding of sexual harassment in the internal report [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15]. Personally, what I would like the article to say is something like:

In 2016, a former colleague and a former post-doctoral researcher from the University of California, Berkeley, filed a complaint of sexual harassment against Speed, with the allegedly infringing behavior occurring in 2002. An internal university background investigation found that Speed had breached the universities sexual harassment policies but Speed disputed this finding. An agreement was reached for Speed to give up his title of professor emeritus without a finding of fault.

Unfortunately while the first two sentences are IMO sufficiently supported by sources, the last one is not. And I'm very uncomfortable including it if our only source is a letter sent from the university to one of the complainants. We could include the first two sentences, but I'm unhappy about that as well as I feel it problematic to include this even with Speed's denial without mentioning the final outcome was there was no finding of fault. The first sentence which is currently in our article is sort of hanging as well, but it's the most neutral hanging as it doesn't get into who found what. Assuming reliable sources did cover it, we could IMO mention the universities's statement that the they achieved the same result as the most a disciplinary finding could have done faster and without the added cost and complexity but IMO especially not without a secondary source. (Such statements are not irrelevant but and I'm reminded of another issue I raised recently, just like a prosecutor saying I could have proven case X against subject Y, ultimately all they are guilty of is whatever they pled to.) If this was great controversy about this decision, we still couldn't cover it in great detail in the Speed article, since it's more about the university than Speed. Nil Einne ( talk) 00:42, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm glad to see my blog post has been removed entirely from the article. I agree that a reference to the ABC program by Hagar Cohen is preferable. Thanks for cleaning this up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lior Pachter ( talk • contribs) 01:29, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You're making it sound like a far trickier decision than it should have been. This is a biography of a living person. Pachter's blog is a self-published source, and cannot be used, per WP:BLPSPS. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 01:39, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

This is a continuation of the discussion here. And I'm sorry if I do not format something correctly, I am new to this side of Wikipedia. The main argument I have to keep a version of the tables up is that the show Bringing Up Bates revolves around the family's children, relationships, and grandchildren. Each wedding and birth is documented on the show; same goes for the Counting On page. We can have a discussion about better sourcing but personally I have found that even when I source information (granted, it's been a while because I got frustrated), it gets removed by a certain admin regardless. BecauseIHadTo ( talk) 17:03, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

You were told back in 2019 that content disputes should be taken to the relevant talk page. I can't see any evidence that you have done so. Why not? 17:13, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I did not know how to. I do not find Wikipedia to be user friendly. But now I'm trying to do my best to resolve this. BecauseIHadTo ( talk) 17:22, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I suggest you start at the beginning: Help:Contents. You should also note that using multiple accounts to edit the same articles in the way you quite clearly have is liable to get you blocked. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:08, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I have never used an alternate account, you can check IP addresses if you doubt me. I haven't been actively editing in a while because the whole back and forth is tiresome but I passively check on the articles every once in a while. BecauseIHadTo ( talk) 18:12, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Suit yourself. You've been given a list of stuff to read. Do so. And then, if you actually want to achieve anything, start a discussion on the talk page. Nobody is going to engage in a discussion on the article here. That's what article talk pages are for. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 18:23, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Siobhán Coady (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Defamatory content added with this diff on 12 March, and only removed this morning. Requires revdel? Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

•  Done. Black Kite (talk) 09:19, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

please add recent photo at infobox at the top of the article aleesha young, and update contest history. thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.39.157.238 ( talk) 14:14, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Article Aleesha Young. Because copyright, we can't grab a pic from wherever on the web. If someone has a pic of her they have taken (and not published somewhere else already), that person can upload it at Commons. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 09:46, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a discussion here on the WP:Notability (people) Talk page regarding use of genealogy indices that may be of interest. JoelleJay ( talk) 17:06, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Chloe Melas ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) I'm concerned Chloe Melas has BLP violations. The article subject is a reporter who accused Morgan Freeman of sexual harassment. Recent edits to the article frame these accusations as "fraudulent." There are some Spanish-language sources in play as well, which I'm not able to adequately parse. Appreciate any extra eyes here, thanks. Marquardtika ( talk) 15:32, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for flagging it up, Marquardtika. A rewrite of the section was not careful enough. For example, "An investigation concluded that Melas's claims were not supported by the facts" was not supported by the cited reference, [16] and did not state who did the investigation. An IP editor then changed it to "completely false". I've removed that statement and source (Business Insider isn't great) and tagged the section as needing discussion for neutrality. Fences& Windows 20:55, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Someone who says they are Mexican-Japanese writer Tomoo Terada is editing as User:Tomoo Terada and they added the Spanish-language sources. Terada wrote an opinion piece in 2018 in which he argued the claims were false: the other Spanish-language sources seem to rely on his opinion. I think there is an inappropriate COI, as Terada appears to be continuing an off-wiki dispute against Melas by citing his own article, and these are unusable sources as we cannot use opinion pieces for statements of fact about living people, particularly controversial facts. Fences& Windows 21:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

We may need a username block on Tomoo Terada per WP:IMPERSONATE. Fences& Windows 21:21, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Greetings. Thanks for inviting me to this discussion. When I first happened upon the article and the specific section: Reporting on Morgan Freeman sexual harassment allegations, it did not provide a NPOV regarding the entire circumstances regarding Ms. Melas and Mr. Freeman. It was very one-sided in favor of Ms. Melas and left out very crucial and important details of the matter. I had no personal reasoning to portray Mr. Freeman in any other light than what the sources said; which I felt were not properly presented within the section. To say that my edits were "not careful" enough is something I take great offense to since the accusing editor went in and lumped my detailed and lengthy research and gathered sources in with another person's possible COI; completely stripping certain original content from the section without properly doing the research. If the editor had simply looked at the source provided, they would have found the linked source that named the appropriate department: "Warner Bros. Human Resources Department". I felt the section was becoming wordy and lengthy; and realized if the reader wanted to investigated further: they could - within the source provided. Which the editor did not. It was also said in this interview: The Today Show verbatim - "Human Resources Department - investigated her claim and concluded that it was not supported by the facts". All the editor had to do was simply explore the many provided sources I laboriously gathered, and found that I do not include anything in a WP article without it being cited 100%. I have no idea who the above mentioned possible COI editor is; but do not classify me or lump me into his/her edits. I take issue with Fences's hurried and unstudied reaction to my original "rewrite"; as they called it. I stand behind what I originally wrote. Maineartists ( talk) 22:38, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

The statement that an investigation found her report to be false was not supported by the inline source. There was another source elsewhere, but the statement was made by Freeman's lawyer and not an independent party. It is as follows: "And an independent third party, the Warner Bros. Human Resources Department, investigated her claim and concluded that it was not supported by the facts." [17]. We must not report this as an unattributed fact in wikivoice. Expecting readers to "investigate further" on important details is not how we write biographies. Fences& Windows 23:31, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Excuse me. You accused me of not being careful enough and that my content did not cite the source. You are clearly mistaken here; and judging from your unnecessary and once again hurried edits in the article, I question your understanding of this subject and the sources at all. I will explain this to you again; since you have accused me twice of something I did not do. I wrote: "a third-party investigation division via the Warner Brothers human resources department. An investigation concluded that Melas's claims were not supported by the facts." The third-party investigation division was the Warner Brothers human resources department; and the quote "An investigation concluded that Melas's claims were not supported by the facts" is verbatim what the reporter said as read from the document found within the Today Show piece. I never used the words you are accusing me of: "false". That was another editor who changed my original content; and yes, the source does cite what I originally wrote. I'm not sure why you keep saying it doesn't. Furthermore, why on earth are you making such outrageous changes to the text under the pretenses of "Copyedit to reduce wordiness, use simple language"? You are removing wording that is essential to the actual event: "before and after the event" are Melas's own words; yet you cut them out. What you wrote is so vague and leaves out much of the circumstance surrounding the incident: "Melas, who was pregnant, said that Freeman made several inappropriate remarks to her." The original is taken from sources: "Melas, who was pregnant at the time, said that Freeman made several inappropriate remarks to her before and after the event." You defend your edits as "too wordy" yet add "when she returned from maternity leave": completely unnecessary. "Individuals" to "people"? The sources specifically say: "went live on the air" not "said on air"; "due to the fact that one of the two authors of the piece was Melas herself" to "due to one of the reporters being Melas". You have changed so much of the meaning behind these very important words and text. I could go on and on; but it would simply reveal that you are changing text that someone else took a great deal of time and energy to craft from cited sourced; and now feels that another editor is changing out of personal opinion and maybe even spite that has no real relevance or bettering to making it a "good article". You've gone through and in a single day restructured a section that was originally good to begin with and now has errors throughout due to haste: "and an apology,saying the reporting" (sic). Changing unnecessarily a line such as: "A woman named in the CNN report, Tyra Martin, would later also state that she should not have been named in the article" to "Tyra Martin, who was named in Melas' CNN report, later said she should not have been included:". If you have issues with the editor Tomoo Terada; fine. Take the time to see what they edited and what I edited. But as it stands; you've only been able to take issues with one single line that I've been able to prove was a direct cited quote. And now you're re-writing the section for whatever reason. Do what you need to do; but know that I will be creating a better section based on the sources and diligent craft as I did previously over a period of weeks. Not without reason and hastily in a single day. Thank you. Maineartists ( talk) 00:19, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I have to raise issue. You changed this sentence: "Melas pointed out a comment Freeman made ("Boy, do I wish I was there.") in response to a story Caine was telling that was supposedly directed toward her." to this: "She said a comment by Freeman, "Boy, do I wish I was there", in response to a story Caine was telling was directed at her." Not only is this poor writing; it doesn't even make sense. Unless you have a very good WP policy reason for changing what was already there; I will be revising. Maineartists ( talk) 00:50, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The fix wasn't perfect but the originally wording was clearly flawed. I don't think we should ever use "supposedly" in wikivoice. The current version seems fine [18] Nil Einne ( talk) 01:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

• Last. Just so we're crystal clear. The source I cited: ref name="THR" (The Hollywood Reporter) stated the following quote: "an independent third party, the Warner Bros. Human Resources Department, investigated her claim and concluded that it was not supported by the facts." It also went on to say: "The second person CNN identified, Tyra Martin, has gone on record twice since CNN published the article to state that CNN misrepresented what she said to CNN and that Mr. Freeman did not harass her." But I felt that was not relevant to the BLP and left it out. And the same source also states: "another independent party investigated the claim when CNN raised it, and found it to be meritless." Which I did not include. As well do these sources: NBC Lose Angeles, John Lynch, (who was also the source I cited) Entertainment Weekly, etc pick any you'd like. But reinstate it as originally quoted. Maineartists ( talk) 01:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Greetings. Like Maineartists I give thanks for inviting me to this discussion. Fences& Windows Marquardtika even if Fences proved my low opinion on most of Wikipedia "administrators" "master editors" like him, after all the points Maineartists had to correct on Fences "corrections."

Before answer to Fences I must point out that since the Morgan Freeman scandal fabricated by Chloe Melas erupted, like Maineartists says "the article and the specific section: Reporting on Morgan Freeman sexual harassment allegations, it did not provide a NPOV regarding the entire circumstances regarding Ms. Melas and Mr. Freeman. It was very one-sided in favor of Ms. Melas and left out very crucial and important details of the matter." Paid editing? ( Roger Bamkin, etc) To " fix her entry to her liking?" So, for me the objections by Fences are just part of the same corruption that has beenn using Wikipedia to protect Chloe Melas and justify her fraud. Erasing all Melas family information that showed her privileged upbringing, coincidentally with her fabrication against Freeman, to protect her image as a "victim" of a black man contemporary of Emmett Till is blatantly rigged Wikipedia ruled by smart and corrupt people.

I will concentrate on the "opinion piece" accusation as it's pure bs to keep protecting Melas. First, how do you know it's an "opinion piece", and, second, maybe you ignore journalists even in opinion pieces as columns can write statements that are rigorously researched facts or aspire to be so. Example, example, example...

A statement like "a fraud, that even manipulated the statements of a Hollywood Foreign Press Association reporter" is not an opinion but a statement of fact that you can be sued for. As you did with Maineartists editing you are mischaracterizing like "just" an opinion piece what in fact is a well researched investigative piece that CNN could not deny, so never tried to sue.

Just one question, smart guy Fences, why CNN had to, first, ask to another outlet to publish an anonymous attack (" From CNN they qualify as false the affirmations of the columnist Tomoo Terada, assuring that there is no evidence.") to attack something that is just an opinion piece? Well, because it´s not what you say. And later, when it was discovered that behind the anonymous quotes was hiding CNN spokeswoman for LATAM, Mariana Pinango, the attack was erased.

User:Tomoo Terada Tomoo Terada ( talk) 05:33, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The article written by Terada has a disclaim that, in English, reads "The opinions expressed in our blog section reflect the views of the guest authors, and do not represent the position of the FNPI and the sponsors of this project regarding the topics discussed here." That is 100% an opinion piece by our books (it is like Forbes contributors, which are not reliable sources). And thus cannot be used. -- Masem ( t) 22:35, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

As there many participating here I´m going to approach one by one, otherwise it's classic wikibullying by number (by the way why are you not tagging me but criticizing me in absence? Wikihonesty is lacking)

First, to Masem. That disclaimer it's a way the ex FNPI takes distance of what the authors write, so the authors can write more freely, and the ex FNPI could not be found responsible for what they write. But it's not a statement on the kind of text per se. As it was already explained to Fences, for instance, a column can have statements of facts. Any writer, any journalist chose how to do it. Sorry for you Masem, if you ignore about those things because your only real approach to writing its here, but, well, it´s not my fault or my business.

And if you have any honesty must explain to your fellow wikipedians that those "opinion" columns, written by, mostly journalists, share a lot of factual information.

I don't know how truthful it's the overgeneralization you are doing on Forbes contributors, but as ALL our public conversation will keep on record maybe some of them would want to know what you think about them as untruthful hacks. Yeah, people would trust more on you Masem of Wikipedia than (put a Forbes contributor name). Tomoo Terada ( talk) 02:55, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

As has been pointed out below, in our policy on biographies of living persons we do not allow self-published sources to be used; even if you claim this is a column of factual information written by the journalist, the disclaimer means there was no editorial control over it, and thus we consider that self-published. It has the same lack of reliability as a letter to the editor or other detail. We are not saying they are untruthful, but it is because there is a lack of editorial control and oversight to make sure the information is fact-checked by the publisher to a reasonable degree. And because we are dealing with highly contestable claims on a living person, we require this editorial control from our sources, hence why we cannot allow those sources. -- Masem ( t) 03:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Nil Einne, could you also please comment on Tomoo Terada's edits and what should be done? WP:BLPCOI says "an editor who is involved in a significant controversy or dispute with another individual—whether on- or off-wiki—or who is an avowed rival of that individual, should not edit that person's biography or other material about that person, given the potential conflict of interest", and I think that's the case here. I was also going to raise Masem's point, as that makes it a self-published source - and we cannot use those for BLPs ( WP:BLPSPS).

Maineartists, I'm sorry if you feel I rode roughshod over your edits. I was aiming to shorten the section to avoid it being WP:UNDUE in her biography, to use simpler wording, and to keep the tone neutral and factual: "Biographies of living persons ("BLPs") must be written conservatively". I don't have a particular interest in the case or anyone involved, I was just responding to a post on this noticeboard as I do regularly. If there are some changes you'd like to make (especially if I made a typo or my brevity made a sentence read awkwardly) then go ahead providing you follow the sources and comply with our guidelines, but please don't wholesale revert. Fences& Windows 23:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows I accept your apology. Thank you. It was all such a hurried action that combined my earlier revision in with more recent edits that I had / have nothing to do with; and felt as though I was not being heard regarding a simple unfounded, singular accusation. I've resigned myself however. I never edit any article in haste or under reactionary personal reasoning. However, let me say: it is very off-putting for any editor to address another editor at Wikipedia in the manner of "We" and "Our". It presents a feeling of demeaning exclusivity in a platform that should be equal community. No one is above the other here; and everyone still has something to learn - which I am presently. But I digress. Once all this subsides, weeks from now, and edits seem to have subsided; I may go in and see how the section then reads. Reading the comments here; I would have written my revision differently. I think for now the real issue is between you and the other editor in question. As it stands, I'll graciously bow out; as I feel we have resolved our issues. Best. Maineartists ( talk) 01:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@ Fences and windows: I think it's getting close to the stage that User:Tomoo Terada may need to be blocked probably in the form of a partial blocked from the Chloe Melas and Morgan Freeman articles, if they don't stop editing directly although I should clarify that. First I said "close to the stage" because it actually looks like no one has talked directly to Tomoo Terada recently about managing their COI, their talk page hasn't been editing since 2011 so I'll approach them and see if this helps. Anyway IMO our policies don't completely forbid editing directly when editing with a COI, and there are good reasons for this especially as shown with BLPs. For that reason Tomoo Terada shouldn't be blocked just because they won't stop editing directly. Likewise, we shouldn't generally revert someone just because they edited directly if we cannot identify a problem with the edit that doesn't relate to having a COI. However probably in big part because they have a COI, the edits by most people with a COI are problematic in and of themselves. In other words, it's easy to identify problems with the edits without saying anything about a COI. This is the case for the most recent edit I reverted although I probably should have said SPS rather than primary and it looks like this isn't the first time. When editors are causing problems I don't think it's unreasonable to take the COI into account and say "look your editing is a problem, and since you have a COI I don't think it's likely to improve so just stop it and propose edits on the talk page like you're supposed to". Especially since while this is largely a personal rather than paid COI, it's also a rival/opponent one. (I'm not saying it's okay when someone is excessively promoting themselves in their article or removing all controversies, but this is the sort of COI I feel we should be most reluctant to block since it's the most likely case where there will be good reasons to edit directly i.e. reverting vandalism or other completely inappropriate edits.) Nil Einne ( talk) 04:31, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

That clinches it. I took a quick look for this "column", but in all the piped links I could not find if it's even linked here. But without even seeing it, I can say that it's very easy to spot an op/ed column even without a disclaimer. If it helps anyone at all, I'll give the secret how.

