 | This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Marek Kukula
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the Wikipedia biography of Marek Kukula mention his child pornography conviction?
As you can see from this version (where it had been included, and subsequently rejected, as a nominal "Personal Life" entry), it takes quite a lot of text to properly explain and fairly contextualize this event in a neutral fashion, based on what is available from the sources (I have no idea how to obtain the primary source court documents, should people prefer to go that way).
But as is also hopefully rather obvious, not mentioning it gives a hugely misleading impression, up to and including the inference that he is still actually employed as the Public Astronomer of the Royal Observatory. He obviously isn't, but that can actually only be inferred by the fact he no longer has an employee page on their website.
Nobody else seems prepared to admit, in print, that this man clearly lost his job because he downloaded child sexual abuse imagery, regardless of reasons or circumstances. The news of his conviction was only reported by the Daily Mail and The Sun, which I gather both can't be used by Wikipedia (an attempt to include the Mail as reference 17 was bizarrely completely rejected by the editing software, even though including it would lend credence to the reliability of The Sun reference, which it did allow, but bizarrely duplicated as a second copy of reference 16).
I personally am not seeing any reason why they cannot be used in this particular context, since both reports were virtually identical, and were published under different bylines, suggesting factual accuracy as a result of direct court reporting. I suppose they could both be the result of some elaborate fraud with one originating source, perhaps someone who wants to do Marek harm and has a means of fooling court reporters at not one but two national newspapers, and there is otherwise a perfectly innocent explanation for his apparent departure from the Observatory and indeed complete departure from public quotation as an astronomy expert. It certainly seems unlikely nobody would have noticed much less not acted on false reporting that directly attributed statements to a named lawyer, prosecutor and judge.
In case anyone is thinking that the best way to deal with this paradox is to just get rid of the article, that potential course of action was only recently debated, and it was concluded based on what could be said about this man from reliable sources, that he deserves a Wikipedia biography.
It may be the case, as the version which includes the conviction perhaps now shows, this was an error, and that when viewing it with that material in it, due to its necessary bulk in relation to what else can be said about the man, it does become rather obvious that this piece is not what anyone could reasonably call a biography.
Although what exists may be entirely accurate, it probably fails the fairness test, due to the prominence of the conviction material. And yet perhaps not - in terms of his career and public profile, the conviction is likely to be the single most important aspect of his life, and as has been shown by the material, was something directly brought about by his career choices. Documenting such things is what a biographer does, whole omitting them is what an autobiography would do (in general, the material might actually suggest Kukula is genuinely contrite and happy to own his mistakes).
That would potentially harm Wikipedia though, since it seems obvious that other biographies that are as brief as this, for other academics, and which are largely sourced the way this one was, from first person interviews given due to a specific single aspect of their career, are quite numerous on Wikipedia. It seems not quite right that the existence of these pages on Wikipedia should be determined solely by whether or not they later commit a crime that is only reported on by sources deemed unreliable by Wikipedia.
And it is worth noting that in this case, the crime occurred before he obtained the role that generated all that media interest, and it was only later, much later, that it was discovered and he was convicted. In extremis, as this example seems to show, taking the deletion approach, or indeed the keep but do not mention approach, could make it appear as if Wikipedia wants to be complicit in an attempt to shield pedophiles from the consequences of their actions, and prevent readers from obtaining a neutral account of what happened, and in proper context, without having to put money into the advertisers pockets of the Sun and Mail.
As I tried to convey previously, apparently successfully, this is not an ethical Google visibility issue, in that the harm is evidently already done, and people searching for this man's name, or indeed simply his apparently now defunct job title, will find the Sun and Mail reports are prominent in the results. Having a neutral Wikipedia page returned higher than them, would seem to serve everyone's interest, including Wikipedia's aspirations. Obviously, should Marek ever succeed in an actual Right To Be Forgotten case to alter the visibility of those reports, the moral case for keeping his Wikipedia biography should be reconsidered (although as I understand it, Wikipedia editors are broadly against any law that holds that the internet can and should forget certain things at certain times).
If there were concrete and specific reasons as to why, in this specific circumstance, the reporting of the Sun and Mail cannot be relied upon to create a complete and fair biography here, I could be persuaded that not mentioning it might be wise. But I am not seeing any such reason, and as the proposed addition shows, it is possible to extract from them the relevant factual material, while not including their tabloid takes (not that anyone can seriously argue that images of boys aged between 10 and 14 having sex with each other are not fairly described as depicting "vile" child abuse in this day and age). Mr Happy Shoes ( talk) 15:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- If the only sources that report it are deprecated sources, (despite the fact that the BBC/Guardian had mentioned him before multiple times), it begs the question if we need to include it. We are not here to right great wrongs, and while the conviction etc may all be true, we have to have usable sources to work from. DM and Sun are not usable sources, particularly for a bio. We simply can't included that until we actually have such an RS. (Yes, I find it rather odd that no other RSes have picked up on this. I don't know why they aren't even just giving even a brief paragraph to this) --
Masem (
t) 16:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Like I said, I am looking for a specific reason why these specific sources cannot be used for this specific circumstance, since it cannot rationally be argued there is any doubt at all that they are factually correct. They agree with each other, they are bylined and carry identical attributed quotes from identified people, and there is nothing out there that contradicts their contents, either the specifics, or the general supposition that this conviction is why he has ceased to have an employee profile at the Observatory, and indeed no longer has any public profile to speak of. The BBC/Guardian are under no actual obligation to make sure their subsequent editorial choices don't contradict their previous reporting. Wikipedia is. That is the difference between a newspaper and an encyclopedia, whose contents are in large part, "biographies". A biographer would include this information, whereas an autobiographer, and the Observatory, have the luxury of choosing not to include potentially embarrassing or damaging information. The actual need to include this information is beyond obvious, if Wikipedia wants this to be read as a biography. To do otherwise, is clearly quite literally deceitful (lying by omission) and potentially dangerous. While admittedly an unlikely scenario, and perhaps unfair to the man himself, but it's not beyond credulity that he could use this page to convince a child that he is still a respected academic with a cool job at the Observatory. The reliable sources document his interest in child engagement, and importantly, this was in pieces they wrote after he had actually committed the crimes that, his excuses aside, do suggest he is a danger to children. To omit that context from this biography, is what needs to be justified in the strongest possible terms. The mere fact that Wikipedia doesn't like the Sun or the Mail, doesn't really cut it. This is, for me, the oddest part of why the BBC chose not to report on this conviction. But the mere fact they are publicly funded and have a legal duty to inform and educate the public on important matters (such as, how well, or how badly, our museums and government are protecting children from readily identifiable pedophiles) sadly doesn't allow me to overrule (or even know) by what means they chose not to report on the conviction.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 17:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Let's start with a problem in the argument that you're framing, that there is an issue that we are not presenting Kukula as a pedophile (assuming these charges are true). This the "right great wrongs" argument we have to avoid. We are not legally or morally or ethically bound to inform readers about the crimes of any person, even for something like pedophilia, if that information cannot meet WP:V and BLP, which at this point, using DM or Sun would fail. If the mainstream sources that are reliable like the BBC and Guardian have decided to ignore this convict and whitewash it away, we are sorta stuck and cannot do anything about that since we're required to summarize from reliable sources. Again, why the BBC/Guardian and others have decides to ignore this is extremely odd to me as well, but we can't make a special case here. -- Masem ( t) 17:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Like I said, I am looking for a specific reason why these specific sources cannot be used for this specific circumstance, since it cannot rationally be argued there is any doubt at all that they are factually correct. They agree with each other, they are bylined and carry identical attributed quotes from identified people, and there is nothing out there that contradicts their contents, either the specifics, or the general supposition that this conviction is why he has ceased to have an employee profile at the Observatory, and indeed no longer has any public profile to speak of. The BBC/Guardian are under no actual obligation to make sure their subsequent editorial choices don't contradict their previous reporting. Wikipedia is. That is the difference between a newspaper and an encyclopedia, whose contents are in large part, "biographies". A biographer would include this information, whereas an autobiographer, and the Observatory, have the luxury of choosing not to include potentially embarrassing or damaging information. The actual need to include this information is beyond obvious, if Wikipedia wants this to be read as a biography. To do otherwise, is clearly quite literally deceitful (lying by omission) and potentially dangerous. While admittedly an unlikely scenario, and perhaps unfair to the man himself, but it's not beyond credulity that he could use this page to convince a child that he is still a respected academic with a cool job at the Observatory. The reliable sources document his interest in child engagement, and importantly, this was in pieces they wrote after he had actually committed the crimes that, his excuses aside, do suggest he is a danger to children. To omit that context from this biography, is what needs to be justified in the strongest possible terms. The mere fact that Wikipedia doesn't like the Sun or the Mail, doesn't really cut it. This is, for me, the oddest part of why the BBC chose not to report on this conviction. But the mere fact they are publicly funded and have a legal duty to inform and educate the public on important matters (such as, how well, or how badly, our museums and government are protecting children from readily identifiable pedophiles) sadly doesn't allow me to overrule (or even know) by what means they chose not to report on the conviction.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 17:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- There is a moral duty here, I have already explained it. Wikipedia is an influential website, it matters if you are giving a false impression of people like Kukula when it comes to his potential risk to children. This page currently implies for example that he is still employed as the Public Astronomer, and will have to remain in that state under your explanation of Wikipedia's obligations to only reflect what the broadsheets determine as newsworthy. In terms of framing, I am still not seeing from you, any specific reason why Wikipedia would be "required" to ignore these reports, other than the title of the publications and the nature of the information. I understand a broad editorial preference for non-tabloids, but that is an internal decision, one that obviously has to be re-examined in a special case like this, precisely because it raises serious moral questions. Mr Happy Shoes ( talk) 18:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's where you're mistaken. There is no moral duty. See:
WP:Right great wrongs. Daily Mail and The Sun are tabloid journalism, and we can't trust them. Simple as that. The Daily Mail has been caught lying so many times no one in their right mind would believe a word they print. If reliable sources haven't picked up on it, then we can't use it, and BLP policy makes that very clear.
Zaereth (
talk) 18:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- How am I mistaken? Nobody in their right mind would believe the Mail has EVER printed a false report that said a named person with a reasonably public job was convicted of serious offences, one which includes actual quotes from a judge, prosecutor and lawyer. The very idea is absurd. It has never happened, and if you think otherwise, please provide your proof. If there is any Wikipedia policy that supports such nonsense, it needs to be rethought as a matter of urgency. In this specific circumstance, with all the supporting evidence that the reports are true, and zero actual evidence to the contrary, and with a valid moral case established, there is actually no reason anyone would willingly choose to still think there is any valid reason to pretend they are fabrications.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 19:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- How? Read the policy I cited above and it will explain it to you. I never said they were fabrications. I simply said we can't trust the sources they came from. Maybe true. Maybe not. Who knows. The
WP:BURDEN is on you to provide proof, not me. You do that by providing reliable sources (eg: sources we can trust). Insisting that unreliable sources are good enough doesn't cut the mustard. Our moral obligation is to get info right, and providing untrustworthy sources doesn't instill a lot of confidence. In journalism, trust and reputation are everything, and once you lose the people's trust, you'll play hell getting it back. As the old saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".
Zaereth (
talk) 19:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- In other words, you don't want to do what was asked of you. You simply want to fall back on this obviously absurd notion, in the absence of any actual facts about the reliability of these newspapers for reports of this nature, which would justify it. And you almost fooled me once about policy too with "Right Great Wrongs", since it seems to be perfectly fine according to that page, to wait for the mainstream media, which the Mail and the Sun most assuredly are. Mr Happy Shoes ( talk) 19:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- How? Read the policy I cited above and it will explain it to you. I never said they were fabrications. I simply said we can't trust the sources they came from. Maybe true. Maybe not. Who knows. The
WP:BURDEN is on you to provide proof, not me. You do that by providing reliable sources (eg: sources we can trust). Insisting that unreliable sources are good enough doesn't cut the mustard. Our moral obligation is to get info right, and providing untrustworthy sources doesn't instill a lot of confidence. In journalism, trust and reputation are everything, and once you lose the people's trust, you'll play hell getting it back. As the old saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".
Zaereth (
talk) 19:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- How am I mistaken? Nobody in their right mind would believe the Mail has EVER printed a false report that said a named person with a reasonably public job was convicted of serious offences, one which includes actual quotes from a judge, prosecutor and lawyer. The very idea is absurd. It has never happened, and if you think otherwise, please provide your proof. If there is any Wikipedia policy that supports such nonsense, it needs to be rethought as a matter of urgency. In this specific circumstance, with all the supporting evidence that the reports are true, and zero actual evidence to the contrary, and with a valid moral case established, there is actually no reason anyone would willingly choose to still think there is any valid reason to pretend they are fabrications.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 19:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's where you're mistaken. There is no moral duty. See:
WP:Right great wrongs. Daily Mail and The Sun are tabloid journalism, and we can't trust them. Simple as that. The Daily Mail has been caught lying so many times no one in their right mind would believe a word they print. If reliable sources haven't picked up on it, then we can't use it, and BLP policy makes that very clear.