There are four basic writing styles, under which all others tend to fall. Encyclopedic writing is a form of expository writing, as is almost all non-fiction writing including journalistic, academic, or technical. Opinion pieces and editorials fall into the category of persuasive writing, which is the antithesis of expository writing. It's a completely different style, and it's easy to spot. When used here in wikivoice, we call it POV pushing.

Now, just as there are different kinds of expository writing, there are different kinds of persuasive writing, ranging from critiques of scientific papers to the likes of Rush Limbaugh and Arianna Huffington. But it's very easy for even a novice to spot the differences, let alone a long-time editor like Fences&Windows. By the way, to Tomoo, you'll likely get a better response if you don't come off as being so snarky. If there's another side to the story we should strive for balance, but we have to do it within the confines of policy. I hope that helps. Zaereth ( talk) 23:08, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Zaereth that´s exacty my point. Me, Phllip Roth or the ureliable Forbes contributors (Masem) we are subject to what you as "arbiters of the truth" decide. Arbiters not so reliable, as I left clear in my "debate" with Jimmy Wales, that I linked for Fences& Windows and now I´m doing again, for you.

This is the column.

But, first of all, do you understand Spanish, comprende? Why are you not asking for the support by members of Spanish Wikipedia so you have any real idea what is all this about? Get it? It´s not me being snarky but your people like Masem being arbiters of the truth without any real idea. This is not about me needing to please you to "get a better response" if this is, seriously, something that claims to be an Encyclopaedia (sort of). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tomoo Terada ( talk • contribs) 04:36, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

See WP:Truth. We are never "arbiters of the truth". Instead we go by what reliable secondary sources report. If information has not been reported in reliable secondary sources, then it doesn't generally belong in our articles, especially not in articles concerning living persons, no matter if it's the "truth". If reliable secondary sources have decided, we assume after their own fact checking etc, to report on what some opinion column said, it may sometimes be appropriate to report what these secondary sources said. However it doesn't mean we can directly report what the opinion columns say. Also, there is a big difference between when reliable sources simply report what has been said in an opinion column, and where they take information from the opinion column and report it as the factual (i.e. in their own voice), and we need to take great care when editing not to conflate these two. If reliable secondary sources are now reporting something as factual it's far more likely to belong than if they are simply reporting what someone else said. When they're reporting what someone else said, we always have to ask ourselves does it really belong or is it WP:UNDUE weight to what some random person said, no matter that some sources felt it was significant enough to report? Nil Einne ( talk) 04:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

BTW, I don't understand Spanish. That's why I cannot hope to add any coverage of what El Mundo or La Opinión said, nor even assess if these articles are reliable secondary sources without the help of others. However it's clear to me both from this discussion and but also simply from the description, URL etc that the FNPI website is a completely unsuitable source for a BLP. Nil Einne ( talk) 04:58, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Hey Nil Einne you can´t use a double talk sending mixed messages like sending a "private" threat to my talk page about blocking me if I did not "surrender" to you. And in a more friendly tone at the talk page of Chloe Melas entry recognizing that you don´t understand Spanish.

If you have any valid objection then write it to me here, in front of all concerned people on BLPN, or at the talk page of Chloe Melas entry.

Otherwise, those attitudes would not help you and others to prove any point besides that you and others have an ulterior motive. I need time to answer point by point all you and others wrote. Like the fallacies about the unreliability of FNPI. Don't try to exhaust me by numerical superiority. I'm keeping record of our interactions to set the record straight if it´s necessary. Tomoo Terada ( talk) 05:34, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@ Tomoo Terada: I never threatened to block you. Such a threat would make zero sense since I'm not an admin, and I doubt I could become one and I don't want to try. Also there's a good chance even I were to nominate myself and this were to succeed, this dispute would be over by the time that happens. Therefore, the chance I would ever block you over this is approaching zero. I did say you should be blocked if you continue to make inappropriate BLP edits. I said that above in my comment at 04:31, 31 March 2021 (i.e. before I even posted on your talk page) and said that on your talk page. I'm clearly not hiding it. I stand by that comment since anyone inappropriate editing on BLP subjects should be blocked. I have already written my policy based objections to your edits, I don't see the need to repeat myself. I recognised I didn't understand Spanish the moment I started editing. Feel free to keep any record you want, but please bear in mind WP:NLT before you say anything about what you intend to do with whatever records you want to keep. Finally numerical superiority is not so important on Wikipedia. What matters is policy backed arguments. Plenty of editors have outlined here policy based reasons why you edits are unsuitable. You've been able to outline no policy based reason why your edits are okay. BTW, I do indeed have an ulterior motive here if you want to call it that. My motive is to ensure all our articles, and for that matter talk pages comply with BLP. This means allegations against anyone who is living be it Morgan Freeman, Chloe Melas or you Tomoo Terada need to be properly covered in reliable secondary sources before they can be mention in article. They can sometimes be mentioned in talk pages in certain cases, but even those need to be restricted to mentions which are necessary to improve Wikipedia. OTOH, you have a personal dispute with one of the subjects so I find it difficult to trust that you will treat said person fairly in your editing. I would say the same to Chloe Melas or Morgan Freeman if they ever started editing. That's partly why editing with a COI is a problem and why you need to refrain from editing the article directly. Frankly even putting aside your COI, it's looking a lot like you're here to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS which is always a problem. Nil Einne ( talk) 06:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I need to rest but I don´t accept your threats as private warning. So, I put here, to answer back publicly, including a COI you´re seem incapable to argue properly so you rely on threats "arbiter of the truth." Tomoo Terada ( talk) 08:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

== COI ==

Hello, Tomoo Terada. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

• avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
• propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{ request edit}} template);
• disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
• avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
• do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. Thank you.

Nil Einne ( talk) 04:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I templated the standard disclaimer above but I'll also some personal comments. The COI guidelines strongly discourage you from editing directly when you have a conflict of interest which you clearly do when it comes to your most recent edits as they concern information you have helped publish. As I mentioned at BLP/N, the problem with when you edit directly is that because of your COI, it's very hard for you to have the right objectivity and therefore your edits tend to be a problem as anyone would say if they look at your edits even if unaware of your COI. The fact your knowledge of our policies, especially our BLP policies are I limited (I assume), is a further problem. You continue to use unsuitable sources (either self published sources or opinions columns or worse both) as pointed out by everyone who is familiar with our policies. Given your conflict of interest, it's going to be very difficult for you to both learn our policies and put aside your personal feelings so that your edits are not a problem. If you continue to make problematic edits, it would be quite appropriate to block you from editing, probably in the form of a partial block of those articles. It would be better for everyone if instead of requiring us to do this, you simply stop editing directly and instead propose changes on the article talk page or WP:BLP/N. Nil Einne ( talk) 04:44, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I would add that in the days of partial blocks, we don't have to block you from all editing which is fortunate since it means if you continue to edit inappropriately, you can probably still contribute to article development on the talk pages. But you shouldn't be relying on that. If your editing is too bad, you may simply be blocked point blank. In that case, you cannot help in any way. In other words, if you really want to improve our coverage despite your COI, since you've already found that your understanding of our policies is lacking and you're unable to sufficiently put aside your bias, please just stop editing the article directly and instead discuss changes on the article talk page. You can edit be a help or a hindrance to improving our coverage. At the moment your a hindrance. Note as I said at BLPN, I'm not threatening to block you personally for many reasons including that I can't, but I may very well report you asking for a block if you continue. Nil Einne ( talk) 06:46, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I think we may have reached a stable version - the blog post is not used but the two Spanish sources referring to it are and I've further cut the wording by summarising quotes. The section was reduced from 558 to 359 words and is now neutrally worded. I think all important claims and events are still covered. Fences& Windows 17:09, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! Nil Einne ( talk) 18:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@ Tomoo Terada: My comments were intended as personal messages to you. They're clearly not "private" though. They've been visible to anyone in the world with access to Wikipedia since I posted them. It makes no sense to say something is private when probably 80%+ of the world with access to the internet can read them. Nil Einne ( talk) 18:38, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Presently a dispute has emerged with another Wikipedia user in the article Russian apartment bombings. The user suggested that I consult this noticeboard to help resolve the dispute.

The issue concerns Vladimir Zhirinovsky, one of the top Russian politicians. In 1999 he noticed a slip of tongue of the Russian Parliament speaker Gennady Seleznyov, who made a comment about an apartment building which had ostensibly been exploded in Volgodonsk. However, nothing happened for three days, and then on September 16, 1999, the apartment building has been indeed exploded in Volgodonsk.

Zhirinovsky was quick to notice that and demanded explanations from Seleznyov, which he didn't receive at the time.

That story became known to conspiracy theorists who believe that Seleznyov had inadvertently revealed plans of the Russian Federal Security Service to explode an apartment building. It subsequently appeared in published media by proponents of the conspiracy, and is mentioned on that Wikipedia page.

In 2017, Russian journalist Yuri Dud has heard about that story while interviewing Russian businessman Evgeny Chichvarkin, and demanded explanations from Vladimir Zhirinovsky in his next video interview. That interview lasted for an hour and got over 17 million views.

The question by Dud and the response from Zhirinovsky about the Volgodonsk incident took a few minutes of air time (from 33:52 to 37:50).

It has been summarized as a paragraph in the Russian apartment bombings article:

“

In an August 2017 interview with Yuri Dud, Vladimir Zhirinovsky suggested that the FSB had information that a terrorist attack in Volgodonsk was being prepared and relayed that to Seleznyov. However, due to a quite tense atmosphere in Russia at the time, the person responsible for relaying the message made a mistake, and Seleznyov was told that the attack in Volgodonsk had already occurred. Zhirinovsky denied the possibility that the bombing could be perpetrated by the FSB, citing the lack of utility, but claimed that the FSB could know about possible sites of terrorist attacks. That would be major cities, Rostov Oblast was at risk because of its proximity to the Caucasus, and Volgodonsk could be a site of an attack because of its nuclear power plant.

”

The problem is, there doesn't appear to be a good secondary source covering that interview in a detail. The best I know of is this article in the Sydney Morning Herald, which is quite brief.

The question concerns sourcing. Given the context, is it possible that we use that Youtube video as a primary source?

Best regards, -- Document hippo ( talk) 15:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Given the context that the Sydney Morning Herald applies (which is not taking what is said in the interview as fact, only that the interview wasn't faked, etc.), using both the SMH and that source together, along with the appropriate attribution as given, seems appropriate (SMH is not quite collaborating but it is helping to sidestep the BLPSPS). But that para seems to go as far as one needs to; no further details of the longer interview otherwise unmentioned by the SMH are appropriate or required as to avoid the BLPSPS issue. It would help if there were more RSes that pointed to that video to discuss its contents, however. -- Masem ( t) 15:33, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response! -- Document hippo ( talk) 17:51, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

• This is a well known controversy when Gennady Seleznyov made an official statement in Russian Duma about the bombing that suppose to happen in specific city on the next day according to a "report" he had, and it did happen next day, exactly as he said. The statement by Zhirinovsky on YouTube is hardly relevant. Yes, he has an opinion. And a lot of other people have. But why his view should be at all included? If Seleznev was saying something, that would be relevant. My very best wishes ( talk) 20:18, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Doug Barrowman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Single-purpose user SeonaMillar repeatedly engaging in disruptive editing by adding their content back into the lead paragraph of this BLP. Content dispute has been going on since last September despite the input of two other editors on talk. The user's material is poorly written, poorly referenced (uses tabloid newspapers and parliamentary records) and some of their citations do not even mention the subject.

Appears as though the user is engaging in WP:ADVOCACY and their lead paragraph violates NPOV by giving undue weight to a specific controversy, essentially suggesting that the subject is responsible for seven people committing suicide. This content also already appears on the page in more neutral wording. That's without mentioning the lead is very long and doesn't summarise the article well.

Does the earlier revision here violate BLP?

ScepticalChymist ( talk) 16:22, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Support removal from the lead. The subject matter is relevant but it would be better if some of the tabloid sources were replaced with WP:RS. Seems like the content under Knox Group is fair and neutral and should remain. Including in the lead is WP:UNDUE. - Wikmoz ( talk) 22:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Susan Gerbic (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I happened upon this article during a content dispute with its subject and its primary editor that left me dissatisfied with the latter's understanding of WP:V/ WP:NPOV/ WP:RS/ WP:BLP. What I saw did not make me more satisfied. To spell out what I've happened upon here, this is a pretty nasty violation of WP:BLP (in particular WP:BLPSPS and WP:BLPSTYLE) and WP:COI that a number of established content editors (I noticed @ Drmies and @ David Fuchs) have tried to do something about but been ignored/steamrolled by the article's apparent...fans? I don't know if I'd say OWNers, but I want to say fans. Essentially, Gerbic is a Wikipedia editor (who self-discloses on her userpage) whose article is virtually entirely written by people in close editing relationships with her, working on the same niche projects and having startlingly close interaction charts. COI for articles about Wikipedians is always kind of a mess (hence their controversy), but I feel most of us can say this is well outside their established bounds, especially combined with the article's tone and style.

Per XTools, the article's three primary contributors are @ Rp2006 (41.3% authorship, 37% edits, 33% added text), @ Khamar (12.9% authorship, 33.8% edits, 37.3% added text, creator), and @ Jerodlycett (7.2% authorship, 11.8% edits, 7.7% added text). Rp2006 has an interaction chart with the subject that looks like this, including talk page conversations, heavy editing in the same small WikiProjects, and significant indications of close connections such as editing in one another's userspace. Khamar appears not quite as close, but remains a heavy contributor in the same small projects and explicitly identifies with an editing "movement" created by the subject. Jerodlycett's chart is somewhere between the two, with less intense activity than Rp2006 (meaning 'closest is eleven minutes rather than 33 seconds') but the appearance of significant conversation and userspace editing. COI is quite clear-cut regarding Rp2006's behaviour, and to a lesser degree the other two -- someone with this close a connection to the subject, and to the subject's vocation/avocation, should not be writing the plurality/majority of her article.

I've taken this to BLPN rather than COIN because it's also quite a POV-y promotion of a BLP subject with significant policy violations. In particular, there are massive violations of BLPSPS throughout the article, with extensive Wordpress, Patheos, and "podcasts that don't appear to have some form of editorial control or reliability" cites. The tone is also seriously questionable, with extensive detail (often followed by lines of WP:CITEOVERKILL) about every minor event the subject has participated in and yet talk page posts bringing up less flattering facts that get brushed off with "if you want that in the article, put it in yourself". (This is particularly concerning in the context that the subject's claim to notability is creating a Wikipedia initiative to rewrite the tone of articles.) Those cites that aren't active BLPSPS violations are also strongly biased towards primary sourcing, in many cases posts written by or Youtube videos uploaded by the subject, or towards sources that appear to be of marginal reliability or stemming from advocacy sites. There's a smattering of RS coverage that gives the subject enough claim to notability an article that isn't a BLP vio could be written, but this is quite far from it. Vaticidal prophet 12:55, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

• That article is not good. There is merit to this complaint. Drmies ( talk) 16:02, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
• Without getting into detail, I agree that there is merit. The article needs some major renovations from NPOV compliant editors. Atsme 💬 📧 16:56, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I started by removing the individual sections of her critiques on different people. I feel that section, which was around half the article, was a bit undue, especially as many of the sections had quotes from sources talking about the person she was critiquing, rather than discussing her. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:05, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

This shouldn't be surprising if her notability is indeed as a skeptical activist? I would expect to learn how she goes about it if that's what the reliable sources are reporting on although the amount of detail that you removed was indeed overwhelming to the article. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 17:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

In 2012, Gerbic and Edward organized a protest against Sylvia Browne when she appeared at the Imperial Palace Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas on July 13 of that year. Joined by Benjamin Radford, Ross Blocher, Bob Blaskiewitz, Jay Diamond, and others, the group stood outside the venue and handed out leaflets describing cold-reading techniques and describing some of so-called psychic predictions Browne has made over the years that have been proven to be incorrect.[31][32][33] All of that sourced to two blogs and a YouTube video. Self-published and primary sources with a nice BLP violation at the end.