Zaereth (
talk) 18:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm about 75% sure these allegations are true, per Occam's razor. But given the sourcing and their penchant for sensationalist lying, I can never be 100% convinced until we have better sourcing. I would not include them.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 19:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's ironic perhaps, that it's an extremely serious thing to claim in print (Wikipedia is digital print for legal purposes), that a national newspaper would knowingly print a false report of this specific nature. Even if you're only 25% sure of your suspicion (it could perhaps be used to reduce the potential damages by 75%?). I am 100% confident, by contrast, that Kukula is guilty of the crimes attributed to him. My legal defence? See above. Two national newspapers. Corroboration. Direct quotes. Absence of any contrary evidence. No sensible reason to think this is the sort of thing the tabloids would just make up. Common sense alone is enough to beleive that these reports are true, and those who think otherwise, really need to start providing some concrete reasons why anyone would think they are not. Other than use of terms like "vile" and the headlines (which are not written by the journalists), there's nothing particularly sensationalist about these reports. Shocking, damaging, serious, yes. And it would surely be a very wierd meeting where the economic case was made that fabricating this sort of seriously damaging report about a person this relatively unknown, would be in the paper's best interest. Celebrity gossip, it is most assuredly not. As anyone can see.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 19:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Both papers have been demonstrated in the past of fabricating quotes, not in situations related to crimes or the like, but they have been caught doing this. As such, there is a huge grain of salt to assume that they are being truthful here. It does seem very likely this happened given how his name has been scrubbed (as mentioned at the AFD, he's been seemingly made an un-person per 1984) but it is not our place to make assumptions without quality sourcing to work from that. --
Masem (
t) 19:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- "Not in situations related to crimes". Exactly. For very good reasons. So, to those who are trying to argue this is somehow the time and place they would have started doing that, and so Wikipedia should be taking these specific reports with a pinch of salt, especially when there is no other evidence to suggest they are false, I would love to know why.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 19:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with the others above that Wikipedia is not the place to
WP:Right great wrongs, and that the sourcing is not adequate to include these types of claims. Also, I'm not sure how a 3-year-old conviction is "a matter of urgency". The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for factual information, and even if some information in an article is accurate, there is no reasonable way to determine how much is accurate and what is relevant to include from the article when no other reliable sources have reported on it. There is also the problem with using deprecated-tabloid sources to determine what is
WP:DUE in an article, especially for a serious crime. It appears that publications like the BBC have simply decided not to report on the article subject anymore after his conviction, and while that will make it difficult to find reliable sources on the conviction, it also means that there will be significantly less information about the article subject generally. While I think that could justify using smaller, local papers or some lower quality sources, using two sources that have been deprecated because of purposely spreading false information would not be appropriate. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 19:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- The fact it has already been admitted above that the Mail has never fabricated a report of this nature, and for reasons that make absolute commercial sense even if the rest of their business is about sensationalism, is very reasonable way of deciding whether to trust this specific report or not. It really does seem like literally the only argument anyone can offer here to suggest this report is false, is that it came from the Mail. Which of course ignores the fact it was also reported by The Sun. And since their reports match, right down to perfect agreement between quotes, is yet more reason to assume that these specific reports for his specific circumstance, are accurate. Nobody will ever know why the BBC et al have chosen to treat it as a non story, but what is as plain as day, is that they would not have based that decision on the frankly absurd idea that it wasn't somehow important to his life. They are not in the business of documenting his life. They don't do biographies. Wikipedia does. Wikipedia's biography on this man is lying, by omission. He is being resented here as if he were still the Public Astronomer, which is absurd. "Right Great Wrongs" says wait for the mainstream media before thinking about updating Wikipedia entries with new, pertinent information. Doesn't get more mainstream than the Mail or the Sun in terms of the British print media.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 20:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
-
Mr Happy Shoes, popularity is not
reliability. You are just wasting others time now repeating your same claims in these long comments and responses. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 20:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- And you are wasting my time by not acknowledging that "Right Great Wrongs" says wait for mainstream media before considering adding pertinent and important information, rather than, say, broadsheet media. The Sun/Mail are mainstream media, or are you seriously disputing that? I am repeating my points more generally, because people like you seem determined to pretend you didn't hear them. I am here to ask for a specific reason why these specific reports cannot be used for this specific purpose. And it can readily be assumed by anyone who arrives from now on, that I surely know and understand the general points about why Wikipedia prefers not to use tabloids. So please don't waste my time by repeating these rather useless generalisms. I want specifics. I want proof that anyone here has actually properly applied some critical thought here. I am looking for an explanation which would not produce an absurdity such as where it has been claimed it would somehow be fauthful to a Wikipedia core policy to knowingly falsely present someone convicted of these offences, as if they were still an employed and employable person in the public outreach field. Mr Happy Shoes ( talk) 20:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
-
Mr Happy Shoes, popularity is not
reliability. You are just wasting others time now repeating your same claims in these long comments and responses. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 20:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- The fact it has already been admitted above that the Mail has never fabricated a report of this nature, and for reasons that make absolute commercial sense even if the rest of their business is about sensationalism, is very reasonable way of deciding whether to trust this specific report or not. It really does seem like literally the only argument anyone can offer here to suggest this report is false, is that it came from the Mail. Which of course ignores the fact it was also reported by The Sun. And since their reports match, right down to perfect agreement between quotes, is yet more reason to assume that these specific reports for his specific circumstance, are accurate. Nobody will ever know why the BBC et al have chosen to treat it as a non story, but what is as plain as day, is that they would not have based that decision on the frankly absurd idea that it wasn't somehow important to his life. They are not in the business of documenting his life. They don't do biographies. Wikipedia does. Wikipedia's biography on this man is lying, by omission. He is being resented here as if he were still the Public Astronomer, which is absurd. "Right Great Wrongs" says wait for the mainstream media before thinking about updating Wikipedia entries with new, pertinent information. Doesn't get more mainstream than the Mail or the Sun in terms of the British print media.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 20:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with the others above that Wikipedia is not the place to
WP:Right great wrongs, and that the sourcing is not adequate to include these types of claims. Also, I'm not sure how a 3-year-old conviction is "a matter of urgency". The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for factual information, and even if some information in an article is accurate, there is no reasonable way to determine how much is accurate and what is relevant to include from the article when no other reliable sources have reported on it. There is also the problem with using deprecated-tabloid sources to determine what is
WP:DUE in an article, especially for a serious crime. It appears that publications like the BBC have simply decided not to report on the article subject anymore after his conviction, and while that will make it difficult to find reliable sources on the conviction, it also means that there will be significantly less information about the article subject generally. While I think that could justify using smaller, local papers or some lower quality sources, using two sources that have been deprecated because of purposely spreading false information would not be appropriate. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 19:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- "Not in situations related to crimes". Exactly. For very good reasons. So, to those who are trying to argue this is somehow the time and place they would have started doing that, and so Wikipedia should be taking these specific reports with a pinch of salt, especially when there is no other evidence to suggest they are false, I would love to know why.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 19:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Both papers have been demonstrated in the past of fabricating quotes, not in situations related to crimes or the like, but they have been caught doing this. As such, there is a huge grain of salt to assume that they are being truthful here. It does seem very likely this happened given how his name has been scrubbed (as mentioned at the AFD, he's been seemingly made an un-person per 1984) but it is not our place to make assumptions without quality sourcing to work from that. --
Masem (
t) 19:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's ironic perhaps, that it's an extremely serious thing to claim in print (Wikipedia is digital print for legal purposes), that a national newspaper would knowingly print a false report of this specific nature. Even if you're only 25% sure of your suspicion (it could perhaps be used to reduce the potential damages by 75%?). I am 100% confident, by contrast, that Kukula is guilty of the crimes attributed to him. My legal defence? See above. Two national newspapers. Corroboration. Direct quotes. Absence of any contrary evidence. No sensible reason to think this is the sort of thing the tabloids would just make up. Common sense alone is enough to beleive that these reports are true, and those who think otherwise, really need to start providing some concrete reasons why anyone would think they are not. Other than use of terms like "vile" and the headlines (which are not written by the journalists), there's nothing particularly sensationalist about these reports. Shocking, damaging, serious, yes. And it would surely be a very wierd meeting where the economic case was made that fabricating this sort of seriously damaging report about a person this relatively unknown, would be in the paper's best interest. Celebrity gossip, it is most assuredly not. As anyone can see.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 19:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
On righting great wrongs
I was amused to note that in that very page that is being used to suggest Wikipedia must not pu push certain information, people are told "you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media." The Mail and the Sun are of course, the first and second most read newspapers in Britain. Mr Happy Shoes ( talk) 19:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Popularity does not equate to truthfulness. Fox News is one of the most-watched networks in the US, for example. -- Masem ( t) 19:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I am only telling you what that page says, and I quoted it. If it is inaccurate, change it. Mr Happy Shoes ( talk) 19:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- 'Tis the nature of sensationalism. They make their money by making stories a juicy as possible. It's entertainment; not news. And I was gonna follow up with what Masem said, but am not a fast enough typist, so ditto.
Zaereth (
talk)
- Which is frankly an absurd argument, in this specific context. Knowingly printing false reports about convictions of this nature for mere clicks, about people who were virtually unknown but connected to beloved public institutions, is a fast route to bankruptcy. Mr Happy Shoes ( talk) 19:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- 'Tis the nature of sensationalism. They make their money by making stories a juicy as possible. It's entertainment; not news. And I was gonna follow up with what Masem said, but am not a fast enough typist, so ditto.
Zaereth (
talk)
-
Mr Happy Shoes, this noticeboard is not the place to debate the general reliability of deprecated sources. If every response to your long comments above has agreed the sourcing is not appropriate for the content being added, then it is probably time to
WP:DROPTHESTICK. Considering that your account was created a week ago and has
solely been used to make edits about Marek Kukula's convictions, you may want to work on other areas to get more familiar with Wikipedia's sourcing policies, especially as they relate to
biographies of living people. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 19:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I am not debating general reliability. I have been quite clear, this is an issue about a specific usage in specific circumstances, a point which is being largely ignored by those responding so far. It is they who are responding in general terms, seemingly because they don't seem to want to acknowledge how absurd it would be in these specific circumstances, to assume that these reports were knowingly false. Mr Happy Shoes ( talk) 19:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- The simple fact is: what you want is a breach of the core policies of Wikipedia, WP:V, WP:RS, and by extension WP:NPOV (because we have no way to determine balance and weight without RSs). This here is exactly why such policies were created in the first place, to separate us from the blogs and tabloids. In these specific circumstances, these are very extraordinary claims, and that requires very extraordinary sources.
- The way around all this is quite simple: find the info in reliable sources. EZPZ. And if no such sources exist, the the solution is equally simple: leave it out. Now, if you want to change policy, you can go over there and discuss it all you like (but I'm not hopeful for your outcome). This is the very basic foundation of Wikipedia.
Zaereth (
talk) 20:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- No, the simple fact is, you are deliberately choosing not to engage with what is being said about the specifics of this case. If you're OK with that, fine, but it leaves me thinking that you genuinely seem to think it is or would ever be a Wikipedia "core policy" to knowingly, falsely present a man as a Public Astronomer and no threat to children, even when there are not one but two mainstream media reports (c.f. "Right Great Wrongs") which make it clear this is not the case, and where there is no credible reason being offered as to why they can't be assumed to be true. In context, this is a super ironic case of Wikipedia apparently wanting to ignore reality, to right what it apparently perceives to be a great wrong, namely that people read and believe the Sun/Mail, certainly for reports like this. Since we can certainly rest assured that there isn't a single person out there who is ever giving this man another job which involves access to kids, except those who, and we can only hope this is not the case, only get their background information on prospective hires, from Wikipedia. Maybe you disagree. Maybe you would hire this man, and not think twice about it. Is that how far you would be prepare to go, to defend what you are surely mistaken about, regarding Wikipedia's supposed core principles? Can you state for the record, whether you would hire this man or not, if you were looking to fill a role his experience lends itself to, according to his Wikipedia biography. And if not, why not?
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 20:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's correct. I'm glad you picked up on that. I know nothing about this case and really don't care, so I'm what we call a neutral, outside observer. I care only about policy, and notice that you are deliberately choosing not engage in policy-based discussions. If people are only getting info from Wikipedia, then they are fools, but I've never met anyone in an HR department who doesn't run real background checks. Nevertheless, that's really moot. You're using
circular reasoning and
argument from repetition as the basis of your arguments, and as those are fallacies they will always fail to convince others. My suggestion is: take some time to reformulate your premise, and come back when you are not so emotionally involved. It's best to begin on articles you are not so passionate about, at least until you get a good handle on how this all works and why these policies exist.
Zaereth (
talk) 20:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- "I know nothing about this case and really don't care". Exactly. I am not interested in anyone who comes here with that attitude, because they frankly aren't going to appreciate the serious potential harm they are advocating, apparently in the name of Wikipedia's core principles. It is important that you show you have read and understood the specifics of this case, before you seek to comment. Otherwise your comments on what is a specific circumstance, are frankly, irrelevant, since it obvious no policy exists in a vacuum, nor can they cover every scenario. The above was only an example. I have others, if you are unconvinced. They are all predicated on basic facts of life, such as people do trust Wikipedia, especially children. And pedophiles would know that.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 20:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- But without reliable sources, how can here be any specifics? I won't waste my time reading The Sun or Daily Mail. That's what I mean. Your logic is circular, meaning you keep beginning with what you end, which leave nothing. Even the MSM is, in my opinion, at the bottom of the barrel as far as reliability goes, and I would much rather see info come from far more reliable sources, like books by reputable publishers, but the MSM is considered reliable for biographical purposes.
- "I know nothing about this case and really don't care". Exactly. I am not interested in anyone who comes here with that attitude, because they frankly aren't going to appreciate the serious potential harm they are advocating, apparently in the name of Wikipedia's core principles. It is important that you show you have read and understood the specifics of this case, before you seek to comment. Otherwise your comments on what is a specific circumstance, are frankly, irrelevant, since it obvious no policy exists in a vacuum, nor can they cover every scenario. The above was only an example. I have others, if you are unconvinced. They are all predicated on basic facts of life, such as people do trust Wikipedia, especially children. And pedophiles would know that.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 20:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's correct. I'm glad you picked up on that. I know nothing about this case and really don't care, so I'm what we call a neutral, outside observer. I care only about policy, and notice that you are deliberately choosing not engage in policy-based discussions. If people are only getting info from Wikipedia, then they are fools, but I've never met anyone in an HR department who doesn't run real background checks. Nevertheless, that's really moot. You're using
circular reasoning and
argument from repetition as the basis of your arguments, and as those are fallacies they will always fail to convince others. My suggestion is: take some time to reformulate your premise, and come back when you are not so emotionally involved. It's best to begin on articles you are not so passionate about, at least until you get a good handle on how this all works and why these policies exist.
Zaereth (
talk) 20:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- No, the simple fact is, you are deliberately choosing not to engage with what is being said about the specifics of this case. If you're OK with that, fine, but it leaves me thinking that you genuinely seem to think it is or would ever be a Wikipedia "core policy" to knowingly, falsely present a man as a Public Astronomer and no threat to children, even when there are not one but two mainstream media reports (c.f. "Right Great Wrongs") which make it clear this is not the case, and where there is no credible reason being offered as to why they can't be assumed to be true. In context, this is a super ironic case of Wikipedia apparently wanting to ignore reality, to right what it apparently perceives to be a great wrong, namely that people read and believe the Sun/Mail, certainly for reports like this. Since we can certainly rest assured that there isn't a single person out there who is ever giving this man another job which involves access to kids, except those who, and we can only hope this is not the case, only get their background information on prospective hires, from Wikipedia. Maybe you disagree. Maybe you would hire this man, and not think twice about it. Is that how far you would be prepare to go, to defend what you are surely mistaken about, regarding Wikipedia's supposed core principles? Can you state for the record, whether you would hire this man or not, if you were looking to fill a role his experience lends itself to, according to his Wikipedia biography. And if not, why not?
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 20:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- The way around all this is quite simple: find the info in reliable sources. EZPZ. And if no such sources exist, the the solution is equally simple: leave it out. Now, if you want to change policy, you can go over there and discuss it all you like (but I'm not hopeful for your outcome). This is the very basic foundation of Wikipedia.
Zaereth (
talk) 20:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'll take one more shot at explaining this, using an analogy. Let's say some tabloid reports that consumption of honey will cure COVID-19. (Why not? It supposedly cures everything else.) Should we report that as well. Maybe they have doctors to quote or centuries of folk-lore to fall back on. Does that make the specifics any more reliable? Of course not. Unless a medically-reliable source confirms it, we can't report it. This is how we keep medical quackery out of articles (where there is a very real danger that we, ourselves, may cause harm), fringe science, celebrity gossip, and at the top of that list, falsely accusing someone of a crime without extremely good evidence. (That's where BLP policy comes into play.) You simply need better proof. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. Even a child can understand that. Without it, any discussion of specifics is moot. The first step is providing reliable sources.
Zaereth (
talk) 21:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Why use an analogy when it is this exact case that shows your stance for what it is? Absurd dogma. Thwt is what I mean when I say specifics. Wikipedia is currently hosting a biography which claims the subject is still in a public engagement role, and poses no risk to children. That is all that is known, according to supposedly reliable sources. It contradicts all observeable reality however, wherein the institution no longer has an employee page for him, he has stopped being quoted in the media as an expert, and there are two reports in the two most widely read UK newspapers, quoting lawyers, prosecutors and a judge, that are both byelined, don't disagree, and which both say he was convicted of a crime serious enough to have him fired from that role and never hired to a similar one for at least seven years, by law. There is no information out there anywhere, reliable or otherwise, that offers a contradictory account. Least of all the persons and institutions that would understandably be outraged at such a fabrication. The most plausible explanation for these observable facts, is that this man has been fired or asked to resign (doesn't matter which, neither is claimed in the bio) as a result of this conviction. His desired career is likely over. His Wikipedia biography therefore, is misleading to the point of negligence. Like it or not, there are conceivable scenarios where this false Wikipedia biography could be used to either assist this man in further offending, or prevent an institution from properly protecting children. Especially if they, like you, contrary to all reason, and in all circumstances, choose not to believe a word they read in the tabloids. This is manifestly not a case of wanting to use Wikipedia to Right a Great Wrong, because as that very page says is acceptable, this would be a case of Wikipedia following, not leading, "mainstream media". What a child could understand, is why, even after being asked for specific examples of when the Mail and the Sun have EVER been caught fabricating reports of this nature, instead if addressing that with he inevitable negatory, you keep returning to your own circular logic, whereby Wikipedia is not in error, because it currently doesn't include any information from unreliable sources, and unreliable sources never make an error. Or worse, far worse, you recognise the error, but you would prefer to keep Wikipedia erroneous, than admit you have badly misjudged the media landscape of one of your choice source markets, where it would be absurd to the point of incredulous to hear that knowingly false reporting of this kind, namely court reporting of serious offences committed barely known individuals, would be considered profitable. Out of some warped prejudice regarding what you think you may have once read about honey, that was indeed perhaps misleading on a semi regular basis. And on a point of fact, those reports are of course never as inaccurate or misleading as is claimed. The unsurprising conclusion there, as ever, is that a newspaper is not an academic journal. But as any child knows, a newspaper does report on court proceedings. It is your choice to ignore that basic fact, or otherwise pretend these reports were written solely for some reason other than serving the public interest and without any due regard to the consequences of false reporting. It is your choice to potentially put children at risk, in addition to making Wikipedia just look ridiculous, rather than engage on the specifics of this case. You simply don't care, as you admitted. You think you have covered every case, even when shown a case you had apparently never considered. The drawbacks of dogma. This is why you should have been paying attention and properly read what was written, provided for your benefit, so that you could and should have given a useful reply, even if you still believed there was some logical reason not to assume these sources are reliable in context
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 22:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- To make it really easy: Daily Mail and the Sun are tabloids, not mainstream source (for the UK, that would be the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, or the BBC). --
Masem (
t) 22:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- "Right Great Wrongs" specifcially refers to "mainstream media" not "mainstream sources". The reason is obvious. By definition, if something has already been mentioned in the two most widely read newspapers in Britain, and someone then wants to add that to Wikipedia, accusing them of being on some kind of improper crusade to put Wikipedia ahead of the media, is obvious garbage. You can accuse them of not using reliable sources, sure, but that's where you would then be obligated to explain why, in context, they are not reliable. You have failed to do that. Indeed, by admitting you have never seen them producing false quotes in this context, you have all but admitted there is no real reason to assume they are false. The ongoing failure to explain why the tabloid business model would promote falsehoods in this specific type of reporting, as you continue to lazily fall back on the same assumption that the reason they are presumed false is because they are tabloids, is just the cherry on top. You have indeed made it easy. Too easy. This is tabloid level argumentation, ironically. I will repeat my request for specific reasons why these specific sources cannot be used in this specific context because there is allegedly a reasonable case to be made they could be unreliable. Any reason will do, as long as its factual. Mr Happy Shoes ( talk) 22:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- To make it really easy: Daily Mail and the Sun are tabloids, not mainstream source (for the UK, that would be the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, or the BBC). --
Masem (
t) 22:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Why use an analogy when it is this exact case that shows your stance for what it is? Absurd dogma. Thwt is what I mean when I say specifics. Wikipedia is currently hosting a biography which claims the subject is still in a public engagement role, and poses no risk to children. That is all that is known, according to supposedly reliable sources. It contradicts all observeable reality however, wherein the institution no longer has an employee page for him, he has stopped being quoted in the media as an expert, and there are two reports in the two most widely read UK newspapers, quoting lawyers, prosecutors and a judge, that are both byelined, don't disagree, and which both say he was convicted of a crime serious enough to have him fired from that role and never hired to a similar one for at least seven years, by law. There is no information out there anywhere, reliable or otherwise, that offers a contradictory account. Least of all the persons and institutions that would understandably be outraged at such a fabrication. The most plausible explanation for these observable facts, is that this man has been fired or asked to resign (doesn't matter which, neither is claimed in the bio) as a result of this conviction. His desired career is likely over. His Wikipedia biography therefore, is misleading to the point of negligence. Like it or not, there are conceivable scenarios where this false Wikipedia biography could be used to either assist this man in further offending, or prevent an institution from properly protecting children. Especially if they, like you, contrary to all reason, and in all circumstances, choose not to believe a word they read in the tabloids. This is manifestly not a case of wanting to use Wikipedia to Right a Great Wrong, because as that very page says is acceptable, this would be a case of Wikipedia following, not leading, "mainstream media". What a child could understand, is why, even after being asked for specific examples of when the Mail and the Sun have EVER been caught fabricating reports of this nature, instead if addressing that with he inevitable negatory, you keep returning to your own circular logic, whereby Wikipedia is not in error, because it currently doesn't include any information from unreliable sources, and unreliable sources never make an error. Or worse, far worse, you recognise the error, but you would prefer to keep Wikipedia erroneous, than admit you have badly misjudged the media landscape of one of your choice source markets, where it would be absurd to the point of incredulous to hear that knowingly false reporting of this kind, namely court reporting of serious offences committed barely known individuals, would be considered profitable. Out of some warped prejudice regarding what you think you may have once read about honey, that was indeed perhaps misleading on a semi regular basis. And on a point of fact, those reports are of course never as inaccurate or misleading as is claimed. The unsurprising conclusion there, as ever, is that a newspaper is not an academic journal. But as any child knows, a newspaper does report on court proceedings. It is your choice to ignore that basic fact, or otherwise pretend these reports were written solely for some reason other than serving the public interest and without any due regard to the consequences of false reporting. It is your choice to potentially put children at risk, in addition to making Wikipedia just look ridiculous, rather than engage on the specifics of this case. You simply don't care, as you admitted. You think you have covered every case, even when shown a case you had apparently never considered. The drawbacks of dogma. This is why you should have been paying attention and properly read what was written, provided for your benefit, so that you could and should have given a useful reply, even if you still believed there was some logical reason not to assume these sources are reliable in context
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 22:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'll take one more shot at explaining this, using an analogy. Let's say some tabloid reports that consumption of honey will cure COVID-19. (Why not? It supposedly cures everything else.) Should we report that as well. Maybe they have doctors to quote or centuries of folk-lore to fall back on. Does that make the specifics any more reliable? Of course not. Unless a medically-reliable source confirms it, we can't report it. This is how we keep medical quackery out of articles (where there is a very real danger that we, ourselves, may cause harm), fringe science, celebrity gossip, and at the top of that list, falsely accusing someone of a crime without extremely good evidence. (That's where BLP policy comes into play.) You simply need better proof. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. Even a child can understand that. Without it, any discussion of specifics is moot. The first step is providing reliable sources.
Zaereth (
talk) 21:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- There is no "reliable in context" when it comes to these sources. They are considered by Wikipedia policy to be unreliable. Period. And I use the honey example because 1.) I wanted something that wasn't real (although I suppose I could have used whatever it was Trump was pushing back when, but I like to avoid politics at all cost), and 2.) because I wrote nearly all the scientific parts of that article, except the medical. But I've seen how many people come there with their quackery, with the deep, inner, and urgent need to save the world out of some warped sense of morals. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Anyhow, I find when I am too passionate about a subject, it tends to cloud my senses, and it's at that time that I am never more wrong. It's only when I can step back and look at it neutrally and objectively that my reason overcomes my passion. I still suggest taking some time to figure out how this all works before ever getting involved in something you are so passionate about. No matter how many ways you find to say the same things, there are a multitude of others here giving you the same reply, and that should tell you something.
Zaereth (
talk) 22:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have yet to see a definitive policy statement to the effect the Sun and Mail are deemeed unreliable in all contexts. This is a specific issue about a specific usage. One that my reading of Verfiability and Reliable Sources seems to allow, given they talk at length about considering context and circumstances. That is perhaps why nobody here is doing that? Lest anyone imagine I am trying to argue they are misclassified by Wikipedia, I am not. For certain topics, they are less reliable than broadsheets, which themselves, are known to make mistakes. This is not one of them. People here have thrown up a lot of anti tabloid chaff, all in an apparent effort to deflect from the central point. These are two factual reports of a serious nature that are in total agreement, and they include quotes, and there are zero indications that they are incorrect reports. Zero. As much as it probably appeals to many here, to argue this is a realistic scenario for assuming the Sun and the Mail can't be trusted to do a simple thing like report on a court judgement, you might as well be saying they can't be trusted to print the date correctly. Absurd. Inane. Ridiculous. It is what it is, prejudicial garbage. Mr Happy Shoes ( talk) 09:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- There is no "reliable in context" when it comes to these sources. They are considered by Wikipedia policy to be unreliable. Period. And I use the honey example because 1.) I wanted something that wasn't real (although I suppose I could have used whatever it was Trump was pushing back when, but I like to avoid politics at all cost), and 2.) because I wrote nearly all the scientific parts of that article, except the medical. But I've seen how many people come there with their quackery, with the deep, inner, and urgent need to save the world out of some warped sense of morals. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Anyhow, I find when I am too passionate about a subject, it tends to cloud my senses, and it's at that time that I am never more wrong. It's only when I can step back and look at it neutrally and objectively that my reason overcomes my passion. I still suggest taking some time to figure out how this all works before ever getting involved in something you are so passionate about. No matter how many ways you find to say the same things, there are a multitude of others here giving you the same reply, and that should tell you something.
Zaereth (
talk) 22:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Most of that was deeply off-topic, and I hope you don't get any takers on the hypothetical. Do we need to add "Not a background check" to
WP:NOT? The fact is that you have opened discussions here and at
WP:RSN and have not built consensus for ignoring the unreliability of the Sun and Mail. Editors don't need to provide "credible reasons" not to assume that unreliable sources are unreliable. I second the recommendation that you drop the stick. You can hope other editors arrive who agree with your points and search for reliable sources.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk) 20:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Editors are required to prove they know the difference between a sensible position, and an absurd position. This is why I was able to show that Masem, contrary to these grand generalisms of claimed policy, doesn't actually have a single reason to think the Sun or Mail would have ever fabricated a report of this nature. Asking him that was a necessary part of the process. Hence presumably why he has departed stage left, rather than admit that, in the specific case here, he was wrong.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 21:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- On your first point, I disagree. No editors I've seen here are taking positions more absurd than just "These sources have proven to be unreliable, so we won't accept them." I am going to take Masem's lead and head backstage. Good luck with all your future editing.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk) 22:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- As you wish. Everyone can see the absurdity in claiming a source has been proven to be unreliable for a specific use, when nobody here is prepared to admit (bar one) that they have never actually seen that source be unreliable in that context, or have been prepared to acknowledge the very sound logical reasoning why they wouldn't. Mr Happy Shoes ( talk) 22:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- On your first point, I disagree. No editors I've seen here are taking positions more absurd than just "These sources have proven to be unreliable, so we won't accept them." I am going to take Masem's lead and head backstage. Good luck with all your future editing.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk) 22:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Editors are required to prove they know the difference between a sensible position, and an absurd position. This is why I was able to show that Masem, contrary to these grand generalisms of claimed policy, doesn't actually have a single reason to think the Sun or Mail would have ever fabricated a report of this nature. Asking him that was a necessary part of the process. Hence presumably why he has departed stage left, rather than admit that, in the specific case here, he was wrong.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 21:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'll note that my preferred version of the page would include this information, as I strongly believe that our bios should be just that, bios. In fact, it was Happy Shoes who found sources and made edits to the page that convinced me to change my !vote at the AfD from delete to keep.