In 2016, up-and-coming psychic Tyler Henry came to Gerbic's attention. Henry had a new television show on the E! Network, and Gerbic noticed that a Google search on the show or Henry resulted in a return of mostly favorable, uncritical articles. In what she called Operation Tater Tot,[40] Gerbic enlisted well-known skeptical activists to write about Henry, and provide an alternate point of view that would balance the uncritical perception being presented by the media services.[8] with the two sources being blogs written by the article subject. I maintain that the wholesale removal of that section was warranted. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 17:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed if everything is only supported by BLPSPS. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 18:29, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The overarching issue here from my understanding basically relates to a large chunk of skeptic stuff on Wikipedia, not just Gerbic's article, unfortunately. Gerbic runs an off-wiki Wikipedia editing group. It's a massive potential COI and votestacking issue, and one that has led to a lot of primary or questionable sources being used in these articles (which is why I tagged Gerbic's article, but it's undoubtably a systemic issue.) Leaving aside the clear primary source (blogs, podcasts, etc) that are used in Gerbic and other articles, I raised an issue at RSN about how a lot of the "journals" these people run don't seem to meet reliable source criteria either. The end result is that these people's articles—and perhaps, more crucially, their stated opponents—are sourced to very borderline sources. At the very least, it's an undue weight issue giving these organizations more heft than their appearances in reliable sources would demonstrate. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 19:01, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, that's what I find most incredulous about this -- that an article for someone whose stated goal is to rewrite the tone of mostly-BLP articles has such a tone-deaf one herself, and what exactly that says for the goal. The RSN and moreso the RSN linked from it are interesting (and unsurprising) reading. Both the object stuff here at BLPN and the dispute that led me to discover this article (in which Rp2006 removed sources for being non-English or non-FUTON and said he'd never needed to use such a source in twenty articles -- as an apparent point of pride, or at least non-embarrassment) have left me quite significantly concerned about the understanding of sources amongst these "GSoW" people. Vaticidal prophet 19:23, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

I concur with this concern. After Morbidthoughts post above I looked at the history of the article to provide examples of what I removed, which led me to looking at some of the articles linked from her's. I've found huge swaths of content with statements like Despite the scientific skeptic consensus that mediumship is a con,[30][31] sourced to a Skeptoid blog article about Gerbic and a YouTube video of a podcast. The criticism in Thomas John Flanagan continues, covering multiple "stings" by Gerbic and associates and even including a picture of Gerbic. All these sections lack reliable secondary sourcing, instead relying on blogs and Gerbic's own writings. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:35, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Vaticidal, have you notified the users you mentioned since you are discussing their COIs here? COIN would normally require this. Also, the previous discussion at COIN. [19] Morbidthoughts ( talk) 18:39, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

The primary contributors to the article have been pinged above. Feel free to ping any more individuals you think would be worth noting -- I don't exactly have a membership roll to hand, so if there are any obvious missing names I won't know them. Vaticidal prophet 18:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

You should notify Gerbic too. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 19:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It's so much easier to be snarky and condescending to me talking behind my back like I've been reading here and on various other talk pages. Why bother actually speaking to me, you know in a conversation like adults? But I guess I better step in here now before one of you does something really stupid like say "she's only a girl" or something equally dumb. So let's just move on from that. Let me be crystal clear, if Susan Gerbic really cared about the Susan Gerbic Wikipedia page it would have been rewritten years ago ... correctly and my team would have descended on anyone making changes like rabid space monkeys. Let's stop tiptoeing around pretending that I care all that much about it. It is far too big, stuffy and just a mess and has been for years. Many editors have inserted this and that into the page changing the tone as they add and remove. What needs to be done is one editor with some skill at writing a really good biography should start at the beginning and completely rewrite it in one voice. I've been watching it get chopped at and then leave a message with a hint of snark. Leave a note on talk that you are going to completely rewrite it, transfer it into your sandbox and go at it. Chop and cut and delete and write it correctly, just do it in one voice and not this haphazard way it's being done now. Just reading comments like this one "an article for someone whose stated goal is to rewrite the tone of mostly-BLP articles has such a tone-deaf one herself" HELLO there - make up your mind - do you want us to edit the page or stay away from the page? And obviously you know nothing about GSoW because we don't "mostly" write BLP articles. Here is another snarky bit "amongst these "GSoW" people" I'll have you know that many of the editors you are working with Vaticidalprophet right now on other pages are GSoW and you seem quite happy with the work they are doing. So maybe you should think about your tone and remember we are all here on Wikipedia with one goal. Stop with the snark and remember that we should have each other's backs. Sgerbic ( talk) 01:59, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Is it inconceivable that I could have genuinely missed the comment about pinging you? I don't check my watchlist every minute, and BLPN is quite active. My concerns regarding this article and the broader conduct I've observed in GSoW-related issues are quite unrelated to your gender and I'm concerned that your first response here is to come to accusations of misogyny. There are multiple people involved in this conversation, some of who have been editing your BLP and some of who have not; I have not, because I work on quite a lot of articles already, one of which is actively undergoing a quite heavy GA review, and am beginning a major rewrite of a sizable cross-section of medical articles that's likely going to have a lot of my content creation time for a while. @ ScottishFinnishRadish (who I hesitate to ping on account of they probably won't miss this, but nonetheless, just in case) has been doing most of the content work, plus a little from @ JPxG, and both can speak for themselves on what they think of the article and of the broader issue. As for the rest of your comments, I sure can't speak for the broad project, but the majority of the individual articles I've discovered were GSoW-related were BLPs, so I'm focused on the degree to which the project interacts with BLP creation specifically. ScottishFinnishRadish has made some broader comments about GSoW sourcing as applies to both BLP and non-BLP articles. At any rate, none of my concerns with this project are intended as insults on individuals, and I am sure this is just as true for SFR, JPxG, or David Fuchs as it is for me. Vaticidal prophet 02:08, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

And yet, no one has said “I will take responsibility for fixing this page.” You all enjoy complaining about it and removing bits that leave unlinked reference errors but you haven’t actually improved it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 197.185.103.20 ( talk) 04:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

"Shut up and do the work"? How polite. Several people have been working to trim the article of cruft, and indeed of unlinked reference errors. I suspect there would be more enthusiasm to work on such a project if it didn't result in both the article subject talking about how in a perfect world her team would descend on people making unapproved changes like "rabid space monkeys" and IPs coming out of the woodwork to get aggro. Vaticidal prophet 04:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@ 197.185.103.20: Complaining about complaining? I've got half a mind to complain about that. jp× g 19:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Sgerbic, unrelated to above, but is the "space monkey" reference with the explanation that the GSoW members are everywhere and no one even realizes it a reference to Project Mayhem? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 18:33, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Someday when I retire from retirement I need to watch/read Fight Club. No idea what the reference you mean means but I am aware that we are not to discuss it. Sgerbic ( talk) 19:44, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Sgerbic: I agree that it would be messed-up if, hypothetically, someone were to make such disparaging remarks toward you. As for the process of rewriting an article, I think there are a few different schools of thought. Doing an entire rewrite in one large edit is certainly acceptable, but I often choose to make a series of smaller edits to a page, especially if I expect them to be contentious. One huge diff with a bunch of material getting changed can rile people up. While you're certainly entitled to disagree with this, I don't know what we stand to gain from arguing over what method is used to clean up the mess: if we agree that there is a mess and that it needs to be cleaned up, what's the difference? jp× g 19:47, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The difference is that when the page has been rewritten, it is done and only changed as needed in smaller edits. You are probably not aware of the GSoW project but one of our goals is to make the page readable and told in one voice (meaning writing style) so that theoretically the reader starts at the lead and reads to the bottom of the article and clicks on the citations and other hyperlinks, feeling when done that they have learned something new. As I said before, the fact that we all agree that the Susan Gerbic Wikipedia page is a mess means that GSoW have not really bothered with it, I surely haven't - (note to self - take new photo and upload to WMC). We have just published page number 1,707 today and they are written this way. Us here in this conversation are all editors, with various degree of experience and skill - with the same goals (I hope). The way I look at it, first person to see the cat barf upon waking up is the one responsible for cleaning it up. You don't get a free pass to put a sign next to it and say "someone else deal with this". Sgerbic ( talk) 20:01, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I've only been moderately following this discussion, so I don;t have any thoughts formulated on the article at hand yet. Just from your description here, I can't tell if your setting yourself up for a Sisyphean task or a Quixotic one. Either way, it seems your making it a lot harder than it needs to be. It's hardly necessary to rewrite an entire article just to fix problems of grammar, style, cohesion, and flow. That's the easy part. The hard part is doing all the necessary research and trying to assemble all of the necessary info in the first place. The rest is just the common changing and rearranging that any writer has to do once the initial draft is complete. That's very much of what I do here. I always try to preserve the work of other people whenever possible, because people are often very proud of their work (good or bad), and if anything they've written is at all salvageable, I make a concerted effort to retain it. But the tings you are talking about is just basic clean-up work, and that is really the easy part. I rarely see a need to rewrite an entire article from scratch just to correct flow issues. Zaereth ( talk) 20:39, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

The analogy of the cat barf on the carpet falls apart when we look at Wikipedia as more of a public space full of volunteers doing the upkeep. I think a better analogy would be a park with lawns, statues, monuments, walkways and the like. There are hoards of people who do nothing but walk around and pick up dog poop, but if they see a damaged statue they lack the tools or the motivation to repair it. To expect every person to be able to do something as huge as entirely rewriting an article is a tough ask. I've been spending most of my time handling edit requests, participating in AfDs and some noticeboards. I'm ill-equipped to rewrite an entire article, but more than capable of removing a large section of text that is only supported by primary or poor sourcing so that's what I did. I picked up the rubble from the damaged statue and right now User:SlimVirgin is rebuilding and repairing the statue. I feel that is how it should work. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 20:54, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

So I guess we just wait to see what SlimVirgin comes up with. I've moving on from this conversation. Ping me if you think I really need to be a part of this conversation. Enjoy! Sgerbic ( talk) 21:12, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Just noting that I'm not committing to a complete rewrite. I'm editing it a little and I may or may not continue. SarahSV ^(talk) 21:16, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Sorry if I implied that you were taking on a full rewrite. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 22:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I have the sneaking suspicion that if I completely rewrote the article, we'd be right back in this thread a week later with me being accused of COI editing. Vaticidal prophet 21:27, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Hence, the Sisyphean task comment. If there is anyone on Wikipedia I would trust to do an outstanding job, it's Sarah. I have nothing but the utmost respect for her. But we're all volunteers here, so this is how it works. People just do what little they can on whatever interests them. If anyone thinks making a bio coherent and understandable to the general population is difficult, try doing the same to a technical or scientific article. Those are the real challenges, and in my view the more important articles. But then again, they're rarely controversial. Either way, once an article gets into a good state, I find it rarely gets edited much by people who lack the proper knowledge and skills, because nobody wants to look like an idiot. In most cases, we just have to wait until that special person comes along with a desire to take it to completion.

By the way, I don't think anyone is really being snarky here, or trying to hurt anyone's feelings. I simply see an easier way than complete rewrites, so I hope my comments helped. All of us occasionally get too deep into our original logic to step back and look at the problem objectively, and there's no shame in getting a second or third opinion, so I hope that helps. Zaereth ( talk) 21:42, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

As someone who brought a controversial scientific article to GA...you're telling me. They're difficult articles to write, which really is exactly why I'm so concerned about the sourcing here. Imprinted brain hypothesis was in an awful state for a decade, a glowing endorsement of a claim both unsubstantiated and actively insulting, and plenty of people passed by without seeing anything wrong. I had to tear out about three-quarters of it, and I had to walk the closest of tightropes to make it actually NPOV, fair, and balanced -- endless lines of The unsubstantiated and fake pseudoscience[blog][youtube][podcast] are bad even if you're right. Writing with the active goal of "I'm going to use these pre-selected advocacy sources to debunk everything" is a misunderstanding of what it really means to write articles on these topics and to correctly, cautiously present them. Vaticidal prophet 21:52, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

other than lack of referencing, content is not necessarily problematic in what it states about subject, bibliography should probably be trimmed per WP:NOTCV, any views on ho to tackle this article? Acousmana ( talk) 13:56, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I'm interested in him. With modern philosophers it's often hard to find sources outside their own work and interviews of them. I think some allowances need to be made ( WP:ACADEMIC/ WP:AUTHOR and WP:SPS) for how specialized the field and how small the relevant qualified critics. I would err on the side of keeping content. I created the page for Keith Frankish and hope to do one for Phillip Goff (Philosopher) and I'm coming up against this issue. Goff is getting a fair amount of attention amongst philosophers but there are very few good sources. Metzinger is well respected. Excuse my rant, but there is an unfortunate bias towards fringe thinkers who get press over those who are influential amongst the actual professionals and their students. DolyaIskrina ( talk) 17:34, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Non-primary sources should be added to confirm notability and give some context to his work. I haven't edited bibliographies before but my sense is that the list can be condensed. Not sure which entries are non-notable but text like "All three volumes can be purchased for 78 Euros" needs to go. I also don't see much value in having separate entries for an eBook edition ( MOS:WORKS shows how to combine on a single line). - Wikmoz ( talk) 22:56, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I hope I'm in the right place as the problems with this article are part of wider concerns about irresponsible editing by User:WelshDragon18‎. If you look at this thread, the editor has been seriously challenged by Jkaharper, Knuthove and myself about undue negligence and the promotion of rumour and hearsay as fact. Having already been warned about falsely claiming that Linda Henry had died in 2019, the editor has recently done the same thing with Sarah Kennedy. In the latter case, as you can see from the research done by Jkaharper, the issue has been raised on another site and could have caused undue distress to the lady and her family.

Those are the more serious examples of WelshDragon18's negligence, misconduct and irresponsible behaviour. There have been several other issues which, in general, relate to deliberate ignorance of WP:V, WP:RS, WP:CONSENSUS, WP:BLP, etc. The attitude of this person seems very much a case of doing whatever they want to do and never mind anyone else or the implications for WP. It has been suggested on the forum site found by Jkaharper that WelshDragon18‎ is a troll, which may be so, although I am inclined to wonder if we should instead be considering WP:CIR.

Whatever the cause, the effect is completely unacceptable and the editor deserves to be permanently blocked. Twice now, they have claimed to have inside information about the death of a well known person and published it on this site without any reliable source as verification. In the case of Sarah Kennedy, the editor claims to be one of a select few who are privy to the fact of her death and says, quite ludicrously, that "the family simply wish for the news to remain private for now". So what does the editor do? Reports the "news" on the site which is the number one result for Google searches.

I am informing the editor of this report and will also post notices advising Jkaharper and Knuthove that they have been mentioned here. Please let me know if you need me to provide further evidence or if you have any other questions with which I may be able to help. Do please note that we have tried to resolve the issues at the editor's talk page without recourse to ANI but the sort of responses we received include this and this. Thank you. No Great Shaker ( talk) 18:32, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

So in short this is an editor who has a track record of falsely claiming living people have died? Giant Snowman 18:40, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes, twice. I don't know if there have been other instances but surely once is one too many. They have been warned numerous times about adding unsourced information and, in fact, once by yourself. Thanks. No Great Shaker ( talk) 18:43, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

At least three times - because as you remind me I warned them for this adding an unsourced date of death to a BLP. My own research later found a precise date of death that matched, but not fully, and that's not the point. In the absence of a very good explanation from @ WelshDragon18: I suggest an indef block. Giant Snowman 18:52, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

WelshDragon18 also has a long history of changing information without explanation or source, or actively against the existing sources. For example these two edits I confronted him with [20], [21]. His reply was that "most of these so called "disruptive" edits have been done by mistake, as you can see I reverted them straight away as soon as I realised." As we can all see, he did not revert them at all. Going through my contributions, I see I have reverted 33 cases of unexplained, unsourced changes by WelshDragon18. Mostly on BLP articles. For example: [22], [23], [24], [25], [26], [27], [28], [29]. A lot of these are very slight changes in dates or numbers, that might be subtle vandalism. Looking through his recent edits, he is still doing this, e.g. [30], [31] and [32]. It is very clear to me that WelshDragon18 either will not learn or is not inclined to constructively edit Wikipedia, and his negative subtle changes far outweigh any beneficial editing. Knuthove ( talk) 20:04, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Yes there is a very good explanation so I think I should be given the chance first. WelshDragon18 ( talk) 21:17, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Do you want to share it with us or will we have to guess? Giant Snowman 20:44, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Also I helped JkaHarper earlier by contributing to his centenarians list. Funny how that isn't mentioned or appreciated WelshDragon18 ( talk) 21:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

The sad part of this is that you do make some beneficial edits. However, as I stated above, your unsourced, deceptive, seemingly vandalous edits are far more damaging than your other edits are helpful. You are not given license to vandalize by also making some constructive contributions. Knuthove ( talk) 21:23, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

That isn't me who keeps that list @ WelshDragon18:. It's another user called Tommieboi who you must have me confused with. Anyway... putting all of the minor edits aside, which are a mixture of semi-constructive and disruptive editing, the bigger picture here is definitely the violations on BLP articles. This has been flagged to you numerous times judging from your talk page. It simply isn't acceptable to kill people off in their bios then say "whoops I heard a rumour but it turned out to be wrong" or "she is actually dead but her family want privacy" afterwards. There is a serious risk of causing harm, which is why death details must always be sourced. I was quite willing to let this slide on several occasions in the past, but given that you've continued to do this, and been pretty unapologetic about it when confronted, suggests to me that a ban on editing is the best route for now. -- Jkaharper ( talk) 22:46, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

@ WelshDragon18 - After checking the diffs Knuthove presented you better give a far better explanation about your edits, right now your edits should be interpreted as in its majority disruptive and GiantSnowmans suggestion to block you from further editing seems more than appropriate. CommanderWaterford ( talk) 22:57, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

I would say that the beneficial edits add minor value only and are completely outweighed by the irresponsible and disruptive ones. This person always has "a good explanation" for their actions – e.g., somebody told them but was wrong. We never see these good explanations, of course, so we are left with wilful and, indeed, harmful edits for which no good reason has been provided. The only option left is to block the account and then repair the damage, apologise where necessary and be more diligent about unsourced death dates in future. No Great Shaker ( talk) 10:06, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@ WelshDragon18: I'd like to hear this "very good explanation". In response, I would like to draw your attention to the message that appears when you edit articles on living people : "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous." Saying that someone is dead without evidence is absolutely libellous and putting libel in Wikipedia is unacceptable and worthy of a block if repeated. Do you really think Radio 2 would not run an appropriate tribute for Sarah Kennedy if she'd actually died? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 11:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that if you look at their talk page this has been an issue for years, but has been just low key enough to continue vandalizing. Also, reading their comment below, I think I'm personally out of good faith. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 11:45, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed you can - my daughter also uses this account and is the perpetrator of these disruptive edits, I have given her a very stern talking to so this will cease from now on. I understand this could have caused damage to Wikipedia's reputation and I'm very upset about this as I enjoy contributing. Sadly it seems everyone has already turned against me but there we have it. I didn't want her to get in trouble as she is only 14 and so lovely. WelshDragon18 ( talk) 12:37, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Please read This page. You're responsible for every edit made under your account. -- Jayron 32 14:40, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