- But my preference to maintain WP's standards is stronger than my preference to have a complete entry on this man. I do not support the inclusion of any material drawn from these two sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- You are being quite benign in how you describe this issue though. The goal here is not completeness in the sense you previously meant it. We still don't know, for example, what year he was born. I would support not using the Sun or Mail to prove when he was born, I would happy to just leave that out, on the very real risk they might have just made it up, or more accurately, not properly researched it. For uncontroversial information like that, nobody would be surprised to learn a reporter had just lazily copied that from an unreliable source when looking for filler, including of course, Wikipedia. People might not like to admit it, but even the broadsheets are guilty of that. Why? Because they're not in the business of writing biographies. The specific issue here is, on what basis are these specific reports being assumed to be unreliable? I don't want generalisms, it frankly isn't good enough to wave them away just because it's The Sun or The Mail. I want hard proof that there would be SERIOUS harm if Wikipedia was to incorporate this information, for all the very sound reasons given for why it can't just be blithely assumed to be wrong, after obviously removing the tabloidesque details. Because, and I am saddened nobody here seems to want to accept it, it is very easy to imagine a scenario where SERIOUS harm could result from Wikipedia presenting a false biography. Because, make no mistake, and I perhaps do now share some responsibility for this, this biography does now make a very seriously false claim, namely that this man is still the Public Astronomer. I did not find a single reliable source that says he isn't, presumably because that would involve explaining why too, so I would he interested to know how all those who seek to wed themselves irretrievably to policies and principles they claim make perfect sense to them, propose to square that circle. Or at least an actual admission that they don't plan to, and they don't give a damn what happens as a result of it.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 20:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- There is nothing false nor that will create serious harm about omitting a criminal charge about a person on their biographic page. It's missing information like his birth year, but its not "false" information. We should likely indicate he is no longer with the Royal Observatory (given that they no longer list him on his pages, knowing that he was listed before and reported that way before) but that's about the extent we can do. But to that end, all we can really say is that "he was ..." rather than "he is ...", we can't say why he no longer is. --
Masem (
t) 21:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- A lie by omission is rightly recognized as a pernicious form of false information, especially when done from a position of public trust. If it wasn't, President Trump was surely badly mistreated by the media. That is distinct from failing to mention a detail you already know is unimportant. On a point of fact, even stating this man "was" the Public Astronomer, a very important detail, would be an example of Wikipedia giving out false information under these alleged policies and principles. Why? Because you can't reliably source it! Hosted by your own petard. And more importantly, on what basis are you claiming that not mentioning this conviction won't harm anybody? Who are you to be so sure that this man, his life in apparent ruins, doesn't now want to progress his image based abuse, into real life abuse? He could easily convince a child, by showing them this page, that he is still an influential man with a cool job, someone worth conversing with online. And we already know at least, from reliable sources, that engaging with children was one of the favourite parts of his job. According to those allegedly unreliable sources, he is under a prevention Order for seven years, and that was done by someone professionally trained to asses risk. If you doubt it, there's his name, you can ask him if he has been falsely quoted. You won't, of course. And so who are you to say that being able to point to a trusted website that doesn't mention his conviction but does seemingly appear to be a sort of CV, doesn't pose a risk? I make no claim that any of these scenarios are realistic, but such is the nature of the offences, that even a small risk has to be taken seriously, and acted upon. It would be a low risk, high reward act, to set aside the utterly ridiculous prejudices against tabloids here, just for this specific case, and simply acknowledge how utterly unlikely it is that these reports are false.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 22:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Lies by omission is only a valid argument when there is sufficient evidence that the info is probative and not prejudicial to the jury. This is not a courtroom, and there is no such thing as lying by omission in the context of a tertiary source (that's us). We give only what we can get within the bounds of policy. These tertiary writing conventions are not new to Wikipedia, but really go back as far as Pliny the Elder. "And therefore as a stranger give it welcome. There are more things in Wikipedia and policy, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Zaereth (
talk) 02:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia routinely has to bat away accusations that it has failed to adequately serve its mission as an encyclopedia, by ommission. The precise area of failing to properly document notable academics is one such area. It was evidently a valid complaint, in recognition of the fact that there is necessarily a quite wide divergence between what your policy has previously allowed you to get, due to your heavy over reliance on broadhseet media, and what you can actually get if you simply apply a little common sense. How was that conflict resolved? Someone made the entirely sound argument that, while they could be prone to bias, it is unlikely a primary source like an employee profile on a man like Kukula, might contain false claims. As such, it was I who was able to save his biography from deletion, because it was I who rejected the utterly absurd notion that if The Guardian doesn't consider something worthy of note, then Wikipedia shouldn't either. You're never going to get around the central flaw of your argument here. You have got absolutely nothing to say regarding whether or not this information is accurate, other than your existing prejudice against these two newspapers. If it was prejudice based on relevant facts, an opinion that fitted these circumstances and the context, that would be one thing. But it isn't. You obviosuly desperately wish and hope that there is some convincing argument to be made that might convince people like me, who happily do not reside in the Wikipedia universe, but who do actually make their living out of knowing what is true and what is false, that these reports could conceivably be false. But you can't. If you could, you would have done it by now. I am confident that, contrary to what was claimed below, there is high public confidence that these specific reports, are true. It is up to Wikipedia to account for why they choose to believe otherwise. Can you? Or am I just going to be treated to more pointless generalisms? I have already dealt with one obviously false generalism on Wikipedia, and I now regret that it led to Wikipedia keeping the biography of this man. Because while others here might not care, I really do think that protecting children should be given a higher priority than maintaining a prejudice at any and all costs. Hopefully a child doesn't need to be harmed, for you to reconsider what lies behind yours and others efforts to hold some imaginary line here. What do people imagine are the consequences of acceeding that in this one specific case, these reports are likely true? Reading elsewhere, it appears these fears include having to report as fact that Amanda Knox is guilty, and copious images of breast appearing on Wikipedia for reasons of titillation (and I hate to break it to that person, but Wikipedia is already clearly in the business of hosting numerous images of breasts, and seems to have even less safeguards in that regard than the Sun!). Mr Happy Shoes ( talk) 09:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Lies by omission is only a valid argument when there is sufficient evidence that the info is probative and not prejudicial to the jury. This is not a courtroom, and there is no such thing as lying by omission in the context of a tertiary source (that's us). We give only what we can get within the bounds of policy. These tertiary writing conventions are not new to Wikipedia, but really go back as far as Pliny the Elder. "And therefore as a stranger give it welcome. There are more things in Wikipedia and policy, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Zaereth (
talk) 02:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- A lie by omission is rightly recognized as a pernicious form of false information, especially when done from a position of public trust. If it wasn't, President Trump was surely badly mistreated by the media. That is distinct from failing to mention a detail you already know is unimportant. On a point of fact, even stating this man "was" the Public Astronomer, a very important detail, would be an example of Wikipedia giving out false information under these alleged policies and principles. Why? Because you can't reliably source it! Hosted by your own petard. And more importantly, on what basis are you claiming that not mentioning this conviction won't harm anybody? Who are you to be so sure that this man, his life in apparent ruins, doesn't now want to progress his image based abuse, into real life abuse? He could easily convince a child, by showing them this page, that he is still an influential man with a cool job, someone worth conversing with online. And we already know at least, from reliable sources, that engaging with children was one of the favourite parts of his job. According to those allegedly unreliable sources, he is under a prevention Order for seven years, and that was done by someone professionally trained to asses risk. If you doubt it, there's his name, you can ask him if he has been falsely quoted. You won't, of course. And so who are you to say that being able to point to a trusted website that doesn't mention his conviction but does seemingly appear to be a sort of CV, doesn't pose a risk? I make no claim that any of these scenarios are realistic, but such is the nature of the offences, that even a small risk has to be taken seriously, and acted upon. It would be a low risk, high reward act, to set aside the utterly ridiculous prejudices against tabloids here, just for this specific case, and simply acknowledge how utterly unlikely it is that these reports are false.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 22:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- There is nothing false nor that will create serious harm about omitting a criminal charge about a person on their biographic page. It's missing information like his birth year, but its not "false" information. We should likely indicate he is no longer with the Royal Observatory (given that they no longer list him on his pages, knowing that he was listed before and reported that way before) but that's about the extent we can do. But to that end, all we can really say is that "he was ..." rather than "he is ...", we can't say why he no longer is. --
Masem (
t) 21:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- You are being quite benign in how you describe this issue though. The goal here is not completeness in the sense you previously meant it. We still don't know, for example, what year he was born. I would support not using the Sun or Mail to prove when he was born, I would happy to just leave that out, on the very real risk they might have just made it up, or more accurately, not properly researched it. For uncontroversial information like that, nobody would be surprised to learn a reporter had just lazily copied that from an unreliable source when looking for filler, including of course, Wikipedia. People might not like to admit it, but even the broadsheets are guilty of that. Why? Because they're not in the business of writing biographies. The specific issue here is, on what basis are these specific reports being assumed to be unreliable? I don't want generalisms, it frankly isn't good enough to wave them away just because it's The Sun or The Mail. I want hard proof that there would be SERIOUS harm if Wikipedia was to incorporate this information, for all the very sound reasons given for why it can't just be blithely assumed to be wrong, after obviously removing the tabloidesque details. Because, and I am saddened nobody here seems to want to accept it, it is very easy to imagine a scenario where SERIOUS harm could result from Wikipedia presenting a false biography. Because, make no mistake, and I perhaps do now share some responsibility for this, this biography does now make a very seriously false claim, namely that this man is still the Public Astronomer. I did not find a single reliable source that says he isn't, presumably because that would involve explaining why too, so I would he interested to know how all those who seek to wed themselves irretrievably to policies and principles they claim make perfect sense to them, propose to square that circle. Or at least an actual admission that they don't plan to, and they don't give a damn what happens as a result of it.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 20:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
-
Mr Happy Shoes,
You are being quite benign in how you describe this issue though.
Yes, I am remarkably not worked up over whether one little-trafficked article on Wikipedia on a relatively minor figure who no longer even works as a researcher (he's a writer now, according to his CV) has what might be either a scurrilous lie or (more likely) his most shameful secret laid out bare in a passive, encyclopedic tone. - Perhaps you should emulate my example, accept the answer you've gotten from literally everyone else in this thread, and go on about your life, untroubled by the state of this particular page.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 21:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I cannot emulate your example, because to me, it does matter a lot that there are seemingly quite a few people here who do seriously want to live in a world where there is even a 1% chance that these reports might actually be a "scurrilous lie". To me, and no doubt to a lot of people who are not indoctrinated to Wikipedia's ways, such a viewpoint is absurd, to the point of offensive. To me, this is nothing but the product of some serious prejudice. A level of prejudice thet almost guarantees Wikipedia should never ever be trusted to be an encyclopedia, because such naked prejudice will always utterly destroy any goal of neutrality or sense of moral duty. It troubles me a lot that I have apparently had a hand in the current state of this particular page, because to me, it does matter if there is even a 1% chance that the subject could use this obviously false biography and Wikipedia's general reputation as a trusted reference work, to continue his offending. People here are genuinely acting as if their prejudice against tabloids should take precedence over the protection of children. It's abhorrent. It is irrelevant whether or not this article is little trafficked. It would only need to be viewed by two people, an offender and a victim, to enable a crime to be committed. As a mere platform, Wikipedia can rightly claim it played no part in that outcome, it would be entirely down to these absurd prejudices of the individuals involved, the people who are quite happy not to engage on the specifics or the context, in defence of this prejudice. But I would advise anyone who cares for Wikipedia deeply enough to spend time holding the line on these prejudices, especiallly if they genuinely see this as an inconsequential matter in the grand scheme of things, to think very carefully indeed about what a tabloid could really do to Wikipedia, if the worst happens. Even more so if it emerges, as has happened a lot recently, that there are far worse revelations to come, crimes that have been committed by a person with this sort of interest and who is in a position of trust and power, and could have potentially been prevented, if, for example, certain laws were in place. The sort of laws that the tabloid press tend to like run campaigns over, and which tend to offend the liberal instincts of Wikipedia people, who would, I imagine, be quite affronted at the idea it might be worthwhile to do a deep dive on a candidate's web history, before giving them a job like Public Astronomer. After all, something must have triggered a police search. Wikipedia might wish not to be seen as a background check resource, but if it doesn't, it might like to ponder how and why it has come to be the single most comprehensive resource on this man's life and career, and yet has deliberately chosen not to include information that has been published by the two most widely read newspapers in Britain, and where there is no realistic prospect of it being untrue. Sure, popularity is not reliability, but not for nothing does Wikipedia aim for ubiquity and broad acceptance as a trustworthy resource. Other than Wikipedia therefore, and the only next step for anyone who wants to know more, is to be proactive. Not really an option for those who don't have the money or the legal power to do anything but a Google search. It is a shame therefore, that the end product of Wikipedia's naked prejudice against tabloids, in this and no doubt other similar cases, which admittedly would be few and far between, is that to get the likely truth, to assess a simple thing like the risk posed to a child, without recourse to direct and perhaps illegal methods, one has to specifically search the internet for any pertinent tabloid stories that are probably true but which Wikipedia prejudices would have everyone believe is mere fake news, celebrity tittle tattle, next weeks fish and chip wrapping. Another win for the Murdochs of this world, who are indeed gleeful at any opportunity to show Wikipedia editors lack the ability to make serious judgements with regard to who is a serious journalist and who is merely a peddler of scurrilous rumour. Wikipedia better hope and pray that there is nothing more to this story, is all I can say. People are even acting like including this information would be automatically damaging to Kukula, as if they can't even conceive if a worked where Wikipedia is the place a person should be, if they want to know what specific terms relating to this man's crimes and sentences actually mean with regard to his future employment prospects or his overall risk level. How ironic, that they should show so little faith in Wikipedia, as a nominal public information resource. People here infact should frankly be quite ashamed that they have effectively ceded much of the future direction of this man's life over to the tabloids, who have indeed been quite happy to use terms like vile. Wikipedia is under no such obligation. Wikipedia is meant to be a factual encyclopedia. It's a shame is chooses not to see any pertinent facts here at all in these reports, regarding this man's biography. And only for reasons of obvious, absolute, immovable, prejudice. I happily judge anyone who doesn't seem to be as interested in these issues as I am, both in the child safety and the purpose of an encyclopedia angles, especially if they're claiming to have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. For shame, is my verdict. Nay, that is my professional opinion. I am no Judge, but according to Wikipedia, neither is the woman who convicted this man. Ooops! Damn those prejudices.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 10:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Two things:
- First, I'd recommend reading the Wikipedia general disclaimers (bottom of every page). Wikipedia does not vouch for the veracity of the information of every page. We strive for that but we know in our open editing model that actual mistakes and false information (by vandals) can leak in and not be caught. We try hard to stop that, but we realistically can't, so we do not present ourselves as the end-all of knowledge and caution all users that, if they are doing serious work, WP is only a first point of reference and not the last. If someone for some reason is doing a background check related to this person, and they only use Wikipedia for their source, they're doing a terrible job and ignored the warnings that WP gave them.
- As a hypothetical, what if neither the DM nor the Sun reported on this? We'd still know something was amiss due to the un-personing of him from the website and all the other factors we can see, and I would not be surprised that through the grapevine we'd learn about the pedophila conviction. But we have zero usable sources to work from. What then, what would you ask us to do? We absolutely will not violate WP:V and BLP to report on speculation that we can't source properly, so I think you'd agree we'd have to leave it out in that case. So here now we have a case where there exists two sources, and while there's very little chance those sources are making this up to a degree, we know they have a history of falsefying things in the past, so those sources are very circumspect - not necessarily for this specific case, but they've tainted all uses. So just as if we had no sourcing all together, we have to treat the situation as having no usable sources all together, and simply work from being aware behind the curtain that all this happened, that we absolutely want to try to document it, but that we have to have ironclad BLP-meeting sources to do that, otherwise we fail BLP's mission. -- Masem ( t) 13:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Two things:
- I cannot emulate your example, because to me, it does matter a lot that there are seemingly quite a few people here who do seriously want to live in a world where there is even a 1% chance that these reports might actually be a "scurrilous lie". To me, and no doubt to a lot of people who are not indoctrinated to Wikipedia's ways, such a viewpoint is absurd, to the point of offensive. To me, this is nothing but the product of some serious prejudice. A level of prejudice thet almost guarantees Wikipedia should never ever be trusted to be an encyclopedia, because such naked prejudice will always utterly destroy any goal of neutrality or sense of moral duty. It troubles me a lot that I have apparently had a hand in the current state of this particular page, because to me, it does matter if there is even a 1% chance that the subject could use this obviously false biography and Wikipedia's general reputation as a trusted reference work, to continue his offending. People here are genuinely acting as if their prejudice against tabloids should take precedence over the protection of children. It's abhorrent. It is irrelevant whether or not this article is little trafficked. It would only need to be viewed by two people, an offender and a victim, to enable a crime to be committed. As a mere platform, Wikipedia can rightly claim it played no part in that outcome, it would be entirely down to these absurd prejudices of the individuals involved, the people who are quite happy not to engage on the specifics or the context, in defence of this prejudice. But I would advise anyone who cares for Wikipedia deeply enough to spend time holding the line on these prejudices, especiallly if they genuinely see this as an inconsequential matter in the grand scheme of things, to think very carefully indeed about what a tabloid could really do to Wikipedia, if the worst happens. Even more so if it emerges, as has happened a lot recently, that there are far worse revelations to come, crimes that have been committed by a person with this sort of interest and who is in a position of trust and power, and could have potentially been prevented, if, for example, certain laws were in place. The sort of laws that the tabloid press tend to like run campaigns over, and which tend to offend the liberal instincts of Wikipedia people, who would, I imagine, be quite affronted at the idea it might be worthwhile to do a deep dive on a candidate's web history, before giving them a job like Public Astronomer. After all, something must have triggered a police search. Wikipedia might wish not to be seen as a background check resource, but if it doesn't, it might like to ponder how and why it has come to be the single most comprehensive resource on this man's life and career, and yet has deliberately chosen not to include information that has been published by the two most widely read newspapers in Britain, and where there is no realistic prospect of it being untrue. Sure, popularity is not reliability, but not for nothing does Wikipedia aim for ubiquity and broad acceptance as a trustworthy resource. Other than Wikipedia therefore, and the only next step for anyone who wants to know more, is to be proactive. Not really an option for those who don't have the money or the legal power to do anything but a Google search. It is a shame therefore, that the end product of Wikipedia's naked prejudice against tabloids, in this and no doubt other similar cases, which admittedly would be few and far between, is that to get the likely truth, to assess a simple thing like the risk posed to a child, without recourse to direct and perhaps illegal methods, one has to specifically search the internet for any pertinent tabloid stories that are probably true but which Wikipedia prejudices would have everyone believe is mere fake news, celebrity tittle tattle, next weeks fish and chip wrapping. Another win for the Murdochs of this world, who are indeed gleeful at any opportunity to show Wikipedia editors lack the ability to make serious judgements with regard to who is a serious journalist and who is merely a peddler of scurrilous rumour. Wikipedia better hope and pray that there is nothing more to this story, is all I can say. People are even acting like including this information would be automatically damaging to Kukula, as if they can't even conceive if a worked where Wikipedia is the place a person should be, if they want to know what specific terms relating to this man's crimes and sentences actually mean with regard to his future employment prospects or his overall risk level. How ironic, that they should show so little faith in Wikipedia, as a nominal public information resource. People here infact should frankly be quite ashamed that they have effectively ceded much of the future direction of this man's life over to the tabloids, who have indeed been quite happy to use terms like vile. Wikipedia is under no such obligation. Wikipedia is meant to be a factual encyclopedia. It's a shame is chooses not to see any pertinent facts here at all in these reports, regarding this man's biography. And only for reasons of obvious, absolute, immovable, prejudice. I happily judge anyone who doesn't seem to be as interested in these issues as I am, both in the child safety and the purpose of an encyclopedia angles, especially if they're claiming to have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. For shame, is my verdict. Nay, that is my professional opinion. I am no Judge, but according to Wikipedia, neither is the woman who convicted this man. Ooops! Damn those prejudices.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 10:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
-
Mr Happy Shoes,
Adam Beniquez
Article, including categories, contains numerous egregious violations of WP:BLPCRIME since he only appears to have been convicted of one murder. Notability would be questionable once cleaned up. He also has an entry at the following article;
- List of nicknames of serial killers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
That article is significantly lacking in inline citations, and contains many names who don't even have a Wikipedia article. 195.89.72.16 ( talk) 08:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- The article subject is not a public figure, and so I removed the accusations that did not result in convictions per WP:BLPCRIME. Based on a brief review of the article, I tend to agree that the subject's notability seems primarily tied to the additional accusations (that it does not appear he was ever even charged with), and that he would probably not be notable simply on the basis of his one murder conviction.
- For the list of serial killers, I think all of the names that are not bluelinked need to be removed. Those types of lists are only for notable individuals, and if a person is notable, then they should have that type of information explained in an article before including them in a list article. I'll try to clean it up at some point if no one else gets to it. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 16:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I just deleted the names that were not sourced or bluelinked on the list of serial killers article. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 17:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Howard Milstein
Howard Milstein was written by and is updated by a relative and employee of the subject. Information that she thinks would reflect poorly on the subject is not allowed to appear.
I was an employee of Milstein's company for several years and worked with the writer. However, I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor and I'm not sure if this is a proper subject for this noticeboard. I apologize in advance if that's the case.
These are some of the news stories that I'd expect to be deleted by the person who monitors the page:
The acres of vacant land in Niagara Falls, undeveloped for decades [1] (2000) [2] (2013) [3] (still undeveloped in 2019)
The family disagreement that led to lawsuits in 2000 [4]
Milstein was one of five bankers picketed by Occupy Wall Street [5]
A bill introduced by Michael Grimm would have benefited only Milstein's privately held bank, Emigrant Bank [6]
Emigrant Bank found guilty of promoting subprime loans in 2016. Milstein was deposed in the suit, as was reported in The New York Times. [7]
Would you suggest I add them and see what happens?
Addison0372 ( talk) 15:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Addison0372
References
- ^ https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2000/0124/6502054a.html
- ^ http://niagaracounty.wgrz.com/news/news/113871-nyc-billionaire-absentee-landlord-140-acres-niagara-falls
- ^ https://www.wkbw.com/news/i-team/i-team-five-years-later-150-million-wonder-falls-project-is-just-a-dream
- ^ https://observer.com/2000/05/battle-of-milsteins-old-brothers-clash-as-do-grownup-boys/
- ^ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/millionaires-march-occupy-wall-street_n_1006020
- ^ https://www.politico.com/story/2012/05/bill-would-give-single-bank-a-300m-benefit-076893
- ^ https://greerjournal.com/howard-milstein-forced-to-testify-in-federal-court-over-predatory-loans/
- There looks like a decent amount of promotional material in the article that could be removed, and Addison0372, regarding the sources you cite, there is definitely useful information there that could be added. Most of the articles look reliable, although you would need to be careful with some of the speculation in them, and any of the information that was included would also need to be neutral per the WP:NPOV policy. I don't think the HuffPost source for the Occupy Wall Street protests is useful since it only mentions Milstein once, and so I don't think the information would be WP:DUE. The "The Greer Journal" website looks like a personal blog, and so that would not be reliable, but the relevant information looks like it could be cited to the New York Times article mentioned there anyway. I'm not sure how the WP:COI policy works for someone who was a former employee like you, but you could also propose revisions on the article's talk page. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 00:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Removal of section on arrest of 20-year old protester
By this edit, I removed a section on a 20-year-old individual who was accused of actions in a protest in connection with the George Floyd matter. The article was a stand-alone, then merged into the linked article. I did so under the policies stated in my edit summary; I don't believe this arrest and charge of an individual in this event qualifies for a compliant BLP. Kablammo ( talk) 17:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with the removal as it does not appear the individual is a public figure and I don't think there is enough to say she is notable for the arrest. The whole article seems a lot like WP:NOTNEWS. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 17:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Agree this was a proper removal for reasons stated. The removal begs if we even need said article but that's not a BLP question -- Masem ( t) 00:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Article was highly promotional and very poorly sourced, with many additions from IP users. I tried to trim down the most egregious content, and highlight where better sourcing (or just sourcing at all) was needed. Edits were reverted several times by an IP user (who geolocates to the subject's area, so potential COI), so requested semi-protected. Then, an editor who had been dormant for several years appears to revert the edits again. Would be helpful to have more eyes on the article. Not at all clear that the subject meets notability standards, but, if he does, still quite a bit of work to be done. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 20:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Tomer Eiges
Could someone look at Tomer Eiges? I saw this in the NPP queue. The topic is probably notable, in that this is a publicized controversial death. However, the name of the person is not (yet?) widely published. Are joods.nl and pensiontimes.co.uk reliable sources?-- Eostrix ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 12:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
sahle-work zewde
/info/en/?search=Sahle-Work_Zewde At the end of the first paragraph of sahle-work zewde's biographical page, it says, "She is old and has more than a thousand bodies"- I assume that this is a joke? Because I've never contributed before, I didn't feel confident enough to remove it myself. Thank you all most sincerely for the work you do; it is very, very much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DE:E718:500:40AC:CEA5:2D91:C9C2 ( talk) 11:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
What's the appropriateness of saying Brendan Eich is "known for" "opposition to same-sex marriage"? It seems that this was covered in media during his appointment as Mozilla CEO. The documentation of Template:Infobox person says that parameter should briefly provide the claim to notability of the person. Despite controversy, it's difficult to claim that the co-founder of Mozilla and creator of JavaScript's claim to notability is opposing same sex marriage. It's equivalent to saying Jeff Bezos is known for tax avoidance, Elon Musk for promoting Bitcoin, or Donald Trump for building a wall. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 18:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well. That is what he's most known for if one looks outside of the group of programmers and crypto-nerds. Your comparison to Musk and Bezos doesn't hold water because Eich isn't in their class of publicity or social impact, so that's a straw man.
- I'm curious as to why you came here, rather than opening a discussion on the talk page, which you were asked to do. I'm curious why other people don't! But I guess that's too much work, so we open discussions elsewhere, and try to lawyer out of it, or accuse editors of having conflicts of interest? Bah.
Jorm (
talk) 19:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Because I preferred outside eyes on the issue? Given on the talk page you've pretty much ignored everyone arguing otherwise,
edit warred the content in, and
accused of vandalism anyone who disagrees with you on the content?
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 19:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think the controversy is appropriate for the infobox unless it is central to the person's notability, especially when it only became a controversy because the individual was otherwise notable. I don't think the cited sources are not adequate for the content either, as they are news stories from when the event happened that are not discussing what the article subject is known for generally. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 21:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Because I preferred outside eyes on the issue? Given on the talk page you've pretty much ignored everyone arguing otherwise,
edit warred the content in, and
accused of vandalism anyone who disagrees with you on the content?
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 19:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
This article about a federal judge contains what seems to me a disproportionate amount of text about a single case. I've tried to maintain it via paring, but a typical outcome is this, restoration. That material has sources, but this level of detail can be covered at Sholom Rubashkin, it's not needed here. Consider: there is currently a paragraph that starts "On December 20, 2017, after serving eight years of his 27-year sentence, U.S. President Donald Trump commuted Rubashkin's sentence" and mentions Reade only once. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 05:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Pierre Kory
Pierre Kory There seems to be an ongoing defamation campaign against Pierre Kory related to his involvement in researching medication against covid-19. The Wikipedia page claims his views to be unproven and erronous solely based on a single source from the associated press which seems rather opinionated in nature. Attempts at moving the article from an authoritative style to an objective factual style are frequently revoked with claims that doing so would be less neutral and from a biased point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColourScreen ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- No comment on the specifics of article content here, but a few general points. Firstly, describing disputed content as 'defamation' and other contributors as 'biased' is inadvisable, to say the least, if one wants a disagreement to be settled amicably. Secondly, since this dispute seems to concern Kory's controversial opinions regarding the the treatment of COVID-19, this dispute is almost certainly subject to
Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19, making the need for proper conduct in any dispute even more necessary. And finally, I'd suggest that new contributors, if the wish to get involved in discussions over controversial subjects, might do well to first familiarise themselves with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In particular, after looking at the talk page for the disputed article, I'd recommend that ColourScreen read
WP:NOTFORUM.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 16:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- It is alarming that ColourScreen, in addition to their WP:RGW-style tirades, [1] is promoting quackery in Wikipedia, linking to Youtube videos boosting Ivermectin as a COVID treatment, and which have an antivaxx theme, that have nothing to do with Kory. [2] Also links to content which has been banned from Youtube, and has taken refuge on advoacy sites. [3] With the sanctions in mind this is probably worthy of some admin scrutiny. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Having looked into the biography in question, it seems that there is indeed an issue with the content. Or rather, with the way a couple of new contributors, including ColourScreen above, have been editing it. A it currently stands [4] the article is clearly misusing sources to imply things they don't in fact state. Specifically, it cites a source [5] as supposedly 'vindicating' Kory's views on the efficacy of Ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 while said source actually makes it clear that Ivermectin is not recommended for such treatment. Put simply, the disputed content, as added by the two new contributors, looks like partisan spin.