This is ridiculous, and strengthens my belief that WelshDragon18 might be one of the most successful trolls I have seen. Always right on the border of genuine mistake or sloppy editing, and with slow enough pace and enough positive edits to never draw enough attention to actually get blocked. Most vandals I've known don't have that kind of patience, though that might be biased. Now, WelshDragon18 has almost 2500 edits. How do we remove his disruptive changes? I am somewhat new to this, so I hope there is a better way than having to go through them all manually. Knuthove ( talk) 14:41, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

FTR, I would not support a blanket revert on his edits. Most are constructive minor edits and the majority of the disruptive ones have already been spotted and reverted. I've just gone through the last 2 months of his edits – yes there were some which went unnoticed (usually when the current version of the article in question is actually an edit by the user), but we're easily talking about 9 to 1 here. Any violations of Wiki policy seem to have been picked up and changed. If other users are happy with it, I'll happily volunteer going through the rest of the edits myself when I get time (likely next week), and revert any minor disruptive edits I spot. Thanks -- Jkaharper ( talk) 22:19, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

I absolutely wasn't suggesting a blanket revert. I also find mostly benign edits, but a one to nine ratio would give 277 malicious changes, and finding them in the haystack of 2,200 non-malicious edits is not a task I look forward to. If you want to do it Jkaharper, you'll have my thanks and my admiration for your work ethic. Knuthove ( talk) 22:57, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

@ WelshDragon18: so you're saying your daughter started using your account 3 years ago when she was ~11 and you only now just noticed? Can you explain why previous times when confronted you've said stuff like [33] 'most of these so called "disruptive" edits have been done by mistake'. Are you saying that was your daughter as well? Nil Einne ( talk) 11:32, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

I have indef blocked WelshDragon18 as NOTHERE. Fences& Windows 14:13, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Fences and windows, I was wondering whether I should have blocked after they admitted their account was compromised - still, as somebody else has done it, I guess I was thinking along the right lines. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 14:53, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Because there is nothing 14 year olds are more fascinated by than radio announcers who retired when they were three. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 15:03, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Dad, what's radio? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 15:09, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Ahh, the old Chewbacca defense. Never gets old. Reminds me of the whole Tenebrae fiasco. It's sad that otherwise good users have to be blocked, but the "Wookies on Endor" is never a good reaction to poignant questions. If someone is repeatedly making BLP vios this egregious, then it doesn't really matter what other good they did. Zaereth ( talk) 02:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Please note: Footnote 20 in this Biography appears to reference a Charitable Contribution to the Library of America which was made by the subjects parents in honor of the subjects paternal grandfather, who shares the name Jay. The biography implies the subject made the contribution, but the footnote reference contains no information supporting this assertion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.169.161.176 ( talk) 14:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

I've removed the content. For future reference, uncontroversial edits can be made by anyone (just state your reasoning in the edit note) or suggest the edit on the topic's talk page. - Wikmoz ( talk) 17:11, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

John Serry Jr. (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

• This article seems to be watched over by the subject himself, who has a habit of leaving lengthy summaries (#1 includes a legal threat). It looks like the article is low-key enough to have gone unnoticed for a while but I assume something needs to be done, although I'm not sure what exactly, so I'm just leaving this here for somebody more experienced if that's alright? EditorInTheRye ( talk) 22:50, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Nevermind, I had some time this morning to delve into the help pages to work out what to do, and I think I have it all covered now :) EditorInTheRye ( talk) 07:43, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Wolfgang Schirmacher ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Article reads:

"Schirmacher has taught philosophy at the University of Hamburg, is a former Core Faculty Member of the Media Studies Graduate Program, New School for Social Research, and Director of International Relations, Philosophy and Technology Studies Center, Polytechnic University of New York."

German Wikipedia states that W.S. had teaching assignments only at New School for Social Research and Polytech University of New York; it does not mention any teaching at University of Hamburg. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:c0:df1a:2900:694b:584a:2c68:61a0 ( talk • contribs) 2021-04-02T23:06:17 (UTC)

From the European Graduate School via Google: "Schirmacher was born in Dresden, Germany, in 1944, and emigrated to West Germany in 1957. He began his academic career at the University of Hamburg and the Hochschule der Bundeswehr (the University of the Armed Forces), where he taught methods of social research." Do you believe the claim to be inaccurate? - Wikmoz ( talk) 16:05, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

what none of these bios mentions is the actual basic informations: what degrees did he get when, in chronological order, and what exact teaching positions didi he hold, in chronological order. That's the info that's is needed. They and we are summarizing in vague terms what can be much more simply described as straight listings of facts. (I usual usually mention 2 teaching positions, but I actually taught in 2 additional ones as a grad student or postdoc) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG ( talk • contribs) 2021-04-05T04:02:53 (UTC)

Page is under a lot of attacks. Many using slurs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MAT7OPS ( talk • contribs) 22:17, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

This appears to be a request for page protection, not something for this noticeboard. It also appears to be factually incorrect. Andrew Yang has had two IP edits reverted in the past week and neither involved "slurs" (one was vandalism and the other was about punctuation). User:力 (power~enwiki, π, ν) 22:21, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

please address irrelevant and inaccurate information posted to Daniel Smokler — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nouma4ever ( talk • contribs) 01:27, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Removed per WP:LBL/ WP:BLPREMOVE. In this case, the editor misrepresented the cited material. Further, being mentioned in an email fails WP:DUE and WP:BLPGOSSIP. - Wikmoz ( talk) 01:46, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Vernon Coleman This article has been the subject of a deletion discussion in april 2020 and there are several archives of Talk page discussion. I have proposed a rewrite of the lead (Lede) , the main body of the article also requires attention to return it to an encyclopedic standard. I have added a proposed new Lede on the talk page, and I am seeking assistance from the wider editor community to address the current problems in the entry. RogerGLewis ( talk) 08:21, 1 April 2021 (UTC)

Please note that the above user has previously been banned for continuously attempting to push for edits to paint Vernon Coleman in a favorable light. His suggested 'encyclopedic standard' involves removing large amounts of criticism of the subject. MrEarlGray ( talk) 20:57, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

• Vernon Coleman is a disgraced former doctor whose books include titles such as "Vaccines Are Dangerous - And Don't Work", and "Anyone Who Tells You Vaccines Are Safe And Effective Is Lying". A news story titled " Warning issued as 'dangerous anti-vax' leaflets posted through doors in Luton" notes that [t]he leaflets claim to tell the "truth about vaccines" using information from Dr Vernon Coleman, a conspiracy theorist and anti-vaccination activist. Dundee Evening Telegraph also mentions a similar incident: " The leaflets appeared through doors and letterboxes in Perth earlier this week and were titled “19 truths your government won’t tell you about Covid-19”, quoting Dr Vernon Coleman, a discredited former doctor and conspiracy theorist.". The Daily Record calls him " a conspiracy theorist, anti-vaccination activist and AIDS denialist".

The OP appears to seriously argue that the author and self-publisher of "Vaccines Are Dangerous - And Don't Work", and "Anyone Who Tells You Vaccines Are Safe And Effective Is Lying" is not anti-vaccine. That dog don't hunt. The OP is one of a succession of accounts with little or no other history on Wikipedia, who have chosen to come here and advance Coleman's off-wiki campaign to whitewash this article. The problem is not with the article, it is with the real world, which fails to reflect the reality Coleman holds inside his mind. And as far as I can tell, reading around, his biggest problem is that people read the Wikipedia article and then don't buy his books.

Good. That is Wikipedia doing what it should do. A reader of one of our articles should be able to tell the difference between a Brave Maverick™ and a crank. And let's be in no doubt that anyone who writes a book called "Anyone Who Tells You Vaccines Are Safe And Effective Is Lying", is a crank. And a dangerous one at that. Guy ( help! - typo?) 16:22, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

ScottishFinnishRadish proposed a very reasonable rewrite that maintains the critical assessment while improving readability (and WP:NPOV). Reading through the talk page, it seems the anti-vaccination statement was removed because it's not mentioned in the article body. It could be restored immediatly after being added to the body. It seems like a good solution is within reach. - Wikmoz ( talk) 19:00, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

A solution does indeed seem in reach, thank you Wikmoz. 78.69.176.146 ( talk) 04:40, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

It does strike me that after saying "He is most notable for his AIDS denialism, pseudoscientific medicine and COVID-19 conspiracy theories." it might be a little redundant to add that " Coleman's medical claims have been widely discredited and described as pseudoscientific". Two "pseuscientific"s are no stronger than one. DGG ( talk ) 03:54, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Simar khera article is about simar khera an Indian actor and singer.know for his work in Nagara punjabi film as main villein & his character of Sanghargupt in Vighnaharta Ganesha . Please don't delete the article eacuse it's real person, i'am new on Wikipedia so may be there are many mistakes I did during editing first but now you can check the Simar khera now it's proper updated and editied. Please dont delete it.. it's a humble request to you all.

Please check news in times of india — Preceding unsigned comment added by Team Sukhjas ( talk • contribs) 05:32, 10 March 2021 (UTC) ^[1]

Article deleted already, user blocked, nothing to do here anymore. Regards So Why 07:56, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

Following a discussion at Talk:Taeyeon § Lead image (again) and the one above it, there does not seem to be a local consensus as to whether higher-quality images should be favoured over more recent images for the lead. I am aware of the discussion that took place at MOS:IMAGES, but I feel that this is different in the sense that the RfC there were for cases where there were decades between the photos proposed. This appears to be a chronic problem for Korean celebrities, where many of the images used are low-quality but are a couple of years more recent. In that light, I would like to form a "broader" consensus on the issue. Sdrqaz ( talk) 20:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Can you link to the discussion that took place at MOS:IMAGES? Personally, I think "more recent" is not necessarily a good thing. For example, if the subject is now retired and looks different than they did while they were at the peak of their of their notability, then a more recent picture might actually be worse than one at the height of their fame. What the best image for a given article is depends on the article, and on the choice of images, and will often be subjective, in other words we may not be able to make a general rule. -- GRuban ( talk) 20:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

GRuban, it's the discussion here: Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Images § Request for Comment. I agree that we usually cannot make a general rule (there was a bit of concern about WP:CREEP at MOS), but I don't understand favouring a more recent photo when the difference is only a couple of years and nothing major has happened since (like a sex change etc). Sdrqaz ( talk) 20:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, I think this is something that needs to be decided on a case by case basis, and policy is written to allow for that, so let's look at this in the broader sense. Fist, I have to ask myself, what exactly is gained?

There is really not much difference between the two photos in terms of her physical appearance. Aside from some different clothes and moderate change in hairstyle, she looks pretty much the same in both, meaning she has not aged significantly or what have you. We're not facebook, so we generally prefer quality over whatever is most recent, and as GRuban points out, in many cases people want to see pics of notable people at the height of their notability. Thus, in this case we can really put the dates aside and just look at the quality of the photos.

Image quality is one thing, because we usually want the sharpest pics we can get, but that becomes less of a factor when pictures are thumb sized, so thumb-size image quality is the best we really need to shoot for. Then there is portrait quality, in which a bit more of an artistic eye is needed. Someone one told me that the key to being a good photographer is taking lots of photos, and being able to pick out the few good ones. The better images are ones where the subject is in what you would expect of a good portrait. The background should be good, and provide the best contrast, it's best to be centered in the shot, with the subject looking directly at the camera if at all possible. Cute, flirtatious poses are fine for the body, although not typically ideal unless the subject is known for it, but a good portrait is always best for the lede. So I think all of these things need to be considered, but in this case I think age is a very small factor in that decision. Zaereth ( talk) 21:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Noting that the "prime-of-career" images might often be subject to copyright, and our WP:NFCC has more leeway for first image -- so, if it's not the the first image, NFCC might prevent it from being in the article at all (although perhaps for someone like Carrie, if there is some in-article discussion of her distinctive 'look' in the original Star Wars, you might be able to get it in under NFCC). That aside, I think there is generally more encyclopedic value if we don't use "poor quality" images (indeed, if the only choice is a really poor amateur picture, we should consider none, at all). Alanscottwalker ( talk) 21:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Alanscottwalker: For what it's worth, I'm not looking to call for NFCC inclusion: these higher-quality photos are freely available on Commons. Sdrqaz ( talk) 21:20, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, that depends, if the commons are terrible amateur pictures, then . . . -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 21:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I think this is all pretty much universal, not just restricted to bios. Whether it's Moose, Pressure measurement, or Lockheed Martin F-22 Raptor, the best quality portrait should be used in the lede wherever possible. Zaereth ( talk) 21:31, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Right, but while for many things/persons there maybe many 'good' free images, for some, there may be only 'poor' free images. So, what to do then -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 21:41, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I think we're back to case by case. Are we talking poor image quality? (Under/overexposed? Grainy? Blurry?) Does "poor" mean unflattering? Regardless of the subject, I don't think we should be going for that. I think a picture is good to have, but ultimately it needs to add something to the article. I'm by no means a photographer, and many of my images are not the best quality. I know sooner or later someone will likely come along with a better one, but they help explain the text. (Surprisingly, many of my pics have been used in everything from books to documentaries to scientific studies.) I don't think this is the place to try and make some sweeping change to policy, nor do I think policy either can nor should try to encompass every possibility. In this particular case, I would opt for the better portrait. Zaereth ( talk) 21:57, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Yes, there are several considerations: this, while it does not make the living person look particularly silly, imo (it more makes us look bad) is one situation. But I am also thinking of a famous deceased author, and there is a single commons image that looks rather ridiculous, imo, and I think it better to go without any than with that. (I'm not going to link it). Alanscottwalker ( talk) 22:12, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

In that case, I would agree; better no pic at all that a pic that looks silly, unflattering, or is so bad you can't even tell. To me, that seems to go without saying, like common sense. Unfortunately, common sense is rather uncommon. Honestly, it shouldn't make a difference if it's Mother Teresa or Aleister Crowley, a lede image should be the best portrait we can get of the subject, and if we can't at least have a decent one, then none at all is probably best. Zaereth ( talk) 22:21, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Remember that a lead image is not required. If we have the issue of a poor quality but better representative of the person as known to the public, over a higher quality but poorer representation of the person, both otherwise free, neither is required in the lede but both can be used within the body. -- Masem ( t) 21:50, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I think the bone of contention is whether the photo is a better/poor representation, Masem. For instance, Jimmy Carter uses his official portrait from 1977 as opposed to something more recent like File:Jimmy Carter at the LBJ Library02.jpg. That's understandable, given that his notability was derived from that time. But what's happening at the Korean singers is that more recent images are being used, even if the newer image has no improvement in displaying what they look like (see my previous comment about drastic changes in appearances) and decreases in image quality (greater blurriness, exposure etc). Sdrqaz ( talk) 22:11, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, I would rate such factors as blurriness (image properties) on what the image looks like at standard, in-article size. There are a lot fewer pixels, so what's a little blurry at full size may be perfectly fine for article size. On the other hand, I would ask myself this: if these were pics of me, which one would I use for, say, my official, high-school yearbook? Which one looks like the better portrait? Zaereth ( talk) 22:27, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

Mohammed_Jabbateh_(Jungle_Jabbah) contains a line that is out of place with the balance of the article, presents an obvious opinion and the reference, #14 in the article, nets a 404 error at https://frontpageafricaonline.com/. It is doubly suspicious that the only complimentary sentence in the article is to an article titled "FPA - Witnesses Tell Stories of Jabbateh Torture, Rape, Murder, Cannibalism in Bopolu" which would seem to not be the correct title for the claim made by that sentence; and an article of that import should remain in the African news repository. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.119.154.251 ( talk • contribs)

That wording was included in the first version in 2017. The source is available on the Internet Archive: [34]. The word "righteous" is a creative interpretation of what is said therein. Fences& Windows 12:52, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

I've edited the page to fix issues and update it. Fences& Windows 20:51, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

• Gary Taubes ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Gary Taubes is an award winning journalist and author who writes on nutrition. There is a line in the summary that states:

"Some of the views advocated by Taubes are inconsistent with known science surrounding obesity."

The source was a single researchers criticism of his book. I had changed it to reflect the weight of the source:

"George A. Bray, an American obesity researcher, believes that Taubes' views are inconsistent with known science surrounding obesity."

but it was reverted. An additional source, the blog of an internet doctor was just added.

It appears inappropriate for Wikipedia to weigh a blog and a book review as 'the opinion of the entire scientific community', and its especially important in the bio of a living person, where something that could be borderline libelous is said in Wikipedia's voice.

Your input on the phrase is appreciated. Thank you. Gsonnenf ( talk) 20:42, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

This is about a fringe view and has been already raised at WP:FT/N, as well as being discussed at the article Talk page. Alexbrn ( talk) 20:47, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The overweighed characterization of Taub's as 'fringe' is what is at issue here. Please use this message board as it relates to the biography of a living person. Thank you. Gsonnenf ( talk) 21:04, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Nobody is calling him (his name is Taubes) "fringe"; that would be nonsensical. But some of his views are, as good RS tells us. Alexbrn ( talk) 21:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your participation. Lets also create space for non-fulltime Wikipedia editors to chime in over the next few weeks. Thank you. Gsonnenf ( talk) 21:11, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Ahh, the surest money makers are fad diets and workout programs without the work. From my own pov, as someone who has been mostly a carnivore for, well, all of my life, I've never put much stock in the science of it. There's too much government involvement, as in there's a big push by both growers and producers in the influence of what is scientifically considered healthy. One of the most interesting studies I ever saw was by a dietician, who actually travelled the world comparing different, regional diets and comparing those to local health-statistics. It was interesting to me, because her conclusion was that the healthiest people tended to be bush tribes in Africa, the Amazon, and Alaska. That's interesting to me, because the last is basically my diet.