- Having said that, I'm not sure this is really a matter for WP:BLPN. Nothing I've seen in any version of the article looks much like 'defamation'. If the newcomers can be persuaded to tone down their invective, it might be possible to make some progress towards settling the matter.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 18:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Probably this results from some widely-spread twitter calls to arms [6] a few days ago. This has been a cause of problem editing on COVID-19 topics for a while now - not sure how Wikipedia can respond effectively, as each time it is causing a huge waste of editors' time. Alexbrn ( talk) 18:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Having said that, I'm not sure this is really a matter for WP:BLPN. Nothing I've seen in any version of the article looks much like 'defamation'. If the newcomers can be persuaded to tone down their invective, it might be possible to make some progress towards settling the matter.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 18:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Can we not at least agree it is only fair that a video in which Pierre Kory expresses his opinions on the topic is referenced, when the main sources of the article are heavily against him. I don't see what it changes that it was banned on youtube, at some point you should stop cherry picking what researchers are legitimate based solely on their agreeableness with government agencies. I do not believe that Pierre Kory or anyone associated with him are telling things that they know to be false. It is only fair to the public interest that these view points aren't heavily censored. I am not familiar with that tweet, but it is the case there has been a recent surge in physicians discussing treatments online, calling them fraudulent only due to a lack of formality is insane. All counter claims to the effectiveness of the drug say nothing more than that research so far is lacking. Wikipedia seems completely in tune with the narrative pushed by Merck https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/ even though they hardly discuss at all the trade offs between side effects and potential boons, I hope in a couple of years when the narrative has settled that you will honor an official apology. ColourScreen ( talk) 18:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Why would we need a video of Kory stating his views? I don't think any version of the article is claimed to be misinterpreting his views. You two have been arguing that his views have medical validity which is a different thing entirely. Insinuating that we are all in the pocket of Merck isn't a good way to illustrate that you desire neutrality. Notfrompedro ( talk) 18:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- I suspect that most people's hopes regarding the effective treatment of COVID-19 are likely to be more based on their effectiveness than on securing hypothetical 'official apologies' from Wikipedia. This isn't (or isn't supposed to be) a forum, or an inline game. It is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, and whether individual contributors are right about disputed content doesn't really matter that much. If people find that difficult to deal with, they should probably ask themselves whether they should be contributing at all. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
You are decrying his person by describing his ideas as unproven and false, I have nothing more to add. ColourScreen ( talk) 19:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Unproven isn't an insult. Everything is unproven until evidence shows one way or the other. You are implying that unproven=false but that is not what the article is saying. Notfrompedro ( talk) 19:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- The creator of the article, Magnovvig, made it these 10,630 bytes on 15 February. The article was factual and sourced with chapters: Education, Career, Covid-19 steroid controversy, MATH+ protocol, I-MASK+ protocol, Books, with reference to the FLCCC Alliance he co-founded, and to 4 articles Kory wrote. Then Alexbrn started to contribute, well, mostly revert previous contributions to make the article thinned to 5,919 bytes on 1 March 2021. Paul E. Marik, other cofounder of FLCC, was erased with the comment “what's this got to do with Kory?”. He dumped the link to the simple and detailed article, containing references to 3 articles signed by Kory, explaining those MATH+ and I-MASK+ protocols, under the pretext “trim non-WP:MEDRS”. He dumped Kory's founding co-signed article giving Clinical and Scientific Rationale for the “MATH+” Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19 under the pretext “trim original research from primary source”.
- I see no rationale for an article about Pierre Kory to be trimmed of any publication he made. The last version left by Alexbrn has a link to Kevin J. Tracey whose article cites 46 publications by Tracey! Alexbrn dumped links to 4 publications by Kory just to leave such judgements like his “advocacy of unproven treatments” or to “promote fringe theories”,or to be the one who “erroneously described ivermectin”. As a minimum must be put back in the article what Kory has written! Ceveris ( talk) 20:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- You think because a person has written stuff that (in Wikipedia terms) constitute unreliable medical sources, it's okay to present that material in Wikipedia in what is meant to be a biographical article. That's ... interesting. All my edits were good and fully in line with established policy and the special sanctions in effect: Wikipedia is not going to become a conduit for medical misinformation, and especially not a refuge for conspiracy theory and quackery videos that other platforms have blocked.
Alexbrn (
talk) 20:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- You misrepresent what I have written. Living person
Kevin J. Tracey: 46 publications cited. Living person
Pierre Kory: 0 publication cited because you erased them. Because Wikipedia has an article about a person known for the “stuff” it has written, a least that ”stuff” has to be cited.
Ceveris (
talk) 20:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Wrong. Using a BLP as a
WP:COATRACK for
WP:PROFRINGE medical misinformation is not acceptable, and editors doing it should expect to get sanctioned. If you are really pointing at
this revert of mine as problematic, then frankly you need to get a
WP:CLUE.
Alexbrn (
talk) 04:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- In your intimidating technique to WP:OWN Pierre Kory you just do a psycho manipulation “inversion accusatoire”:
- WP:COATRACK in this BLD: “ coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects.”
- The nominal subject of the article is Pierre Kory, author of 43 Pubmed referenced medical publications who happens to have a positive view about ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19, among other characteristics.
- In your obsession about ivermectin:
- no later than today you dumped in the lede the phrase “Kory gained reputation when his work made corticosteroid treatment standard of care for COVID-19 patients.” that is not about ivermectin.
- You inserted the link to making beleive that the FLCCC Aliance or the Covid-19 controversies Pierre Kory is part of are all about ivermectin.
- You just left the article with no info about his may 2020 testimony to the Congress that was not about ivermetin.
- All this tells about your own WP:COATRACK on this article. This article is Pierre Kory. It is not Ivermectin.
- This
revert of yours dumped the name
Paul E. Marik who is a close associate to
Pierre Kory especially about the MATH+ protocol that doesn't include ivermectin. You just dumped the lines because Marik was quoted saying a positive appreciation about ivermectin. I just note that doing this you dumped the association of
Pierre Kory with
Paul E. Marik. That's all.
Ceveris (
talk) 09:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- You prove the point. Content about another person puffing up ivermectin has nothing to do with the biography of Pierre Kory. This is a coatrack to get that other guy's specious comments ("what is truly remarkable — this was a gift to us — ivermectin has high activity against COVID-19") into Wikipedia. I'll ignore the rest of your contribution as it's personalized moaning, except to note a tiny proportion of my editing to Wikipedia has been about ivermectin, and it is all excellent. For you, on the other hand, ivermectin is what you have posted most about in your Wiki career. If you have any concerns about my behaviour take them to WP:AIN; this is not a noticeboard for general whining. Alexbrn ( talk) 11:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Wrong. Using a BLP as a
WP:COATRACK for
WP:PROFRINGE medical misinformation is not acceptable, and editors doing it should expect to get sanctioned. If you are really pointing at
this revert of mine as problematic, then frankly you need to get a
WP:CLUE.
Alexbrn (
talk) 04:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- You misrepresent what I have written. Living person
Kevin J. Tracey: 46 publications cited. Living person
Pierre Kory: 0 publication cited because you erased them. Because Wikipedia has an article about a person known for the “stuff” it has written, a least that ”stuff” has to be cited.
Ceveris (
talk) 20:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Ivy Latimer § Claims of transgenderism and SELFSOURCE.
Elizium23 (
talk) 15:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Vonny Sweetland
Vonny Sweetland ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This page is continually being slandered. I've had to remove slander towards the subject multiple times and have cleaned it up to include citations. Even still, it is continually being falsely flagged for non existent issues (despite citations obviously) and seems to be going through a bit of an editing war. I suggest this page be locked to dissuade from future behaviors. It has now been accurately cited and updated and needs to be protected from future attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speckle11b ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- I just removed a lot of promotional information from that article. Most of it was sourced directly to the article subject or blog/opinion articles, but a lot of it was also simply unsourced or cited to sources that did not support the content. Going through the article's history, I do not see any editors inserting "slander" or even potentially slanderous material. You should provide diffs (links to the changes) for those claims. If you are instead talking about the tags that were put onto the article, those seemed entirely appropriate given the previous state of the article. You should not be adding in (and now restoring) content sourced to opinion articles or blogs, as those are not reliable sources for that type of information, especially on a WP:BLP. Finally, given that you have made no edits to any articles outside this one, if you have a conflict of interest, then you need to disclose that and probably should not be editing the article at all, and instead using the article's talk page to discuss your concerns, as explained in the links recently provided by another editor on your user talk page. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 19:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Per [7] it seems you do have a confict of interest. Stop editing the article, please, or an admin will probably block you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
![[7]](https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:NEWBLKVONNY2.jpg){kind=link}
Rich Fellers
Hi. Do the recent additions to the biography for Rich Fellers violate WP:BLPCRIME? Looking for some guidance on this issue. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- And the same for
Jean-Luc Cairon. Possibly added by the same person.
Lugnuts
Fire Walk with Me 07:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Those are serious accusations of crimes, and I am not sure whether these individuals are public figures. There articles do not discuss any significant media appearances or similar activities, and I do not think that their participation in the Olympics would be enough to make them into public figures. I think those are probably violations of WP:BLPCRIME and should be removed until there is a conviction in the case. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 16:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help with this. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Joey Hood
There are two Americans by this name, no differentiating middle initial that I can find. The Joey Hood who is a Mississippi politician already has a page. The other is a longtime foreign service member of considerable achievement, especially in Middle East affairs. Please see this TALK page for the information and references /info/en/?search=Talk:Joey_Hood (as stated there, I don't have the skills to start a new page for the latter person, far less to do a disambiguation page). Thank you! Qassander ( talk) 07:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Viktor Fedotov et al
Viktor Fedotov ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I brought this up at ANI, where it was suggested I crosspost here as well. This article and these others all were written in quite an attack-y tone, and included a lot of detail about the subjects' business interests, political connections, etc. They've been largely cleaned up now, but ProcrastinatingReader felt, and FWIW I agree, they could be looked at in more detail. Any advice welcome! Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 06:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- The entire "UK business activities" is sourced to primary, government sources. Unless you can find adequate, secondary sources, you should probably remove it. Also for the "Political payments" section, those two quotes seem kinda clunky. Try to re-write them in your own words. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 20:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I won't be re-writing anything, as I've no knowledge of (not to mention, interest in) this subject matter. I may do what I already did with one of these articles, though, namely AfD them. One of the reasons being, at least in the Lubov Chernukhin article, after ProcrastinatingReader deleted a lot of the OR, much of it seems to have been added back, and I've no wish to get bogged down in edit wars over these. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 10:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at WT:BLP
There's a discussion about using tweets to source dob that may be of interest. —valereee ( talk) 18:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Romanie Schotte
I need help figuring out how WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE pertain to a beauty pageant winner, Romanie Schotte. Most of the bio covers an alleged race-related infraction (or crime?) investigated by an agency in the person's home country, Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism. The investigation went nowhere; no charges were levied as far as I can tell. Have no idea what to do with this, my inclination is to remove the section (which I did) but it was restored [8] by another editor. My feeling is this is a non-notable person and not a public figure per Wikipedia's standards; there exactly one citation in the article about the subject prior to the race incident, and only two after (regarding a marriage and birth of a child). ☆ Bri ( talk) 02:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- If she was Miss Belgium 2017, then she is almost certainly a public figure from the media attention and her activities. Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual explains more about this. I still don't know how WP:DUE the content is though. The sourcing does not look particularly strong, although it is hard to evaluate the sources well since they are not in English. It doesn't seem like it should have more than a sentence or two if it is included, and not a paragraph in a "controversy" section. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 02:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well, unfortunately this is not a BLPCRIME issue, because it's not a crime in Belgium anymore than it is in Britain or the US. While being a winner of any Miss-country pageant can be defined as a public figure by the mere status of the position, the same cannot be said for "public figure" for the purposes of BLP policy. But then again, since this isn't a crime, so WP:PUBLICFIGURE really doesn't come into play either.
- But that's not the end; it's just a little more complicated than a CRIME issue. What this really comes down to is first and foremost right there in the preamble of BLP. We're not a tabloid and nor are we a vehicle for reporting titillating claims. You more have to look at this in terms of WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:BLPRS, WP:BLPGOSSIP (and feedback loops), and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE.
- Most of the sources are tabloids, and most of them are just repeating the info from other tabloids. There are a few good news sources there, but this is really a matter of chasing the stories down to their original source. We have to balance the information, and such a "scandal" should probably be reported, but only in as much as it relates to the subject's primary notability, and it most certainly can't outweigh that primary notability. She would never have been singled out for any of this attention were it not for her status as Miss Belgium, so that has to be first and most predominant. I don't see how we can avoid some small mention of this, but I wouldn't give it more than a sentence (given the size of the article in proportion), and just the part that relates to the effect it had on her career.
- I'd also keep in mind WP:BLPNAME, and not mention the names of her family unless they themselves are notable enough to have an article of their own right. I would also seriously avoid walling it off in its own section under the misused heading "controversy". Number one, that's not what a controversy is, and two, it creates its own imbalance. Zaereth ( talk) 02:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- There was no crime, so not at all sure why BLPCRIME should apply. The emoji story was massive in Belgium and was covered internationally in reputable media sources (in the Netherlands, France, and the pan-African
Jeune Afrique, published in Paris). Contrary to the claim that "most of the sources are tabloids", most of those relating to this are in fact quality press and the national public broadcaster (the sources about her marriage and pregnancy are closer to tabloids). You might not think it's worth the coverage, but that's not our call: the coverage happened, in multiple reliable sources in at least 2 languages in at least 3 countries. Surely better to cover the business in a clear and balanced way than with vague hints or embarrassed silence? --
Andreas Philopater (
talk) 18:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- This was apparently an accusation of a crime, as she was investigated by a government agency for potentially having violated the country's anti-discrimination laws. I'm not sure how the rest of your comments about "vague hints" or neutrality apply to the current content in the article:
"After winning the title, Schotte was criticized for her response to a racist comment on Instagram. The Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism opened an investigation but found there was no wrongdoing on her part."
I think the details you added were excessive [9], especially given the low quality of the cited sources, which are all short tabloid-style articles with no author bylines. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 19:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- This was apparently an accusation of a crime, as she was investigated by a government agency for potentially having violated the country's anti-discrimination laws. I'm not sure how the rest of your comments about "vague hints" or neutrality apply to the current content in the article:
- That wording leaves a lot to the imagination, where simply stating the facts would be clearer (and, given the concerns about her reputation, fairer). Just for starters, a reader couldn't even begin to guess that her part in it was an emoji rather than a word or words (which itself probably partly explains why it was such a big story, it being relatively novel for journalists, government agencies or lawyers to have to interpret emojis, but none of the sources say this explicitly so we can't either). It really was a weirdly massive fuss, at the intersection of celebrity culture, digital culture, politics and the law. There were even political ramifications that the article rightly omits because they don't directly concern the subject. Giving a full picture of just how reliable sources talked about this at the time, and the angles they took, would easily more than quadruple the article's length. It certainly got a lot more coverage than her title win did, making her a sight more notable than most pageant winners, and the article should surely reflect that? -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 20:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Jagmeet Singh
Jagmeet Singh ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have been reverting an IP's edits on Jagmeet Singh because of the WP:POV WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. This is related to Sikh conflicts. I would appreciate more eyes on it. – Muboshgu ( talk) 03:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Oscar love curse
The article Oscar love curse, currently the subject of an AfD discussion, consists, beyond a short lede, entirely of a list of winners of the Academy Award for Best Actress, and the related Best Supporting Actress awards along with their partners/past partners, listed either as 'Occurrences' of a supposed 'curse' or 'Exceptions' to said curse - claimed to lead to the breakup of relationships as a consequence of winning the award. No sources are provided providing any evidence that any external source has linked any of the named individuals in any way with said 'curse'. Would I be correct in assuming that per current WP:BLP policy, it would be a reasonable action to remove the entire list (or at least, all of it relating to living individuals) right now, per the instruction "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately"? Whether there is anything salvageable in the article beyond this would be a matter for the AfD discussion, but meanwhile, I have to ask whether the article should be making unsourced assertions regarding 'curses' on living persons while the Afd discussion continues? I suspect many will surmise that the 'curse' is nonsense, but to my mind, that doesn't mean that it can't also be 'contentious'. And if it is contentious and unsourced, regardless of the outcome of any AfD, I would suggest that the list cannot be hosted on Wikipedia, since it violates WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 06:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- I removed the list. I cannot imagine there is any justification for that sort of thing being hosted at this website. jps ( talk) 12:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Dyab Abou Jahjah
The article on Dyab Abou Jahjah is manipulative and biased against him. I will give two examples:
1- Negative attitudes towards homosexuals
In his own column in the Belgian daily De Standaard, [better source needed] he stated "We (Belgians with Arab roots) are predominantly negatively disposed towards homosexuals. This isn't because we're immigrants, but rather because we're men. The idea that another man could desire us sexually, is for most heterosexual men a nightmare that can render them aggressive."
This is a manipulation of facts which is libelous. The column being reffered to is written to defend the rights of homosexuals and is critical to this attitude that he describes in this quote. Abou Jahjah was making a plea to break with such attitudes. He was testifying as to how he looked at the matter as a younger man, in contrast to how he sees it today. Taking such a quote out of contest and asserting that it reflects his homophobia is pure manipulation. The full column can be consulted here: https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20160303_02163402
2- Means to an end
Abou Jahjah considers democracy a strong means to an end. Sharia would be instated after a democratic process. Indeed, his messages are altogether mixed Jahjah suggested in a televised debate that a similar attack was likely in the Netherlands. "It's logical," he said. "You make war with us, we make war with you."
Claiming that Abou Jahjah is a Sharia supporter/deffender cannot be upheld even for the period 2000-2006 when he was President of the Arab European League. Back then Islam played an important role in the ideology of Abou Jahjah; But even then Sharia was not an aim, and he was rather secular ( see his book "Tussen Tweer Werelden, Manteau, 2003). Regardless of this, to assert that this is his position today is absurd and a lie. The man has written several books outlining his societal vision (De stad is van Ons , Pelckmans 2014), (Pleidooi Voor Radicalisering, bezige Bij 2016) Where his polilitical ideas are outlinded to the smallest details. These idea are fully secular, non-religious, and left leaning. When I tried to establish that in the wikipedia article my update was reverted.
Apart of these two problematic issues, the article is outdated and focussed on Abouu Jahjah of 10 to 20 years ago. My attempts to update the article were reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobson1977 ( talk • contribs) 09:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- @ Jacobson1977:, it looks like your update was reverted because you removed sourced content. However, much of that content does appear to be poorly sourced, especially for claims about living persons. I also see that you've since (again) removed some of the worst of it. I would suggest starting a discussion about the specifics at Talk:Dyab Abou Jahjah. Woodroar ( talk) 12:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Minouche Shafik, Baroness Shafik
This article is biased. It is backed up by a medium post by an angry student. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:A88:3400:1C83:1939:47C7:2FED ( talk) 11:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
John Heard (actor)
Although he died in 2017, I could use a second pair of eyes at John Heard. The article states that he was a 9/11 truth movement follower and uses this YouTube video as the source. Based off that video, he's also included in 9/11 conspiracy theorists & American conspiracy theorists. And, his lead image is also from that YouTube video with the caption "Heard speaking at a 9/11 Truth event at Los Angeles City Hall in 2010." I have found no reliable, secondary sources to confirm his views on 9/11 or that he's a 9/11 truther. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 07:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's not a reliable source for the claim and if no secondary sources mentioned it, it lacks weight for inclusion. Also, categories are a navigational device, not a badge of shame. In this case, they would help readers find biographies of the leading 9/11 truth activists and theorists, rather than every truther. So I would just remove it all.
TFD (
talk) 08:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- It has been removed. The American conspiracy theorists category has been spammed across numerous BLPs by Jaydoggmarco, based on no sources or weak sources. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 09:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- He was part of the Actors and Artists for 9/11 Truth group (that's where the video was from) and was part of a documentary that questioned 911. [10] I'm not surprised that RS didn't want to give legitimacy to the group with coverage but that also makes it UNDUE. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 19:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
If you're interested
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#WP_and_Youtube_stats_cited_to_Youtube Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Oksana Grishuk
Oksana Grishuk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I was never expelled from Dubova group. Dubova and her husband brutally beat me up because my skating partner Evgeny told her that my intentions to leave her and go to another coach Linitchouk who I end up going .— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:310c:3700:8d04:cead:cf36:d399 ( talk) 12:36, June 19, 2021 (UTC)
- I believe that this concerns
this set of changes. The problem with this type of change is that you are making them anonymously and we have no way of verifying from the information you've given that you are Ms. Grishuk. If you are, I'm sorry for any distress the description of those events caused, as well as the trauma of the events themselves. It is not our intention to cause that distress. We usually depend on verifiable reliable sources to support claims made in
biographies of living people, which personal recollections obviously do not have. If there have been any interviews you've given on those events then we could use that to support your requested changes. If you can recall such a thing, you can post whatever information you have here or at the article talk page and an editor may be able to track it down for you. You can also try emailing info-en-q@wikimedia.org to contact the
Volunteer Response Team and they may be able to help you. I hope that helps.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib) 20:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have reverted those changes since they are possible BLP violations against the other people mentioned.
Morbidthoughts (
talk) 00:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- They were added back by a similar IP so I've removed them again. Given the fact that the allegations she was expelled is causing distress to the BLP subject, I have changed it to simply "she left the group". Hemiauchenia ( talk) 03:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have reverted those changes since they are possible BLP violations against the other people mentioned.
Morbidthoughts (
talk) 00:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
biography of Joseph Couture
Joseph Couture ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am the subject of this page. I request this entry be deleted in its entirety. The editing has consistently been arbitrary and capricious, lacks anything other than the thinest veneer of editorial standards that are, in reality, self-serving and function primarily to censor whatever content this or that individual happens to personally dislike. This entry is in no way an accurate representation of either my career or my personal life.
Like many people, I lack any respect for the process here. The so-called higher level "editors" are without any real or reasonable qualifications, aside from perhaps an abundance of time without purpose. I do not wish to continue to be subject to their malicious and punitive whims. I would rather see this entry removed than distorted by their twisted and petty personal agenda any longer. Like pretty much every troll on the Internet, had they any accomplishments of their own worthy of note, they would not busy themselves trying to erase the history of those who have.
Let me be very clear about this: I have no respect for these tiny people and I have no need to seek approval or validation from them - or anyone else- for my accomplishments. Since honesty and integrity play no part in determining what appears on any Wiki entry, I find being listed here to be a personal embarrassment where I am guilty by association to persons so clearly of both questionable character and skill.
If history is any indication, and it is, you don't actually need proof I am who I say I am. You do what you want anyway. But in the unlikely event someone wants to make of show of verifying that I am indeed the subject of this page, you may contact me via my personal website www.whitephantom.ca, which clearly belongs to me- and I will provide whatever flimsy amount of proof you claim to need to make this page disappear.
Yours truly,
Joseph Couture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:445:EE71:F0DA:2446:954A:7AFF ( talk) 18:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm. You lack any respect for the people whose help you are asking for and yet expect a distributed group of volunteers to provide that help at your beck and call. I speak for no-one but myself but I certainly don't feel motivated to address such a vague passive-aggressive rant with no particulars. On the off chance you actually want to accomplish your stated goal and not just whine like a "tiny person", then try
this link
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib) 20:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- I mean, the guy has a point. Jesus Christ, the whole "personal life" section (I just removed it) was the most egregious gossip, 20 miles out of line for a BLP. It is sourced -- to a book that the subject apparently regretted and withdrew from publication -- so I expect I'll have to fight with the heathens about that, and probably lose. "The sources check out, and since I'm an amoral little robot and/or bully, why should I care if we're invading the persons privacy and gossiping about their inner life and sexual preferences?"
- It depresses me that almost no editors understand (or worse, don't care) -- even on this board or maybe particularly on this board -- how big and powerful a steamroller we are. We can crush people like bugs and mess up people's lives and have done. We are a huge organization and one of the biggest websites in the world, and people like the subject are helpless private individuals. Their Wikipedia article is typically the first google result for people who aren't highly notable and thus we create their public face for the world. And forever. Talk about punching down.
- We are better than this, people. Well actually we're not. But we should be.
- The person is marginally Wikinotable. We don't need the article particularly since it's apparently being used to annoy and harass the subject by publishing info about him that he doesn't want published. I'd nominate the article for deletion, but I doubt that'd go anywhere. But hopefully the subject will follow the link provided and get it taken down.
Herostratus (
talk) 03:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
First in the event the subject/OP does follow up, I think we should emphasise WP:BLPREQDEL. While we can remove any information which lacks sufficient sourcing and try to deal with other problems, in most cases the fact you want the article on you deleted doesn't matter. In a small number of cases it does. I think this may be either one of those cases where it does, or where it doesn't matter in the 'deletion' camp, but I'm mostly going by a very quick look at the article and search for your name. A notable point here is that some editors feel that if you're sought out publicity, and it sounds like maybe you have, this makes you a public figure and therefore BLPREQDEL doesn't come into play. I don't agree with this view, but it may be a factor.
About the article itself, this is the sort of problematic article we have way too many of IMO where most or all of the content of the article is based directly on the subject's own writings. While I know some editors prefer that, I find it troubling especially for BLPs. It's way to easy to cherry-pick what someone wrote for any number of reasons. These may not even make the subject look bad, but baring perhaps some basic biographical information, there's a big question of why we include whatever we include over something else. We really should be using secondary sources to provide some guidance of things the subject wrote that are significant. If there are no secondary sources, then probably we shouldn't be writing much about what the subject wrote.
I do think Eggishorn has a good point that as we're all volunteers, most of us who have never touched the article, if you approach ask for help poorly you're much less likely to help. Regulars at BLPN deal with a lot of complaints. Many subjects are understandably distressed or angry and we're used to dealing with it. However even in most cases, even despite the distress and anger, subjects don't feel the need to belittle those who may want to help. Perhaps they will attack Wikipedia and it's processes, but they often do so without the need to attack the people involved unnecessarily. They may attack those who they've actually dealt with before, sometimes unfairly, but that's more understandable, even if it too often doesn't help. It's not like the subject here is powerless. They seem to semi regularly write columns for newspapers so I'm sure they could get one published about the "little people" here if they wanted to. This isn't something the vast majority of editors here can do. Or for that matter, many subjects who complain.
I do find it interesting that this article originated as something akin to a puff piece [11] written by an SPA who's sole undeleted contributions seem to have been blue linking their user page [12] followed about 2 weeks later with the creation of this article Special:Contributions/Kevintreid. Said editor also uploaded an "own work" portrait File:Joseph Couture 2013.jpg which includes alleged camera metadata.
I partly agree that way too many editors don't seem to appreciate how significant a source for information Wikipedia likely is especially for relatively unknown subjects. Way too often I see editors suggesting that because the information is out there on the internet then it being on Wikipedia is of little consequence to the spread and knowledge of this information. Even when the info is in relatively high profile sources this is probably often not true. I mean obviously it's true in some cases we make little or no difference, but I think there is good reason to imagine we actually often do make a big difference.
I find it particular distressing when editors express this to subjects e.g. suggesting to them when they're distressed over the content that it's silly to worry about we have when the info is out there elsewhere when the subject's concerns are probably justified.
Note that while related I consider this a separate issue from the issue of whether we should publish such content. It's fine to acknowledge the impact we have and the concerns of a subject while saying since the information is in a number of good sources, we should include it. It's also probably fine to tell a subject something like "I don't think we can exclude this info just because you say it is untrue. Unless we have sources saying it isn't or the sources publish a correction the info is likely to stay. I understand you may think it silly to try and get a source published several years ago which few are going to come across to correct the information, but for various reasons it's probably your best bet."
But one thing I will say is I disagree the problem is worse at BLPN. While it does happen way too often on BLPN for my liking, the problem tends to be much worse with editors less familiar with BLP. Also the impact thing goes both ways hence why I think way too many subjects realise Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing too late. While we should never punish such subjects, I can perhaps understand editors being less willing to dedicate their volunteer time to clean up a mess that partly arose from the subject's ill-judged actions.
Nil Einne ( talk) 05:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe not. I don't come here often. Last time I came I didn't get much support. I'm a believer in "if it's not kind or necessary, why say it". It's a good rule to live by, and good rules to live by don't stop being good rules when clock into work (or hobby).
- The person is marginally Wikinotable. We don't need the article particularly since it's apparently being used to annoy and harass the subject by publishing info about him that he doesn't want published. I'd nominate the article for deletion, but I doubt that'd go anywhere. But hopefully the subject will follow the link provided and get it taken down.
Herostratus (
talk) 03:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- If a person is a baseball star and also likes to fuck cats, we don't really need to go into to the cat thing do we. Even if we do have plenty of good sources. He's notable and has an article because of the baseball stuff, how much do we really need to go off into his personal life. It's OK if it's anodyne ("Smith likes to do bonsai"), not so fine if it isn't ("Smith has been banned for life from Sandy's Bar"). There's a difference. Most editors don't seem to get that there's a difference, or care.
- Right, in my mind I always translate "but the information is already on the internet" as "but the other kids were already setting fire to that hobo anyway". -- Herostratus ( talk) 08:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- Now at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Couture. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 03:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Joel Fuhrman [diet and health]
The information below is inaccurate information as many more sources do not describe the nutritarian diet as a "parlor trick" or fad diet. For some reason only one-sided, poor information is being used on Joel Fuhrman's wikipedia page.
[diet and health] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.181.160 ( talk) 21:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- The categorization of a brand of diet, or the veracity of an "equation" are not biographical questions. The source used for categorizing the "equation", Science-Based Medicine, is a good one for fringe science - and indeed Wikipedia policy is that fringe/pseudoscientific ideas need to be identified as such. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
This page has edits that are expressing personal views, rather than a neutral view. The addition of a section about aldi level comments contains potentially libelous comments. [13]
It also cites a tweet from an individual to back up an ascertion that the remark was regarded as problematic - this is Self-published or a questionable source.
The edits relate to part of an ongoing dispute between a department and a University. They are part of a coordinated campaign that goes against the principles of content for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeConjuror ( talk • contribs) 09:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- @ DeeConjuror: The part cited to a tweet has rightfully been removed by another editor. As for the rest, it seems to be supported by the Sheffield Star ref. There may be questions of WP:DUE weight and tone, but calling it libellous seems a step too far. Nil Einne ( talk) 12:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Martha G. Welch
There is Request Edit for a biography regarding highly inaccurate, intentionally inflammatory and much of it based on invented sourcing or very unreliable sources. Talk:Martha G. Welch#Proposal to Revise Contentious Statements in Career section. I have a COI as an employee of ClarBright, LLC which represents Martha G. Welch. KnollLane55901 ( talk) 18:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- After reading the prose that was in the article and checking the sources I agree with the COI editor. The whole paragraph was OR/Synth, most sources not mentioning the Welch or her book, and also at least one source was a self published blog. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 13:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Jubin Nautiyal
Frequent attempts by a unregistered user(s) to add unreliable / likely vandalism to the Early life and career section of the article. See Prev.