I don't know what is best, and would never claim to know. It doesn't really matter to me. I do know today's doctors will someday be tomorrow's witch doctors, and the biggest fallacy in science is the belief that all current theories are absolute. People threatened Antoine Lavoisier for daring to speak out against the Phlogiston theory. Thomas Young was beaten up for claiming that light was a wave rather than a particle. Alfred Wegener was the laughing stock of the scientific community when he proposed the idea of plate tectonics. These may be mainstream science today, but were fringe theories one and all at the time of their inception.

The point is, "fringe theory" is not some kind of insult. It simply means it's on the outer-edge of what is currently considered as accepted science. One could also equate this term with "cutting edge", but fringe also encompasses pseudoscience and pure bunk, as well as cutting-edge science. Thus, I see no BLP vio in this interpretation, especially coming from a very reliable source on the subject. I think even the subject would agree that his ideas are not mainstream, and I think he even makes of point of that in his books. Zaereth ( talk) 23:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

The qualification to the specific researcher in the lede is a huge red flag. Calling upon the opinion of the entire scientific community seems nonsensiscal, but typical of the sophistry that comes from fringe promoters: I hope that's not the case here. Instead, it might help to point to the current state of biomedical knowledge on the subject matter, to see if we're straying from it rather than assume we are. -- Hipal ( talk) 22:08, 8 April 2021 (UTC)

Barbara Nitke (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article ( /info/en/?search=Barbara_Nitke) is peppered with bizarre and defamatory insertions that portray this artist’s work as exploitative of children. Her work does not involve children in any way. Please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:7000:6b40:6d00:758a:703e:9cd8:eafd ( talk) 07:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm very sorry that such claims were missed and left in the article. I've deleted them and removed them from the page history. Thank you for raising it here. - Bilby ( talk) 11:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

• The disagreement is about 2nd paragraph in section Political positions. Should his allegedly "nationalistic views" be described at all (the page is very big) and how much space should be dedicated to this? Here is - a typical edit. Is it improvement/neutral wording? The issue is also with properly summarizing sources, some of which are in Russian language and not necessarily RS. My very best wishes ( talk) 15:10, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

The "as translator" section does not relate to this author (I have double-checked by emailing them) and I propose deleting it. Timetocheck ( talk) 11:13, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

This looks uncontroversial so go ahead and do it. In future this sort of suggestion would probably be better made at Talk:Susan Price. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 16:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I've removed it. The editor who added it was already indefinitely blocked. Fences& Windows 17:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

Kim Walker (bassoonist) ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) The entire section of 'controversy' is defamatory in tone and content. The person who created the allegations, works at the Sydney Morning Herald in Australia and therefore created these articles which formed the basis of a law suit for 'unconscionable behavior'. The issues were proven to be unfounded and I was exonerated. To maintain this section on the wikipedia site contributes to ongoing libel, defamation and slander. The entire section should be removed as it is defamatory and libelous misinformation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kimwalker KWB ( talk • contribs) 2021-04-06T18:56:32 (UTC)

(Copy and paste of the aforesaid section removed. Uncle G ( talk) 15:03, 7 April 2021 (UTC))

• Hello there. Just to let you know, you're coming rather close to WP:Legal threats territory, which could get you blocked. Just be careful, because if you want to continue to participate and help improve the article, you'll need to be careful and try to work collaboratively.

  That said, the article is terrible. It's very poorly written, and not encyclopedic at all. It reads like an autobiography, and judging by the history, it also seems very apparent to have been created and primarily edited by the article subject. Looking at the sources, they are all primary sources and even the subject's own, personal website used as sources. The whole article has a very promotional tone. The only reliable, secondary sources we have are the two from the Herald, which are about the plagiarism allegations.

  My first thought was that this should go to WP:Articles for deletion, to be deleted as non-notable BLP1E, but a quick search through google news does indeed show a plethora of reliable sources that mention her, and why we're not using them is beyond me. As written, this article is in really bad shape, and, no offense, but if I were you I'd stick to music. Unfortunately, the problem with being notable is that your dirty laundry becomes fair game, and suddenly having a Wikipedia article doesn't seem like such a good idea anymore. But, as long as it is found in reliable, secondary sources like the Herald, then it becomes a part of the story that we are bound to include. WP:WEIGHT decides just how much space to give it, meaning we literally weigh the coverage in reliable, secondary sources, and apportion the info accordingly. Unfortunately, yet again, because this has been, and is getting, so much coverage --and in fact so much it is now becoming the nexus of your notability-- we cannot ignore that.

  Keep in mind that a multi-million dollar lawsuit may help your pocket book, but is just like adding fuel to the fire when it comes to the notability issues I just mentioned. It's up to you how you want to handle it, but staying silent to the media is likely not the best way to get out in front of it and restore your reputation, but likely just the opposite. What you cannot do is use Wikipedia as your own personal website to try and do that. You need to read our WP:Conflict of interest policy, and start by following the rules here, and just hope and pray that the media doesn't get wind of this, because bad behavior on Wikipedia can earn you just as much ill-repute as it can out in the real world, so I would be very careful how you proceed in the future.

  If anyone has the time and inclination, this is one of those cases where the entire article will likely need a complete rewrite. I see Tony has been involved with this in the past, so I'll ping him, in case he has any insights. Zaereth ( talk) 20:00, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

  • For clarity the lawsuit was apparently filed in 2012. While legal cases can be slow at times, I'm fairly sure it's long over by now. This source [35] suggests it may have been quietly settled. Nil Einne ( talk) 13:59, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
  • That's not really how the edit history reads. Here's a timeline.
    • Special:Permalink/163179673 — Article created in 2007, mentions allegations.
    • Special:Diff/220230523 — Allegations content removed in 2008 by Phil Bridger ( talk · contribs).
    • Special:Diff/288830091 — Allegations content re-added in 2009 by Bflatbeauty ( talk · contribs).
    • Special:Diff/373023587 — Allegations content removed in 2008 by Musiciansprofile ( talk · contribs), reverted the same day because it was "unexplained".
    • Special:Diff/386481348 — Rewritten by Harpdrum ( talk · contribs) in 2011.
    • Special:Diff/442924462 — Kwbassoon ( talk · contribs) rewrites the entire article in 2011, including a complaint in the article that the Wikipedia article is part of the problem.
    • Special:Diff/442931533 — Tony1 ( talk · contribs) the next day tells the article subject not the write the article, ironically leaving the in-article complaint in the article.
    • 2012 is the date of the lawsuit.
    • Special:Diff/473479009 — The in-article complaint from the subject is blanked in 2012 by an IP address from Australia.
    • Special:Diff/488339562 — Tony1 removes Kwbassoon's content 3 months later.
    • Special:Diff/576971571 — Kwbassoon takes out the Controversy section entirely in 2013, in subsequent edits copies and pastes most of the 2011 text back in, gets reverted within half an hour, and pastes it back in a third time.
    • Special:Diff/576996934 — Tony1 restores the prior version without the Controversy section the same day. Kwbassoon does some subsequent edits to put stuff back in.
    • Special:Diff/614985214 — In 2014 an IP address from Australia puts the allegations back in.
    • Special:Diff/620835592 — It is all taken out two months later by FreeRangeFrog ( talk · contribs).
    • In 2015, Walker's own WWW site publishes an "agreed statement", apparently one outcome of the lawsuit.
    • Special:Diff/650755987 — In 2015 Storeye ( talk · contribs) puts the older Controversy section, not the 2014 text, back in. This stands for six years.
    • Special:Diff/1016357234 — In 2021 Kimwalker KWB ( talk · contribs) copies and pastes the text of the 2015 statement, and is reverted the same day.
    • Kimwalker KWB also comes here, again copying and pasting the statement text and copying and pasting here the Controversy section that is supposedly "defamatory and libelous misinformation". I have blanked it. I'm not sure what motivates complaining that something should be blanked and copying and pasting it in the same edit ( Special:Diff/1016356878) but it does not seem an at all sensible thing to do.
  • It seems quite incorrect to state that the article has been written by its subject. It has been rewritten by its subject, and said rewrites have often not lasted even 1 day. And the lawsuit that Zaereth seems to think is on-going was over six years ago. Uncle G ( talk) 15:56, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

I may be wrong about who wrote it, as I only did a quick sweep of the history, but I still stand by my assessment of the writing. I don't recall ever stating anywhere that the lawsuit is ongoing, so that's an interesting interpretation. Of course, when talking directly to someone else, my comments are often not meant to be understood by the everyone else in the same way they are to the person I'm talking to.

Currently, the stuff we have in the controversy section is the best-sourced stuff we have. That's a sad state of affairs, but it means it's very unlikely it will get deleted. What the subject needs to know is that adding more weight to it, no matter how much they want to get the whole story out there, that only gives it more prominence in the article, and I'm sure that she doesn't want this to be what she's mostly known for. The subject has more power than anyone to affect their notability, not from Wikipedia, but from the media we use as sources. That's simple PR advice I'm giving for free. What the subject can do best for Wikipedia is to gather up as many good, quality sources as she can, and bring them to the talk page, because most people are very aware of what has been written about them.

Now, there are good sources out there on this person, and it would be wonderful if that right person came along who has the time, background knowledge, and motivation to fix these problems, and really build this article into the wonderful bio that it can be. While the info in the controversy section will likely stay, the section itself should go, and everything put into its proper sequence of events. I see no reason to wall it off in it's own section, which in itself creates an imbalance. Unfortunately, as much as I would like to help, the snow is starting to melt, the work is ramping up, and real life has to take precedence, so beyond giving this advice, that's about the extent of what I can do. Zaereth ( talk) 17:40, 7 April 2021 (UTC)

• Whoever dragged out that block-because-legal-threat should take a chill pill. How often have I seen admins abuse it. Just deal with the issue at hand, and if it is out of proportion in the article, or not factual, or unsatisfactory in some other way, it should be modified. Tony (talk) 01:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

I've whacked the article to remove any unsourced material, which took all of two minutes. The article has been tagged since 2011, which shows that tagging should only be done after making a sincere effort to fix a problem. Perhaps a proper article can be written now that the dodgy content has been removed. Jehochman ^Talk 02:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That does read a lot better, although I saw no problem with the material in the controversy section ... except maybe weight. I was thinking more along the lines of building up the rest of the article rather than cutting the only secondary sources it had. While university profiles and campus news are certainly reliable sources, they are in fact primary sources, which leaves this article without a single, secondary source.

I wasn't trying to be rude in my comment above, but I guess in hindsight it's a good indication that a person's true mood is easily observed in their connotations --even when they try to hide it-- and people react much more strongly to written connotations than to those same connotations if used in speech.

My basic premise is that a quick search of google revealed many, good, secondary sources. I mean news, magazines, and actual books. There's at least the potential for a decent, start-class article here, otherwise I would have recommended it for AFD if it had only one secondary-sourced event and nothing else but primary sources. That would take all of two minutes as well. All I'm saying is that, while I think the troubles she had at Sydney should likely stay, the rest of this article has the potential to be so much more. But I typically only do that kind of work on articles in which I am very familiar with and have some direct expertise in the subject matter, so that's my two cents. Zaereth ( talk) 21:06, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

He's currently involved in some online fitness youtubers over some of his fitness claims. An IP user keeps inserting a long "controversy" section, citing those youtube vlogs. Thing is, reliable sources have not covered this controversy at all, and it hasn't risen above online fitness youtube so far. It does not matter if these are right or wrong, it's that no reliable sources cover any controversy, thus it's inappropriate for a Wikipedia article, especially a BLP. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 16:49, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

Content removed per WP:NOR. I could see it being restored as literally a single sentence under the Fitness section if there's eventually WP:SECONDARY coverage. - Wikmoz ( talk) 23:47, 4 April 2021 (UTC)

No reliable source has really covered it, but it does seem that he really does make odd claims about health. For instance, he does seem to claim he only sleeps for 2 hours a day.

“Andre Rush: Nooo, I usually go to bed at 1AM and wake at 3AM to mediate, then start my 2,222 push-ups,” came the reply. “I only sleep for two hours; I’m one of those exceptions to the rule.” Source. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 12:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

• Category:Anti-Christian sentiment in the United States ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Seth Andrews (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I was surprised to find this category include both Atomwaffen Division and a living podcaster Seth Andrews. Not to mention a mass murderer, and incidents of arson and shootings. Does this lumping of atheist activists with criminal acts and neo Nazis follow guidelines? ☆ Bri ( talk) 13:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

that does seem a bit sus, yeah. -- Licks-rocks ( talk) 13:22, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

If the sourcing exists for them to be in the category it doesn't seem odd. I imagine there are plenty of categories that contain both good people and bad people. Category:19th-century American Episcopalians ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) contains both John Wilkes Booth and Jessie Benton Frémont. Doesn't seem that out of place to see similar things arising elsewhere. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 13:33, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

For some reason, Category:Anti-Christian sentiment doesn't have the barring of groups and individuals from the category that Category:Antisemitism and Category:Anti-Islam sentiment have. This seems an imbalance, which is probably best addressed by adding the bar to the Christian category rather than removing it from the other two. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 13:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

If those categories bar having people and groups then I agree that the same should be true for Category:Anti-Christian sentiment. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 13:44, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

There's longstanding consensus (since this 2011 discussion) to exclude biographies from "bias categories" such as Category:Racism and Category:Sexism (though we do include people in more specific, concrete subcategories such as Category:Ku Klux Klan members.) The recently created Category:People involved in anti-Protestantism is currently at CfD, likely to be deleted. I suggest categorising Mr. Andrews in Category:Critics of Christianity and/or Category:Critics of religions. Cheers, gnu 57 13:53, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

• Well, Anderson admits to being an atheist and former Christian but whether that makes him "anti" anything escapes me. Has he proclaimed that he is anti-Christian or is it an assumption that because he is atheist he is anti-Christian? I did a search at his BLP for "anti" and nothing came up. Just because one doesn't believe in something doesn't automatically make them "anti". As for the prefixes neo, anti and alt, that particular category appears to be a catch-all considering alt-right is also categorized there, yet the lead of alt-right itself states: The term is ill-defined, having been used in different ways by various self-described "alt-rightists", media commentators, and academics. Groups which have been identified as alt-right also espouse white supremacism, white separatism, right-wing populism, anti-immigration, racism, anti-communism, anti-Zionism, antisemitism, Holocaust denial, xenophobia, anti-intellectualism, antifeminism, homophobia, and Islamophobia. Anti-Christian is not even mentioned in the article. Something needs to change because when an encyclopedia miscategorizes things...it actually appears to be a product of incompetence and/or bias rather than knowledge. Atsme 💬 📧 13:56, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Indeed. I could criticize the tenets of various Christian beliefs today, that I myself was raised with, but that doesn't make me hate my family who still believe those. No longer thinking that Yahweh actually exists also doesn't make me an antisemite. This reminds me of claims that acknowledging that Ayurveda is pseudoscience is "anti-Hindu sentiment" (and BTW, I love Karnatic music)... In relation to this particular user who added the category above, also see the same here with antisemitism. Msiehta is of course "atheisM" inverted and has been proselitizing on user talk pages. They have never received the BLP ds/alert so I'll issue one with a mention of WP:BLPRS. — Paleo Neonate – 22:27, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Seth Andrews#Views on religion quotes him as saying "I am an enemy of religion." That presumably counts as evidence of him self-identifying as being anti-Christianity, anti-Islam, anti-Hinduism, and anti-any other religion you can think of.

However, I'm not sure that a reader, upon visiting such a category page, would actually expect to find many individuals named. Maybe Madalyn Murray O'Hair, but I think they would instead expect to find mostly things like court cases about School prayer or Ten Commandments#United States debate over display on public property or the Mount Soledad Cross. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:47, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

That category seems to be pretty vague and subjective. If someone is catholic, an protestant, Hindu, Jewish, etc seems pretty straight forward and easy to define. How does one define if someone is part of the "anti-christian sentiment"? Does that mean they're a critic of religion? If so just say that. If they are part of an official faction or ethnicity or organization, just state that. As such, the category can probably put up for discussion at WP:CFD Harizotoh9 ( talk) 13:37, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

LowTierGod ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The page for this person is being used to purposefully defame and disparage the subject person. There is clear violation of BLP policy.

Many negative assertions were added to the page. Not only do the assertions violate BLP policy, there is also no reference provided for these assertions. Even in places where references are given, careful checking would reveal the sources do not actually support such assertions. In other words, fradulent references are being used to make defamatory assertions. These assertions are libelous in nature.

This subject person is known to have a large community of internet trolls targeting him. In fact, it is likely that the page was created with the purpose of defaming and disparaging this person. In fact, the subject person is not noteworthy enough to warrant a page on Wikipedia, and the page should perhaps be deleted.

There have been attempts to remove the poorly referenced (if any) assetions made on this page. But people keep on adding them back to the page. This is violation of BLP policy. The Talk page of this article has become quite active. I have posted in the Talk page and more details on the situation can be found there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shortscircuit ( talk • contribs) 20:37, 9 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Shortscircuit: it looks like User:Cullen328 and others have fixed the article so these problems are largely resolved. Nil Einne ( talk) 03:23, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Nil Einne: Yes, thankfully much of the article has been fixed by Cullen328. However, in the long term this article still requires attention in regards to BLP policy. I will just briefly relay here what I asked User:Cullen328 in the talk page.

Right now, the article is semi-protected and is due to become unlocked in a couple of days. Considering how strongly certain users have protested about the removal of the unsourced assertions, and considering how certain users have already been asking for more (badly sourced/unfounded) assertions to be added... it is reasonable to expect that once the page is unlocked, there will be people continuously trying add such assertions back again. The reaction so far indicates these people are very insistent. What can be done to make sure these people do not make the same contentious assertions again in the long term?

I reviewed the page again, and I do not think the subject of this page is even noteworthy enough to warrant an article on Wikipedia. The subject is merely one of the thounsands of video gamers in the world.

Shortscircuit ( talk) 13:19, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

My first reaction is: "Wait, Low Tier God has a Wikipedia page?!". Looking at the sources, it seems he's only notable for the 2020 incident of being banned thus might fall under WP:ONEEVENT. Thus he is worthy of being included in a line or two in the page on the Evo tournament, but not really subject to a full page. If you were to just trim to the best most reliable sources, you'd be left with a stub. thus trying to fill in the page for a controversial figure like LTG would require either unsourced, or sourced to more less notable sources. It's a recipe for problems. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 13:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

I tried adding his birth name to the page, thinking this wouldn't be a controversial edit, and it was reverted. His birth name is "Dale Emanuel Wilson". "Dalauan Sparrow" is a name he gave himself and is not his birth name. He's very infamous online and people have been following him for a long time. I'm pretty sure they're right, because you can't find any records of anyone named "Dalauan Sparrow" living in the USA. The fact that his actual name is not something you can cite to reliable sources suggests that he is not a notable figure because journalists haven't bothered to check that. Which implies that he isn't notable at all. Harizotoh9 ( talk) 20:30, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Harizotoh9, it is commonplace for stage names, pen names, online handles and other pseudonyms to be used in Wikipedia articles and this person uses "Dalauan Sparrow" in all of his social media profiles, so I see no problem with that. For example, probably 90% of rappers use something other than their birth name. As for what you believe to be his birth name, please be aware that legal name and birth name are not necessarily synonymous. Read the early life of Gerald Ford for a well known example. Please read WP:BLPPRIVACY for the policy reasons why you should refrain from spreading around what you believe to be this person's real name. If you truly think that this person is not notable despite your own description of him as "very infamous online and people have been following him for a long time", then please nominate the article at Articles for Deletion. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:56, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

The page is a clear sign of advertisement and must be removed. The sources are poor. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kohakinori ( talk • contribs) 18:07, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Colm O'Gorman (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Oversight needed on recent edits that added a category to the article. Reason for inclusion in that category is not mentioned in the article body, and is unreferenced. Diffs: One; Two. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 22:17, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Biography, particularly section 4.2.1, violates Wikipedia's neutral point of view (NPOV) policy. It relies heavily on information from the Sun-Sentinel newspaper, a known biased critic of Ron DeSantis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.226.58.142 ( talk) 10:45, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

• There are 28 references in that section, and only two are from the Sun Sentinel. There is a quote from the paper, and it is critical of DeSantis, but similar criticism can be found in many other sources as well. Black Kite (talk) 10:49, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Someone is purposefully inserting incorrect information about my partners and children, thank you so much for your help!!! -Shannyn https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Shannyn_Sossamon&type=revision&diff=1017427164&oldid=1017327245 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Turkeyprince ( talk • contribs) 18:12, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Answered on your user talk page. 331dot ( talk) 18:59, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Issue with the last line of Parliamentary Career section.

Line currently reads "In 2021 it was reported that Blackman-Woods had bullied two of her staff and that the Labour Party had first heard allegations about her behaviour in 2018 [11] " Entry does not note that this was an investigation, no sanctions were levied and multiple complaints were dismissed. Entry is therefore misleading.

Should read "In 2021 it was reported that Blackman-Woods had been subject to investigation by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards over allegations of bullying. No sanctions were levied following the investigation, with Blackman-Woods stating there were 'strong medical grounds for what happened' [11]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by NickRippin ( talk • contribs) 08:07, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

The proposed text would fail to reflect the following: "It is understood that last October the parliamentary commissioner for standards upheld two complaints of bullying against her." Fences& Windows 23:20, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

User:Therazzors has repeatedly added unsourced or poorly sourced content to this page. See [ [36]]. This seems to be a pattern of behavior on the user's part, and he has been previously blocked for BLP violations. I'm not sure whether this is best handled here or on the vandalism-related noticeboards, but I thought I'd bring it to your attention so that you can address it accordingly. (Full disclosure: I have previously reported this user here for similar behavior on the Michael Bloomberg page.) Thanks in advance for your help. Dndlp ( talk) 03:26, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Dndlp This isn't really a "reporting" board in the sense of discussing editor behaviour. It's mostly meant to discuss BLP disputes. I suggest going to WP:AN/I. Chess ( talk) (please use {{ reply to|Chess}} on reply) 22:55, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks very much for the explanation! I just wasn't sure how to handle this because it seems that the editor has only added potentially objectionable material to biographies, and it does seem different from outright vandalism or spam. I will definitely consider taking it up with WP:AN/I if the behavior continues. Thanks again for your help! Dndlp ( talk) 15:31, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

She might not be everyone's popular figure but various editors are repeatedly adding content to this BLP that is impliedly contentious which they have been told is poorly or unreliably sourced. Help or Advice please ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 10:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

There is plenty of sourcing for it, a good portion of which is reliable. BET is covering it and has some of her and the organization's response. That might be a good source to use if its determined coverage is necessary. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 12:56, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

For reference, here's a diff with the disputed material. Most of the talk page discussion is in this section and this one. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 12:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

^{Apologies for accidentally deleting this post, after I think I accidentally duplicated it, at the same time as Firefangledfeathers was correcting my error. ~ BOD ~ TALK 13:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)}

FYI The sources that are currently being used are:

msn.com just a news aggregator, so not reliable

nypost.com not reliable according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources

finance.yahoo.com is just repeating a press release from the right wing National Legal and Policy Center

plus

Fox Business has been offered in the past

I am not sure if BET is reliable, I cant see their article. ~ BOD ~ ^TALK 13:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Oversight requested of defamatory/libelous statements posted by most recent IP editor on this article. Second occurrence in recent weeks so I've also separately requested temp. page protection. Bastun ^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:01, 10 April 2021 (UTC)

Page has been protected and vandalism has been removed. 49ersBelongInSanFrancisco ( talk) 05:23, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

NXIVM ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

A series of IP editors and very new accounts have been adding material to the article indicating that a lawyer ( Dennis K. Burke) that represented this (rather notorious) group was in fact a participant in the organization that 'which conducted "human fright experiments" on women'. The basis for this seems to be a sentence in a court document which notes that Burke filed a letter on behalf of a client containing statements that turned out to be false. More eyes with familiarity with BLP concerns would be very appreciated at the article and at Talk:NXIVM/Archive 2#Inclusion_of_Burke. - MrOllie ( talk) 22:23, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

This page could use some attention by admins as it's getting a lil' hot.-- Jorm ( talk) 22:54, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

NXIVM has been in the national press for the past few years. There was a segment yesterday about a lawyer who was in so deep with the cult he ended up being singled out by the prosecutor for being a part of nxivm's schemes himself. About the article, what happened was discussion on the talk page leading to a re-write of the text in question by PolySciRBWGirl in a neutral tone. This is exactly what she wrote: "Dennis Burke, lawyer for NXIVM and the NXIVM-sponsored Ethical Science Foundation ("ESF")[126] which conducted "human fright experiments" on women in New York State.[127][128] Burke was previously disciplined by the State Bar of Arizona for misconduct.[129]" Each statement was supported by links to sources already used since years ago within the article. The re-write did not state Burke was a participant in the organization that conducted human fright experiments. It clearly states he was a lawyer for NXIVM and the Ethical Science Foundation which conducted human fright experiments. Yet there was a effort to incorrectly portray the neutral text as improper in order to justify numerous reverts resulting in deletion (concealment?) of any reference to this lawyer who clearly was in the cult, Burke, as can be read on the article talk page. 47.5.196.51 ( talk) 04:17, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

@ MrOllie: You described people's input as "a series of IP editors" while seeking to lead admins to delete the Burke reference? Really? Did it occur to you many people interested in this article may not want a permanent link to the NXIVM "sex cult" (a verbatim quote from the article) on their Wikipedia account history? 98.169.53.85 ( talk) 04:49, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

98: If you're telling me these are experienced editors WP:SOCKing for privacy reasons then okay let's treat them as such and not forgive mistakes because they're still new and inexperienced with policy. 49: What do you mean by all those statements are supported by sources? A quick check of the edit history [37] shows the disciplined bit was only supported by a clear WP:BLPPRIMARY violation, the disciplinary record. Maybe more of the text has the same problem, I didn't look well but I did see other court documents. I don't give a damn how long the text or the source what in the article. If you find a BLP violation please fucking remove it. Don't keep it in but reword it just because it's been in a long time. Nil Einne ( talk) 06:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Looking into this more, another source editors seem to be trying to use is Frank Report by someone called Frank. Any source with someone's name in it should automatically be questionable when it comes to BLP. A quick check of the source [38] shows that it does appear to be what it sounds like. A self published source. I don't know if the author is a subject matter but it's almost definitely a moot point. There is very little information in that article which won't involving living persons besides the author. In other words, yet another source that seems useless but editors are trying to defend because it's been there a long time. Again WTF? This is the sort of behaviour we encounter a lot with new editors fairly inexperienced with policy but the other IP insists this isn't the problem. Nil Einne ( talk) 07:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I also see Newsweek 2013 and beyond is a source editors are trying to use but per WP:RSPS, I don't see where a consensus was ever reached that the source they are trying to use is reliable. There are other questionable sources like ArtVoice. Yet this also seems to be a typical case where editors are insisting it's all very well sourced and documented, but somehow they're pulling out all these questionable or unsuitable sources rather than ones without any doubt. I'll also add that I wasn't the first editor to point out the unsuitablity of primary sources like court documents for BLP so even if 98 is simply wrong and these editors are inexperienced, they still had time to learn BLP policy. In the talk page, there have been completely unsupported claims of WP:PAID editing by those trying to enforce BLP which I've also ignored. Nil Einne ( talk) 07:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The 're-write' was still adding Burke's name to a section titled 'Notable NXIVM participants'. Of course it was calling him a participant. And each statement had links attached, sure, but these links mostly did not mention Burke. All we had for that was the court document I already mentioned, and a source about the State Bar. The State Bar source is again a primary source, and also does not mention NXIVM, so cannot be used to connect the two. MrOllie ( talk) 11:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

• David R. Marchant (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The release of a recent PBS documentary may warrant keeping an eye on this page about a scientist. Ditch ∝ 13:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

This article leads with "Mehmet Cengiz Öz…is a Turkish-American[2][3] television personality, cardiothoracic surgeon, Columbia University professor,[4] pseudoscience promoter,[5] and author.[6]"

All of the above factually describe this person's professional qualifications occupations except for "pseudoscience promoter," which is not a profession, it is an allegation. The citation links to a salon.com article about other people's opinions -- hardly the same as "Columbia University professor."

In all likelihood Mehmet Oz is a "pseudoscience promoter" and the 2nd paragraph adequately describes controversies and allegations around this. However, the presentation of this allegation as a fact alongside his professional qualifications occupations is obviously intended to push POV and poison the well of this BLP article. It could easily be construed as libel.

There are a number of editors, including admins, who work to keep this in the lede, who shut down all discussion and repeatedly revert good faith changes. They also keep the talk page clean of discussion around this to make it seem like there are no issues. Athene cunicularia ( talk) 22:52, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Athene cunicularia: Since when were television personality or author "professional qualification"s? They're occupations perhaps, but not professional qualifications. Even professor isn't really a professional qualification. It's a job title or occupation.

Anyway Salon isn't the greatest of sources but frankly the source for Columbia University professor is arguably worse as a primary source. If no one else cares that he's a Columbia University professor, I don't think we should either. I had a look at WP:RS/PS and it suggests there is no consensus on the reliability of Salon but statements from there should be attributed which obviously isn't something we normally do in the lead. If I were you, I'd go to the talk page and concentrate on that aspect and see if better sources can be found.

Finally you claim that discussion has been shut down. This makes zero sense since this discussion in 2017 Talk:Mehmet Oz/Archive 1#Pseudoscience promoter, or alleged? is very very long. This attempted RfC Talk:Mehmet Oz/Archive 1#"Pseudoscience promoter" stated as fact started by you was, non-admin closed with a very detailed rationale. I'm not going to repeat it but the closure seems to be correct. If you want to start an RfC you need to format it like an RfC. If you don't know how, you should ask for help before doing so. Alternatively you can start a less formal discussion. You were explicitly told this in great detail so I'm not sure how that was stifling discussion.

It doesn't look like there has been any attempt to discuss the issue since that malformed RfC in 2018 [39], so no one can be shutting down anything. Any discussion will of course need to be grounded in our policies and guidelines and avoid making nonsensical claims like author or television personality being a "professional qualification".

Nil Einne ( talk) 05:56, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Well hopefully we can just perpetuate this obvious BLP violation because I made a "malformed RfC" and used the term "professional qualification" instead of "occupation." God forbid an incredibly straightforward BLP violation get corrected after numerous years. Athene cunicularia ( talk) 18:17, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

If there is a BLP issue here its not an obvious or straightforward one. There is a style issue here but a BLP violation... No. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 06:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

To give an example, MOS:BLPLEAD doesn't say anywhere that only occupations let alone professional qualifications can be mentioned in the lead or opening sentence. It makes no sense since otherwise John Wayne Gacy would say something like "John Wayne Gacy (March 17, 1942 – May 10, 1994) was a Democratic Party precinct captain and building contractor." which is clearly off, and would be off even in 1993. I make no comment on what the lead of Mehmet Öz should say, simply emphasising my earlier point that you need to focus discussion based on our policies and guidelines. Nil Einne ( talk) 06:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

IMO we woud be better splitting the sentences. Simply having "pseudoscience promoter" in the first sentence is fairly unhelpful - we'd be better off dropping it from the first sentence, and adding a complete second sentence pointing out his penchant for non-reality-based medicine and various other nonsense. Black Kite (talk) 10:25, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Yep and the pseudoscience allegations get their very own paragraph following the lede. Athene cunicularia ( talk) 18:12, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I would give the same advice here as I did in the section below. We need to introduce this person and lead in to the point, rather than trying to cram all the points into the very first sentence. To that, I would also add that there's an old adage in writing, "Show, don't tell." What this means is that calling someone a "pseudoscience promoter" is far less effective than showing it. That type of label is not like "doctor" or "tv show host", but is actually a value-laden label; those who believe in traditional medicine will tend to agree while those who prefer alternative approaches will disagree. Readers don't like to be told what to think, because it often comes off as condescending, so it is always better to show that he's a pseudoscience promoter than to tell us he is. I mean, he obviously is a fan of alternative approaches and whatever berry is the latest craze, or whatever, so isn't it more believable just to show that? Zaereth ( talk) 23:11, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

This pretty much is a standard problem on WP all over the place. The first sentence of a BLP (or nearly of any article) should avoid any type of language that can be taken as charactization and that strays outside of objective, factual information. That sentence should be trying to place the topic into a taxonomy of how we'd organize information, and is not required to address notability, with the except of the case if the person is solely known only for that element they are characterized by. Eg Lee Harvey Oswald is strictly known as the assassin of JFK. When we get to people here like Oz where they have an actual profession but are generally seen to be promoting false material, that doesn't make it that the only they they are know for is a psuedoscience promoter, and as that is a clear characterization and not an objective classification, it shouldn't be forced into the first sentence. I'd expect it in the lede as that seems to be a significant facet of what they are known for otherwise but as I said: there's no requirement for the first sentence to outline why a person is notable, only the lede as a whole must do that. -- Masem ( t) 23:27, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree 100%. I think a lot of the problem, which is a problem of the human condition, is that people often take a backward approach to things. The opening sentence is vital, because it introduces the subject, and it should be factual and objective, but the most important sentence is the summary sentence, because that's where the point is. I again point to the article on Adolph Hitler, only because it is such a good opening paragraph. We don't start by calling him a mass murderer. In fact, we don't call him that at all. He was a politician who became dictator, and then we show how he was responsible for causing mass murder. (Reader's like to make their own value judgments.) We introduce him, and then create a pathway that gets us from here to there in the shortest route possible. That what a lead/lede is, "a conduit, pipe, wire, or pathway". The first sentence is critical as an intro to the subject, but is not the place to make points, that's what the summary is for, and where people look for them. (That's also a hint to people who come here with big walls of text without paragraph breaks. No one can tell where the points are without them.) Zaereth ( talk) 23:41, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Exactly. I think it is a common human fallacy (and extends often to editors on WP as a group) that we want to call out someone that may be ideologically opposed to us in some way (whether they did something morally offensive or if simply they are on the opposite side of the political spectrum), and because we're WP editors and "control" the page, we tend to want to push that, particularly when we can back that up with RSes. Part of being a good editor within WP is being able to craft a lede like at Hitler - one that doesn't express our (editors') views but instead only provides the path and evidence that a reader can decide those views themselves. And a lot of that starts with the careful build from the most objective, non-contestable facts in the first sentence towards the more characterization, impact aspects of a person. It seems like the type of advice that should be codified in some way at BLP at minimum. -- Masem ( t) 04:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

It always seems to be easier to add to leads than to trim them... When a less notable thing is added the natural reaction people seem to have is not to remove that less notable thing but to add everything thats as or more notable to the first sentence as well. First sentences should be short and sweet, you’re probably right that it should codified a bit more. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 06:44, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps this is a discussion elsewhere on a policy page, but for example, with news of his death today, I see the same type of problem at Bernie Madoff. There's a way to word that intro to not dismiss his criminality in the ponzi schemes, but as its slapped onto the lede sentence (plus the excessive detail of the trial in the lede) puts far too much focus on that. -- Masem ( t) 14:11, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Out of interest I looked at the NYT coverage. [40] The headline, subhead and opening give a good idea of what a professional, balanced approach to Madoff looks like at its outset. Alexbrn ( talk) 14:15, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Again, this may be better off for discussion elsewhere, but I disagree that this is appropriate, at lease from an encyclopedic view. A newspaper's goal is to inform as quickly as possible, the who/what/where/when, and while I agree it covers Madoff in a professional manner for that goal, it is not the same approach one would use in describing Madoff in an encyclopedic tone, where we are not beholden to brevity. -- Masem ( t) 15:20, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

An "encyclopedic" lede is beholden to brevity, by its very nature. It gives the basics in a nutshell and cultivates interest in reading on. The "basics" here is that Madoff was maybe the most infamous fraudster of the century - without that he'd be obscure and uninteresting. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:33, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

We have multiple paragraphs to get to why a person is notable, whereas the newspaper has a sentence or two, that's the big difference. Thats why its important to stress that the lede sentence in WP article need not address why a person is notable, as long as by the end of the lede, that is covered. -- Masem ( t) 15:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

From MOS:FIRST "The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is". Madoff was a well known fraud, that does belong in the first sentence. My general thinking, which I got from MOS:LEAD and from high quality articles, is that if the reader only reads only the first sentence, the first paragraph, or first section (the LEAD) they leave with an understanding of the topic. We are not a newspaper but we absolutely should be informed by reliable sources, including newspapers, in how we describe our subjects in the first sentence, first paragraph, and LEAD as a whole. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 15:49, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

"what or who the subject is" is not the same as "why the topic is notable"; often to describe why a topic is notable requires going into how a topic is characterized by other sources, which is a NPOV issue, and we have to be careful around those since we're supposed to write with an impartial and dispassionate tone; throwing in characterizations harms the attempts to stay neutral (which differs our position from newspapers) Later in MOS:LEAD is "Try to not overload the first sentence by describing everything notable about the subject. Instead use the first sentence to introduce the topic, and then spread the relevant information out over the entire lead." We expect the reader to, minimally, read the entire lede section, and possibly stop there and not read the body, not just the lede sentence. So for where a case of someone is more notable for their negative characterization by sources (as the case of Oz here), we can work up a handful of sentences to explain that and present that case in a neutral and impartial tone (as Zareath has pointed out on the page for Hitler). In the case of Madoff, there's no reason that the criminal fraud aspects can be shifted to a second sentence, if only to split what his career was from what his crimes ended up being. It would make that sentence far less clunky and improve the overall tone without losing the relative weight of his crime to his biography. -- Masem ( t) 16:03, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

He was a famous fraudster. That's the principal defining characteristic of him & his life. This is bringing back memories of the "David Icke is a goalkeeper" discussion. It's a weird take and not rooted in the WP:PAGs or even in any sense of what effective, communicative writing is. Alexbrn ( talk) 16:10, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Effective writing (telling readers what is important in as few words as possible) is a goal though not a required, while NPOV and more importantly BLP require neutrality and impartiality in writing; their importance might require deviation from the most effective writing as to make sure we are presenting an encyclopedic tone. In the case of Maddoff, obviously on the shortlist of details that need to presented near the top of the lede are his convictions related to the ponzi scheme, but it is clear that before the ponzi scheme, he was doing other things in his life that from an encyclopedic view, we would consider also high importance to include in the lede. Because we are to write on BLP (and articles in general) in an impartial and dispassionate tone, rushing to get to the convicted crimes without going through the process of basic explanation of non-contentious facts makes us look like we are writing to the spectacle of shaming criminal behavior, which, while may be reasonable for a newspaper for their efficiency in writing where they may have limited space, is not a position we're to take. There is no requirement in any P&G that the lede sentence include what a person is most notable, only that the lede overall (if not the lede paragraph) gets to that. That first sentence in nearly any article - Oz, Maddoff, Icke - is critical to establishing the tone for the rest of the article, and that may mean that the most notable thing about that person may have to be delayed just a bit to make sure the encyclopedic tone is properly established. -- Masem ( t) 13:12, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

What you are proposing in unencyclopedic (or at least, antithetical to this Project's goals). Neutrality requires we give most prominence for the most weighty aspects, as established by the best sources. By wanting to give pre-eminence to minor aspects of people's lives, you're proposing something opposite to NPOV. Alexbrn ( talk) 14:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Yet, "prominence" does not mean first. For a mountain to be prominent, it has to be surrounded by smaller mountains, otherwise there's no point of comparison. It's not only surrounded by smaller mountains, but has the lowest ridgeline between itself and all other mountains, so that it stands out the best among them. That's what prominence means, and it's really no different for writing. If you want something to be prominent, then putting it first is not the way to do it. That's what I meant when I said people often take a backward approach. Putting something first does nothing to make it more prominent, but rather just the opposite. Zaereth ( talk) 15:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Prominence generally does equate to being first in text. Unlike geographical features text is linear. Actors argue about whose name goes top of the billing for a reason. Your mountain analogy might work if some text in the middle was given a huge font, making it more prominent than its surroundings. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:50, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Really? Font size? That's the argument you're going with? Can't think of anything else that may cause prominence in writing? Well, there's no point in trying to argue with logic like that. Zaereth ( talk) 16:02, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree that 'fraudster' needs to be prominent in the first sentence of Bernie Madoff - there's no two ways about it, that's the reason he is as famous as he is (I doubt many people in the general public would have heard of him, but for the fraud). On the question of Mehmet Oz, I don't like that awkwardly written first sentence - if you're writing a 'Madeup Nameson is a...', you probably ought to stop before you get to the fifth thing that they are. I'd probably ditch 'author' (how many university professors aren't also authors?), and have something along the lines of 'Mehmet Cengiz Öz, known professionally as Dr. Oz, is a Turkish-American cardiothoracic surgeon and Columbia University professor, who regularly appears on television programmes and is known for promoting psuedoscientific theories on the subject of alternative medicine.' Or words to that effect. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:56, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I was just clicking edit to add a comment but I see GS beat me to my point. I think the Oz FIRST is too long as is and should probably be something more akin to "is a television doctor". However, omitting the pseduoscience is a "good writing" thing rather than a BLPVIO thing for me and if we're going to have that run on sentence I haven't dived into the sources enough to say whether or not pseudoscience belongs there. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:01, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Barkeep49, my understanding is that the OP isn't questioning whether or not he does promote pseudoscience - they're asking whether we should use 'pseudoscience promoter' in the first sentence because it's not a profession. I tend to agree with the OP insofar as 'pseudoscience promoter' isn't really a thing you can be and probably shouldn't be used, but promoting pseudoscience is a thing you can do, and if you do it so prominently as to get articles written about you in the BMJ, that should be mentioned early on. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I support GirthSummit's proposal or something similar. Oz's promotion of pseudoscience is very prominently covered in RS. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 16:18, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I get that but I'm saying that if we're going to have a run-on sentence of a FIRST maybe pseudoscience belongs there, maybe not. I am saying I don't think the sentence should be a run-on, in which case it does not belong there. Best, Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I'm not pushing for the run-on sentence. What I was trying to say was 'pseudoscience promoter' isn't great writing, that's all, the idea is better expressed as describing something that he does, rather than something that he is. I don't need it to be in the first sentence, quite happy for it to be mentioned in a later sentence (provided it's still reasonably prominent). GirthSummit _(blether) 17:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Supporting GS proposal, sounds to me like a reasonable and well thought out one CommanderWaterford ( talk) 16:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

The 2nd paragraph of the lede explains in some detail that Mehmet Oz promotes medical pseudoscience. Given that, I think we can simply remove the label "pseudoscience promoter" from the first sentence. While it's true that he promotes pseudoscience, I always find this sort of writing objectionable, and any reader who continues past the first paragraph (which is short) will learn about Oz' promotion of pseudoscience. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 16:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Giving this a bit more thought. Here are the first five reliable and independent sources that Google gave me:

• NYT: "Dr. Mehmet Oz, the celebrity talk show host..."
• Missouri Medicine: "Dubbed "America's doctor" by Oprah Winfrey, Oz is well known as the star of his own television show..."
• Business Insider: "Dr. Mehmet Oz, a television host and adviser to President Donald Trump, is one of the most well-known celebrity doctors in the country. "
• New Yorker: "Mehmet Oz, the heart surgeon and host of "The Dr. Oz Show,"..."
• CNN: "Dr. Mehmet Oz, the celebrity cardiac surgeon whose medical advice has been called into serious question in the past."

So, they're mostly introducing him as a TV Doctor. They all go on to talk about his pushing fringe theories/pseudoscience/dubious medical advice very shortly after introducing him though. Given that MOS:ROLEBIO says that the lead sentence should describe the person as they are commonly described in reliable sources, I think that Barkeep49 is pretty much on the money in saying that our lead sentence should call him a TV doctor, but we definitely need to make it very clear in the lead that the medical advice he gives has been seriously questioned. Every unaffiliated source I click on doesn't just mention that - they're mostly about that. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:00, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

See, I can agree with this. When people use the term "prominence", it's helpful to know what it means. It comes from the Latin promintorium, meaning "a large mountain jutting out". As a mountaineering term, prominence is applied to writing in much the same way. Giving too much prominence to information is just as big of an NPOV problem as not giving enough. Prominence has nothing to do with order, but it really doesn't exist without a frame of reference. It's like trying to judge speed inside a box with no windows. From that frame of reference, there is no speed. Likewise, with no frame of reference, there is no prominence. That's why when judging NPOV we weigh the sources and proportion things in comparison to the size of the article.

The lede should really be a mini-version of the article. I like to think of it as being like a scaled-down map. Scaled way down. But the order of information as well as the prominence should really match the layout of the body. This is all part of foreshadowing, which is somewhat like constructing a table of contents in the reader's mind. It greatly helps the reader in understanding, comprehending, and remembering info to give it in a non-linear order like this, because that's how the brain works. An example I've used many times before is the honey article. This article has an absolutely excellent lede, and I would encourage everyone to examine how well it gives a summary and layout of the rest of the article, touching on all the main points but not going into any detail. It didn't always look like that, but thanks to the efforts of very good writers like Zefr and so many other, it is now something to be proud of. The Hitler article wasn't always so good either, but once the emotion of everyone involved starts to wind down on article like these, people will come along and think, "that looks weird" and change it bit by bit into a well-written article. I just think it's better to do that to begin with.

Wikipedia really needs some guides on good writing practices, because I think it would help a lot in areas like this. Zaereth ( talk) 19:21, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Just a note because "it's helpful to know what it means.” You said earlier that "For a mountain to be prominent, it has to be surrounded by smaller mountains, otherwise there's no point of comparison.” but thats not technically correct... A mountain that has no other mountains around it is extremely prominent, for instance Mount Kilimanjaro is the fourth most prominent mountain on earth specifically because it is not surrounded by smaller mountains. Surrounding smaller mountains make a mountain less prominent, not more prominent. Not sure if this changes your argument about wikipedia policy but just thought I would offer the note. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:32, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Not necessarily true. Take Denali, for example. It is an extremely prominent mountain, with few other nearby that compare. The next most prominent mountain is Aconcagua, in South America, with the lowest point on the ridge between them being somewhere in Ecuador I believe. But that aside, I think that's taking the analogy too far, because even sea-level gives some kind of reference point. Denali in space is just another rock. We need to start by giving reference points, which is what building context is. Zaereth ( talk) 19:40, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I’m not sure what you mean by "Not necessarily true.” Also Aconcagua is more prominent than Denali not less. At least if List of mountain peaks by prominence is to be trusted. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 19:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I feel like we're just mincing words at this point, but I do believe I said the next most, if I'm not mistaken. I'll give it one more try, and then leave it at that. Let's try a patent analogy.

When you write out a patent, you have a list of claims. Legally speaking, that's what is important, and where you need a lawyer specializing in patents, or you can describe yourself out of your rights. The first claim, therefore, should be the single, broadest, most all-encompassing definition of the subject it can be. It is just a starting place to build from, but too much detail here will restrict your rights. This also, just like expository writing, is based a lot on the theory of scientific methodology as set down by Mills so long ago. So, let's say I invent the lightbulb, my first claim should be: 1.) An incandescent light bulb, consisting of a hermetically sealed, glass bulb, with lead wires and a filament, for the production of light.

That's all you really need for your first claim, and anything else that fits that description fall under my patent. The next claim: 2.) Said item in claim 1, vacuumed of air, to prevent filament from burning up. 3.) Items of claim 1 and 2, with added inert gas of some pressure range, to prevent excess evaporation of filament. 4.) Items in claim 1, 2, and 3, with metal cap, having threads for screwing into socket.

This is really not that much different for expository writing, except we prefer formal language over legal jargon. You start with a very broad, simple beginning and build upon it from there. (In mechanics, we call this assembly order.) To use the notion of prominence as an analogy, assume the reader is starting off at sea level. They don't know boo about the subject. It's better to take them up the mountain than to fling them right to the top. Explain what the subject is, before explaining what they do or how they work. We don't start the Hitler article with the Holocaust. We start by explain just what this person was, and how he came to a position to to cause such terrible tragedy. The Holocaust is really the main point, so we end with that.

People are far more apt to remember the end of a story, not so much the beginning. The beginning is just an intro. You can't give all the information at once, so it's ridiculous to even try. That's my two cents, so I'll just leave it at that. Zaereth ( talk) 21:38, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

I actually liked your mountain prominence analogy... With Hitler the Holocaust isn’t that prominent not because it isn't a massive “mountain” in its own right but because adjacent “mountains” (takeover of the German political system, global championing of fascism and racism, invasion of Western Europe, invasion of Eastern Europe, war crimes associated with said invasions etc) are also very tall. For someone like Bernie Madoff there aren’t mountains that come close to their main peak (in his case the Ponzi scheme). Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 21:59, 15 April 2021 (UTC)

Well, thanks. I guess that's where discussions like this can get confusing, because an analogy is one thing, to help emphasize a point, but sometimes it's best not to get too deep into picking it apart that it obscures the point. For instance, I'm still thinking about Oz. Is he a TV doctor, a quack, or a wonderful wizard? I think in his case it's best to start with doctor and work up to wonderful wizard. But what amazes me is the emphasis people put on the importance of the first sentence. It's only important in as much as it's a place to start. I did my best to describe much of this in my own essay, User:Zaereth/Writing tips for the amateur writer, especially in the foreshadowing and newcomer sections. It still needs work, copyediting, and a little more added. But one of these days, when I have a lot more time, I may try to work on something a little more formal, hopefully with the help of people like Tony, Sarah, Atsme, Zefr, and several others I can think of off the top of my head who are well versed in this area. Someday. Zaereth ( talk) 00:18, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

If I were writing the first sentence of Mehmet Oz I would say “American television personality” and probably not much more. I’m not amazed at the emphasis people put on the first sentence, when I ask Siri or Alexa “What is X” half of the time they literally read off the first sentence of the wikipedia article. As far as I am aware not something thats historically been considered when discussing what should be at the beginning of the lead. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 00:47, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Heffner000 has been edit warring the following passage to the TommyInnit article (Note: the subject in question, Thomas Simons, is currently a minor):

Simons came under fire after he asked for a "shoutout" under KSI's tweet about the tragic passing of legendary rapper DMX. KSI was one of many online personalities and celebrities who took to social media to pay tribute to the late icon. However, KSI's tweet ended up being overshadowed by one particular comment from Simons, who had just turned 17 years of age at the time. In the comment, he asked KSI to post an Instagram story giving him a "shoutout" in honor of his birthday. This not only proved to be a case of horrible timing but was also labeled as "insensitive" and "disrespectful." Amid rising backlash, he eventually realized how triggering his reply was and immediately deleted it. ^[1] He later addressed the situation on stream and attempted to clarify his comment by revealing that he hadn't read KSI's tweet properly. ^[2]

To me this looks massively undue and frankly trivial. SportsKeeda is as far as I can tell an unreliable group blog that should never be used for claims regarding living persons, as it has no evidence of editorial oversight. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:02, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Trivial minor social faux pas that doesn't seem to have any long-term impact, along with questionable sourcing. Remove. -- Masem ( t) 02:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Heffner000 edit warred the material in again, this time using Dextero. I don't think Dextero is any better than SportsKeeda and remains massively undue regardless. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:15, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Even if it was sourced to BBC, assuming that this was all that was covered, its a minor triviality. It's why we don't post minor infractions that celebrities may have (like speeding), unless it has a long term effect. -- Masem ( t) 02:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

@ Masem: Heffner000 has gone and restored the material again, this time just directly linking to the tweets diff. As I am at my 3RR for the page today, can I ask you assist? Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:44, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted that. I think with that level of sourcing you can rightfully claim the BLP exemption rule to 3RR, but of course, that's always up to interpretation. I think this was a clear enough breach to qualify. Zaereth ( talk) 02:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree, I had a revert all lined up but you had already done it. Thanks for that. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 02:54, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

They've gone and reverted again. This is enough. I have opened an ANI thread, see Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Heffner000. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 04:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Stephen Sharer (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an ongoing edit war on this page ( Stephen Sharer) involving multiple IP users, where his birth date is repeatedly switched between 1998 (what Stephen himself says it is, although this may be untrue, since he would have been 7 when he founded his YouTube channel) and 1992 (what some others say it actually is). It seems this is very controversial. Could this be looked into for protection of some sort? That would at least cut back the number of IP's randomly reverting birth dates. Most of these IP's have only ever edited Stephen Sharer's page to change his date of birth. I have also requested semi-protection for it. 106.69.53.60 ( talk) 14:19, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

• Note that if one is going to look at the YouTube channel, this (now protected) article has been pointing at the wrong one for almost a year. See Special:Diff/959398356. I've removed the birth information as it is in none of the sources cited. Indeed, there seems to be some false, or at least exceedingly incompetent, sourcing going on here. Uncle G ( talk) 15:35, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

The Birth certificate article contains an image of a birth certificate from commons. The underlying certificate appears to be a public record that anyone could order. Nevertheless, the WP:BLP policy does not allow the use of public records to establish the birth or death dates of living persons. The person described in the questionable image is likely to be living. So should this image be removed from the article? Should it also be removed from commons? Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:00, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Is the image being used as the source of someone's birthdate, or is it just being presented as an example of a b.c.? The issue is that we don't want public records as the source for birth dates if we have an article on that person and that's the source for them. I am guessing this is for the date of the son of Louis Tomlinson (based on the name shown) but going by the sources there, there are three BLPSPS from Tomlinson and spouse that are 100% appropriate to use, and there is no need to touch that b.c., nor the current article there from In Touch Weekly (which is just republishing it) for demonstrating the date. -- Masem ( t) 19:33, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I see no problem with that image. All of the pertinent info has been blacked out, so there is no way to tell who this certificate is for or when it is from. It looks like just a sample of a birth certificate with all the necessary precautions taken. And although you can call it a public record, it is very difficult for anyone to just order one, because from that you can get a driver's license or whatever else you need for identity fraud. I had a hell of a time just getting a copy of my own. Zaereth ( talk) 19:48, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Edit noted below... - Wikmoz ( talk) 19:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

I've edited this photo and a few others as well to obscure personal information. Masem, saw your note after editing. I can walk back obscuring the parent's names. Would then just need someone to delete the original version. - Wikmoz ( talk) 19:53, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Didn't notice that. Yes, we should definitely get rid of the original asap. Zaereth ( talk) 19:56, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Personally, unless Tomlinson himself offered that cert (which based on the photo and the In Touch source that says "In Touch has exclusively obtained the birth certificate of Louis Tomlinson’s baby boy, Freddie Reign.", that Tomlnson did NOT offer that cert), then us having that photo is an invasion of their privacy even if if this is a matter of public record and would be a free image. I don't know how Commons would handle it, but we should not use it ourselves just because it exists. (Right now there's a similar discussion happening on User talk:Jimmy Wales over the matter of consent, and this I feel falls right into that). If we really need a birth cert. image for another reason (such as to illustrate one), we should use one that we know has been voluntarily provided, such as a WPian's own cert, or one for a person long since dead where there will be no issue over concent to use (eg someone that has been dead pre-1920s). But using this image for any purpose seems wrong. -- Masem ( t) 20:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

No objection to removing entirely. As an immediate fix though, can we delete the original versions of:

• this photo
• this photo
• this photo
• this photo
• this photo
• this photo
• this photo

Can't fix the NZ one because it's a PDF and unsure about the Russian ones. Pinging Ellin Beltz and Didym for Commons admin assist. - Wikmoz ( talk) 20:17, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

There are fourteen non-specimen birth certificate images on that page that have not been redacted and that identify likely living people with information such as identity card numbers, certificate numbers, identifying barcodes, full dates and times of births, and even full information about parents in some cases. For this article, I think that only specimen or completely redacted birth certificates should be used. There is no reason for this article to have any birth certificates that directly identify specific people. These are examples, not specifics. Uncle G ( talk) 20:21, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

• Yeah, I will agree. I don't deal much with commons, but things like that should get deleted on sight, in my opinion. When I first clicked on the image above, I just assumed it was a sample someone pulled off flikr, but in retrospect, it should all probably just be deleted, for the reasons both you and Masem said. Zaereth ( talk) 20:28, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
  • Whether Commons has a problem with these images is a separate matter, and arguments can be made that some specific birth certificates have value, and (knowing Commons) will be. This, however, is a Wikipedia problem. Bad editorial judgement was used here to include the birth certificates of specific identifiable people in an article that will never need to have anything other than samples or redactions as examples. People took what was available, without consideration of what was highly inappropriate for the article. Uncle G ( talk) 21:07, 16 April 2021 (UTC)
• Obscured a few more. - Wikmoz ( talk) 21:05, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Some of the comments are about the ability of any member of the public to get a copy. In the United States, the policy varies from state to state. Some states, like California, offer "informational" copies that anyone can get, and "authorized" copies that only people connected to the birth can get. See https://www.cdph.ca.gov/Programs/CHSI/Pages/Authorized-Copy-vs--Informational-Copy.aspx Jc3s5h ( talk) 20:49, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Yet another reason I'm thankful I don't live in California. It's bad enough that, according to any label, everything is "known to cause cancer" there. (That's a bad joke, I know, but someone said it to me once, so I had to pass the burden to the rest of you.) Regardless, it is such a blatant vio of BLPPRIMARY, I don't even know where to begin. I'm with Masem. UWe shouldn't use them unless it's like an official sample, or something from at least 100 years ago. We wouldn't even allow a link to a source that provided a pic of one, so having them on wiki is just so wrong... Zaereth ( talk) 21:10, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Just a quick note in relation to Masem's 20:01, 16 April 2021 (UTC) post, we generally exclude the full names and dates of births of non-notable children without regard of how much their parents are spreading them per WP:BLPNAME. We should only consider including them if enough other sources have picked up the details. If the subject themselves are the one spreading the info then our concerns are greatly lessened although in the case of a minor I don't think them spreading the info changes much. Nil Einne ( talk) 22:37, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

In case my comment is a bit too obtuse, what I'm saying is in my book, I don't really care whether someone's parent decided to post their living child's birth certificate online. The only thing which would matter to me would be if the child themselves did and it would also be important they weren't a minor. Nil Einne ( talk) 17:38, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

•  Comment: I have hidden the old versions of the files mentioned above while this is being discussed. But if the source documents are visible else where online and they are truely PD then hiding or deleting it on Commons will not do much difference. -- MGA73 ( talk) 10:53, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

Does Draft:Joel Greenberg (tax collector) pass BLPCRIME? He is the subject of a metric fuckton of coverage, and has been for a year, because what he did was so completely bizarre - including setting up a crypto mining operation in a government building using taxpayer money, that later caused $6,700 in fire damage when it overheated, and using it to buy bitcoin for himself. Guy ( help! - typo?) 22:32, 17 April 2021 (UTC)

I think he does, as he is an elected public figure, but as it stands there is entirely too much detail about alleged crimes. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 00:39, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

That seems to be the basis of his notability though, the investigations into his crimes and his cooperation on the separate Gaetz investigation. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 01:13, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I'd work to rearrange the information after the lede paragrah, and even add "Career" and "Criminal investigation". I would suspect that if one temporarily takes a blind eye to the stuff he's charged with, there's some basic bio stuff that can be written (where he was born, etc.). Also, the article should better establish the timeline where authorities started investigating him prior to his arrest. The article does put a bit too much weight on the accusations and not too much on the details that revolve around how those came about. -- Masem ( t) 03:50, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Bill Clinton sexual assault and misconduct allegations (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

User:Therazzors ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) was blocked for a week after a discussion on this noticeboard. Since coming back on April 6, they've continued adding unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material, exclusively to pages about people involved in post-1992 American politics. Diffs are linked here for Bill Clinton (allegations), Bill Clinton (main article), George Stephanopoulos, and Michael Bloomberg, the page he was initially banned for. More evidence is at their user contributions page that they are not here to be a responsible participant in this project. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 03:34, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

Pinging @ C.Fred: as the admin involved in the last BLPN discussion. Firefangledfeathers ( talk) 03:37, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I have blocked this editor for one month. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:26, 18 April 2021 (UTC)

I've raised a RSN question here [ [41]] related to a claim in Bellingscat related to Andy Ngo. The question is if when a source presents evidence for a claim and that evidence doesn't support the claim can we consider the claim reliably sourced. Since this relates to a claim regarding a BLP subject misrepresenting an event, does this also concern a BLP question regarding claims made against a BLP subject? Please answer at the RSN discussion. Springee ( talk) 02:35, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

• Michael Potts (actor) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Michael Potts (actor) was born September 21, 1962 not January 1, 1950. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpotts62 ( talk • contribs) 22:59, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

• Please show us where we can find that out from published information. Uncle G ( talk) 20:04, 12 April 2021 (UTC)

Date of birth

Michael Potts (actor) was born on September 21,1962 in Brooklyn, NY. Why do you publish Birthdate information when you don't have a birth certificate or other official documents to back it up?

dl=0https://www.dropbox.com/s/l9wxzuv0hubtfa8/Doc%20Aug%2014%2C%202018%2C%201344.pdf?dl=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpotts62 ( talk • contribs) 19:32, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Because of it's nature, sometimes you'll find stuff on WP that shouldn't be there. On including a birthdate, see guidance at WP:DOB. It's quite ok not have birthdates in articles. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 20:28, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Princess_Haya_bint_Hussein#Findings_of_the_High_Court

I am concerned that reference to criminal law, international law, international maritime law, and international human rights norms have no place in the explanation of the judgment of the Family Division of the High Court of England and Wales in the case of Princess Haya and her daughters. This is a discussion that is better suited to be held on another page as it is overly-specific and not relevant to the finding of the High Court in this particular case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.146.248.22 ( talk • contribs) 22:26, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

It does look problematic. The text in question seems to be sourced to the court judgement itself, and Wikipedia contributors shouldn't be doing such summarising, since it may contravene Wikipedia:No original research policy. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 23:14, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I removed the info sourced to the court document as a vio of BLPPRIMARY, but I see there are several other instances of such documents being used, and I'm not sure if I got all the info from the one I did remove. I don't have any time to go through this properly, because I need to hit the road. But I hope someone will take a deeper look and maybe do some clean-up. Zaereth ( talk) 23:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

Alison Collins (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) El C locked Alison Collins today for 60 days for dubious reasons. The BLP had been to that point fully cited with NPOV information. BriefEdits who requested a lock has on multiple occasions has been observed attempting to prevent other users than himself from editing as well. The consequential lock for the article Alison Collins for 60 days ensures a likely growing misrepresentation of the topic if article remains uneditable for 60 days due to objective information is expected to grow significantly with updates from several news sources. Requesting unlocking to allow the community to contribute up to date content for BLP. Not unlocking I believe will violate the blp policy exponentially within the next 60 days as the stagnant information will continue to be further distorted from anticipated several future neutral news sources revealing significant new relevant information for this blp. Attempts to reason with El C today have proven to be unsuccessful. - 2601:645:C001:4A40:D87C:717C:A09D:1C84 ( talk) 09:37, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Even for a BLP, it's better to request unprotection at WP:RFPP. But since this is a BLP, I have to say I find it unlikely the article will be unprotected unless you can show consensus for the edits. The article talk page is a mess thanks I think to you, but I don't see anything close to consensus at that page. The mess doesn't help since a lot of the discussion there seems to focus on pointless stuff like allegations against BriefEdits or ElC or disputing the protection rather than on the disputed edits themselves. Nil Einne ( talk) 11:58, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I only briefly glanced at the edits themselves before writing the above since it was moot to my point. Now that I have, I have to say I see zero chance there will ever be consensus for the edits in question. That WP:lead is way, way, way too long. The lead is supposed to be a summary of the important points which need to also be covered in the body. That isn't a summary. I don't even think the info is even in the body. Mind you, there's litle chance that text belongs in the body anyway. Numbered lists of complaints is not how we write BLPs. It's possible some or even most of that content belongs in the body, but it will need to be properly incorporated not as a numbered list. Nil Einne ( talk) 12:02, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

To be clear, I say "zero chance" because based on my experience with Wikipedia and BLPs, I think nearly all experience editors are going to look at this attempted change [42] and think WTF? I don't want to be rude, but the edit is literally that bad. Nil Einne ( talk) 12:07, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

I see the points you make. Knowing the most reasonable way to add content without violating accepted norms is a goal for me. You provide some good advice on better to incorporate the content and be accepted. Would there be a possible remedy not to revert my edits but just unlock the article, with trusting I've learned from the advice on what not to do in the future? Semi-protecting a page for 60 days seems rather excessive. - 2601:645:C001:4A40:D87C:717C:A09D:1C84 ( talk) 16:05, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Or you can WP:REGISTER and hang around for a few days, see WP:SEMI. And perhaps WP:BRD. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 16:44, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Grabergs, salient and instructive points I greatly appreciate you suggesting for which I was not aware before. Such useful advice gives me encouragement that Wikipedia community are mostly composed of positive helpful people like yourself who give constructive feedback to those who are less informed on how to edit. A million and one thanks again. 2601:645:C001:4A40:D87C:717C:A09D:1C84 ( talk) 17:26, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Will definitely read carefully WP:BRD as you suggest as well as the other links WP:REGISTER and WP:SEMI. The BRD page in particular looks very interesting and definitely give it a thorough reading. 2601:645:C001:4A40:D87C:717C:A09D:1C84 ( talk) 17:29, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Just a courtesy ping for @ El C for letting him know of this discussion here. CommanderWaterford ( talk) 18:51, 20 April 2021 (UTC)

Brian Gallagher ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

There has been persistent disruptive editing of this article adding opinion and citations from unreliable sources. Param3ter2 ( talk) 04:30, 19 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't know the overall reliability of those sources, but they seem fairly legit. The information is also available in a pile of other sources. AP, Business insider, ABC News, etc. It doesn't seem undue, and it's definitely sourced and reasonably written. Is there a specific issue you have with the prose in the article? ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 12:18, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The subject is a voice actor who was accused by fan of inappropriate behavior. I checked the archives first and found this request made by the Flynn's reps in December of 2020 to protect the page. I've removed the material here pending review, and can revdel if warranted. The sites reporting the allegations are Gamerant and TheGamer. The latter source no longer has the articles in question viewable; the article references were from archive.org links. Searching in Google news, another site NichGamer also mentions the allegations, but includes additional content echoing the subject's recent assertions on Twitter that a judge dismissed the allegations as unfounded. My gut is that none of those sources are strong enough to warrant inclusion of the accusations in the article. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:54, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I agree there is not nearly strong enough sourcing to include this in the article. Especially as it seems Niche Gamer also removed articles related to it, which has caused an odd issue with google news search showing the string "Quinton Flynn Replaced as Kael'thas Voice Actor in WoW; Despite Judge Ruling Sexual Misconduct Allegations Came from Obsessive Stalker." with the headline of different game and console reviews. I would need to see it picked up by more legit sources rather than just content mills before including anything in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 11:53, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

In relation to video game coverage, the VG project doesn't consider any of those three sites reliable (see WP:VG/S) and I would agree without any mention in an RS, its not worth inclusion particularly if the claims were dismissed. -- Masem ( t) 13:35, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

The grandchild of Hayat is reporting him dead in the article and at User talk:Amaan 160994. Could experienced editors here handle this sensitive situation? PrisonerB ( talk) 10:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

A google news search turns up absolutely nothing. Wikipedia should be silent on the matter until reliable, published, sources have reported it. A random account claiming to be a grandchild of the person is not a reliable, published source. They may very well be completely honest about this, but there's nothing we can do without a published obituary, or an announcement by a verified, official social media account, or something like that. -- Jayron 32 13:39, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

I am here to ask for some advice on an article I have been improving recently: Jonny Gould, which was until recently in a pretty poor state. I have found a quite recent wide-ranging 27-minute audio interview with this political commentator/journalist in conversation with Jon Gaunt, another journalist, but it is hosted on Sputnik News, a deprecated source, here [43]. I read the guidance at WP:Deprecated and (maybe mistakenly) thought that it would be OK to use as primary source from Gould and use direct quotes. My rationale was that if I quote Gould verbatim from the audio and use none of the potentially disinformative content from the website blurb itself that that would/could be a fair use of a deprecated source based on WP:Common and WP:Deprecated. The content is potentially controversial, mainly around his views on Black Lives Matter, so I would not consider including it of course if it was someone else making these claims...but can someone please elucidate me as to the guidance on a BLP subject talking about themself and their views (but it is hosted in a deprecated source).

After another user deleted this reference and content and I have now spent some time reading WP:Deprecated and WP:Interviews but I haven't come to a conclusion. Maybe this whole source falls down due to where it is hosted? Guidance appreciated as I haven't come across a case like this before. Mountaincirque ^talk 13:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

To cite relevant, direct quotes without any paraphrasing, explaining, or interpreting the meaning of the quotes would be acceptable, as the video itself qualifies under WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:PRIMARY for extremely limited and directed usage. A contextless direct quote, or a quote followed by an explanation about what it means or additional context, should NOT be provided unless that additional context, which references the quote itself or interview itself, would be allowable. Basically, if 1) The interview is ONLY available from the deprecated source and nowhere else 2) the interview itself is referenced and put into context by another, genuinely reliable source, and 3) the interview itself is ONLY being used to cite a direct quote from the interview, and all context about the quote is referenced to other, reliable, sources, I would say in that VERY limited case, you could use the video as a reference. If any part of that is missing, then no, you shouldn't use it. -- Jayron 32 13:34, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, your first sentence is very clear but then you have multiple commas and clauses on that second one so I'm still a bit unclear to be frank. So, if I use a contextless direct quote, for example: "X stated "I love socks" in an interview with Y"., would that be acceptable using this one audio source as it is WP:ABOUTSELF? Many thanks Mountaincirque ^talk 14:24, 21 April 2021 (UTC)

IMO probably, but I don't think you can generalise. Since we're treating this similar to a self published source, remember it cannot be unduly self serving or exceptional and also cannot concern a third party. "I love socks" seems fine. But not "I'm probably the best broadcaster in the world" or "I'm regularly exposed to people with COVID-19 but I don't get it because I take ivermectin". Nor "I've interviewed all British Prime Ministers going back to Margaret Thatcher". Nil Einne ( talk)