Textualism ( talk) 08:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Benjamin Lemaire
A little bit ago an IP editor added a lot of information to the Benjamin Lemaire article. It was tagged as "possible BLP issue or vandalism" and I have to log off for the time being but at a glance this looks like a lot of information that much of which is referenced to French periodicals. I cannot read french so I thought I should drop a note here so other eyes could look this information over. Notfrompedro ( talk) 20:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- The sexual assault indictment and conviction look like they are covered by some reliable sources, but the content as written was not appropriate. I removed it for now since I also do not understand French well enough to add an appropriate summary. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 20:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Notfrompedro ( talk) 12:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Nicholas Wade
Nicholas Wade ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Editors have been consistently reverting to include a link to COVID-19 misinformation#Wuhan lab origin in the sentence addressing Wade's May 2021 article about the origins of COVID-19 [14]. Editors' assertions that Wade's article promotes misinformation are WP:OR, as they have failed to provide any secondary sources that support this characterization [15]. This is clearly a contentious claim, and therefore should not be made without support from reliable secondary sources. The relevant discussion on the article's talk page can be found here: [16]. I propose changing the link to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Laboratory incident, which avoids the implication of characterizing Wade's argument as misinformation, or simply removing the link altogether. Stonkaments ( talk) 14:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, where are the "assertions that Wade's article promotes misinformation"? A "further information" link is hardly that. From this
[17] piece it certainly seems that appropriate RS considers him to have published misinformation about SARS-CoV-2 in any case, so surely this is apt?
Alexbrn (
talk) 14:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Alex, that link (and two others) were provided by
RandomCanadian in a comment Stonkaments directly replied to. The claim that no secondary sources were provided is categorically false, and I honestly don't see how it could be defended as a mistake or disagreement.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 14:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, okay - I've not been following that article. Presumably some admins here will have antennae starting to twitch ...
Alexbrn (
talk) 14:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Assertions include
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]. That source disagrees with many of Wade's claims but I don't see how it supports the claim that he has published misinformation?
Stonkaments (
talk) 14:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Then maybe the issue is
WP:CIR?
Alexbrn (
talk) 14:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- misinformation (noun): "false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive." The claim that Wade deliberately intended to deceive shouldn't be thrown around lightly. Can you point to where in the source this accusation is supported? Stonkaments ( talk) 15:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Alex, The reply above mine would seem to confirm your diagnosis, as it presumes that any of our policies actually require us to prove an unprovable claim (the mindset of an author).
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 15:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's not about "proving" anything; it's about reliable sourcing. If none of the sources call Wade's article misinformation, then we shouldn't either.
Stonkaments (
talk) 15:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Misinformation is not disinformation, try a decent dictionary. [22] [23] Alexbrn ( talk) 15:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, that really isn't the distinction you think it is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's not about "proving" anything; it's about reliable sourcing. If none of the sources call Wade's article misinformation, then we shouldn't either.
Stonkaments (
talk) 15:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Then maybe the issue is
WP:CIR?
Alexbrn (
talk) 14:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Assertions include
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]. That source disagrees with many of Wade's claims but I don't see how it supports the claim that he has published misinformation?
Stonkaments (
talk) 14:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, okay - I've not been following that article. Presumably some admins here will have antennae starting to twitch ...
Alexbrn (
talk) 14:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Alex, that link (and two others) were provided by
RandomCanadian in a comment Stonkaments directly replied to. The claim that no secondary sources were provided is categorically false, and I honestly don't see how it could be defended as a mistake or disagreement.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 14:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I was first going to ask if there were any secondary sources that mentioned Wade's article (especially one published through Medium) - as simple inclusion of the article without a secondary or third-party source would equate to unduly self-serving purposes. But there's clearly at least one source
[24] (I don't know how reliable that is), which claims that "Soon after it was published, Wade’s article was seized upon by both political commentators and conspiracy theorists; it also drew comments from some scientists that the virus’s origins warrant further investigation. At the same time, the people whose research Wade criticised in the article, including Anthony Fauci, have hit back at the article and said Wade has got many of his facts wrong." If this statement from this source is true, our article is woefully missing these details, which would likely back up the assertions related to Wade's article pushing the misinformation theory. Given that "Nicholas Wade covid" gives 55,000 gnews hits, the first few pages with several high quality RSes that mention Wade's article that fueled this, I will say that there absolutely needs to be more expanded upon in Wade's article to explain the fallout from the article and how it was seen as to properly justify the misinformation assertions, which appear to be valid based on those gnews hits I'm seeing. (Also, this means that that thewire.in story, a sketchy one, can be replaced with a high-quality source) --
Masem (
t) 14:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- There's also
a Politifact piece that discusses Wade's article (debunking many of his claims) and
an article published in
Infection, Genetics and Evolution which addresses Wade's arguments directly.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 14:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sure, given what I saw on gnews, there's a good handful of RSes that point-for-point break down Wade's article. Key is: to make this BLP compliant - not necessarily the way Stonkaments probably wanted but in line with sourcing - we need to spell out that effectively Wade's article created a wave in the news that some latched on to and required others to debunk as misinformation, or something like that. The sourcing fully appears to support that strongly. --
Masem (
t) 14:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I fully agree with this.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 15:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think the core problem here, at least as far as im concerned, is that editors are way to eager to use words like "misinformation". Sources contest some of Wade's claims, and it good and proper to note that. To go further and declare that Wade's article is 'debunked' or contains 'misinformation' is too far barring really good sourcing saying that specifically.
Bonewah (
talk) 15:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- If he's made wrong claims (which he has), that's misinformation. There are other words that could be used but this is an apt one for these circumstances. (What amuses me about this is how editors at
COVID-19 misinformation by China have been arguing for maximal inclusion of everything even slightly erroneous out of China because the concept is inclusive of everything wrong without imputing intent!)
Alexbrn (
talk) 15:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- WP editors cannot called out Wade's article as "misinformation" or as a "conspiracy theory" or other related term directly, that is OR on a BLP which is a violation of policy, no matter how well the conclusion follows from reading the information. That does require other sourcing to be able to state. I think that does exist from scanning the sources I mention above, but that should be confirmed. --
Masem (
t) 16:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I dont think 'misinformation' in this context is consistent with
WP:NPOV's call to 'Prefer nonjudgmental language.' If there are other words that would do, why not use them? And if you object to the use of 'misinformation' as a description of everything slightly erroneous irrespective of intent at
COVID-19 misinformation by China, then you should object to the same thing here.
Bonewah (
talk) 16:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- "Misinformation" is non-judgemental. "Lies", "propaganda" etc would not be. Any fringe scientific proposition made does not get the protection of
WP:BLP, but - on the contrary - is required to be called out by core NPOV policy. That Wade has published misinformation is a plain fact, per RS, and if his views are floated on Wikipedia they must be qualified by this mainstream scientific context.
Alexbrn (
talk) 16:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Then perhaps i misunderstood your parenthetical statement. I read that to mean that you object to expansively using the term misinformation in regards to the Chinese government. I object to the expansive use of the term misinformation in regards to Nicholas Wade. Whats the difference?
Bonewah (
talk) 16:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't object to the China article. "Misinformation" just means wrong stuff. It just amuses me how on different articles editors seems to be arguing exactly opposite points apparently to advance a common political narrative.
Alexbrn (
talk) 16:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well, i dont edit that article so i cant really say. I only edit this article because it is a BLP, and, in my opinion, 'misinformation' is too loaded a term to use in a BLP barring really good sourcing saying exactly that. Bonewah ( talk) 16:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Without a source, the line of logic that is "A claims X is true", "Medical RSes state X is very likely not true", and concluding "A is presenting misinformation" is synthesis and inappropriate against A under BLP terms. Again, I am pretty sure this should not be hard to back with the sources that discuss Wade's article in question, but it needs to be sourced. --
Masem (
t) 16:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- The article doesn't ever make the claim that Wade is disseminating misinformation, though I'll note that this is a demonstrable fact, as Wade's claims have been debunked by multiple sources. The article links Wade's claim to a page that has "misinformation" in the title, because that is the most appropriate page for the claims Wade is making wrt the conspiracy to silence anyone who advocates for the lab leak theory, a claim that has nothing at all to do with the actual investigations into the origin.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 17:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- And as I say, I am pretty sure that the articles that step-by-step articles that debunk Wade's article are sufficient to satisfy the NOR issue. The hypothetical, if no sources existed that called Wade's claims in his Medium article as misinformation or a related term, then it would be OR for us to link to the misinformation COVID page on our reading of his article - eg it may be a "demonstrable fact" but still synthesis and original research for a BLP in absence of a source. Just that that's the hypothetical situation that is not the case here; there is clearly sourcing to support it, but as I said before, there has to be expansion around what his Medium stirred up and had resulted in the point-by-point debunking to make it all BLP tidy. --
Masem (
t) 17:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note that I'm collecting sources now on this. In some cases, Wade's article is directly referred to as "misinformation".
- However, I don't agree with your interpretation of OR in this case. "Misinformation" literally means " incorrect or misleading information". It is verifiable that Wade published this info. It is verifiable that the info is misinformation. Can you construct a logical statement which does not deny those two well-sourced facts, yet somehow denies "Wade published misinformation"? I'm genuinely asking, here. I cannot formulate such a statement, but if you can, that would invalidate this argument of mine.
- See WP:SYNTHNOT, specifically "Synth is not summary".
- For the record, I still agree with your proposed route forward.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 17:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Staying on that this is all hypothetical and a non-issue given sources exist: the issue in the absence of sources is that by a WP editor making the jump from an article like Wade's to claiming that it is misinformation is that 1) "misinformation" is a contentious term and thus subjective and 2) we as editors can't ascribe motive/intent to Wade's article whether the purpose was misinformation or not under BLP, even if it is seemingly obvious from the writing style. To simplify the idea, if Wade wrote "The sky is obviously green", that could be purposely wrong with intent to deceive, or he could have written that mistakenly. We rely on RSes to make the assessment for us to avoid the possible OR-on-BLP issue. This case may seem black and white, but it becomes more obvious when we move away from black-and-white issues to more complex issues, such as climate change (where you have the deniers and you have skeptics), abortion, gun rights, etc. where there's a spectrum of positions, and it definitely should not be up to WP editors to try to classify a writer's position or how their work should be taken without the use of sources. --
Masem (
t) 18:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding your point 1, I strongly disagree that being contentious makes something subjective. Vaccines are contentious, but they are objectively effective and safe to any reasonable standard. The fact that the earth is an oblate spheroid is objectively true, yet flat earthers find it contentious.
- Regarding point 2) we're talking across each other. As Alexbrn pointed out above: misinformation and disinformation are not the same thing.
- I wholeheartedly agree that we cannot refer to what Wade wrote as disinformation, at least not without conclusive evidence that he knew he was wrong, and said it anyways for some gain.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 18:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Because "misinformation" is a contentious term, we should avoid it in a BLP. This applies to links as well as text. Merely finding sources which refute some of Wade's points doesnt really change this for the reason stated by Masem: "we as editors can't ascribe motive/intent to Wade's article whether the purpose was misinformation or not under BLP, even if it is seemingly obvious from the writing style."
Bonewah (
talk) 18:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
-
dictionary.cambridge.org defines misinformation as 'information intended to deceive'. The problem here is we are linking to an article which has misinformation in the title, which it probably shoudnt.
Bonewah (
talk) 18:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Here we go, with you misrepresenting your own links again... That's the second definition. The first definition (the only one we should be operating on) has an example which looks particularly appropriate, here.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 19:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, right, the second definition should be totally ignored and the first one is 'the only one we should be operating on'. Yea i forgot that rule. This is what i mean when i say that editors are too eager to use loaded terms. Doesnt matter what the dictionary says, doesnt matter what other editors say doesnt matter that if i type the phrase misinformation definition into
google i get 'false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive."
Bonewah (
talk) 19:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Give your propensity for misrepresenting what the pages you link to say, and your propensity for hurling bad faith accusations around this whole discussion, are you really surprised that no-one's bothered to point out to you yet that the word "especially" is not part of that sentence for it aesthetic value? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, right, the second definition should be totally ignored and the first one is 'the only one we should be operating on'. Yea i forgot that rule. This is what i mean when i say that editors are too eager to use loaded terms. Doesnt matter what the dictionary says, doesnt matter what other editors say doesnt matter that if i type the phrase misinformation definition into
google i get 'false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive."
Bonewah (
talk) 19:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Here we go, with you misrepresenting your own links again... That's the second definition. The first definition (the only one we should be operating on) has an example which looks particularly appropriate, here.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 19:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
-
dictionary.cambridge.org defines misinformation as 'information intended to deceive'. The problem here is we are linking to an article which has misinformation in the title, which it probably shoudnt.
Bonewah (
talk) 18:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Because "misinformation" is a contentious term, we should avoid it in a BLP. This applies to links as well as text. Merely finding sources which refute some of Wade's points doesnt really change this for the reason stated by Masem: "we as editors can't ascribe motive/intent to Wade's article whether the purpose was misinformation or not under BLP, even if it is seemingly obvious from the writing style."
Bonewah (
talk) 18:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Staying on that this is all hypothetical and a non-issue given sources exist: the issue in the absence of sources is that by a WP editor making the jump from an article like Wade's to claiming that it is misinformation is that 1) "misinformation" is a contentious term and thus subjective and 2) we as editors can't ascribe motive/intent to Wade's article whether the purpose was misinformation or not under BLP, even if it is seemingly obvious from the writing style. To simplify the idea, if Wade wrote "The sky is obviously green", that could be purposely wrong with intent to deceive, or he could have written that mistakenly. We rely on RSes to make the assessment for us to avoid the possible OR-on-BLP issue. This case may seem black and white, but it becomes more obvious when we move away from black-and-white issues to more complex issues, such as climate change (where you have the deniers and you have skeptics), abortion, gun rights, etc. where there's a spectrum of positions, and it definitely should not be up to WP editors to try to classify a writer's position or how their work should be taken without the use of sources. --
Masem (
t) 18:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- And as I say, I am pretty sure that the articles that step-by-step articles that debunk Wade's article are sufficient to satisfy the NOR issue. The hypothetical, if no sources existed that called Wade's claims in his Medium article as misinformation or a related term, then it would be OR for us to link to the misinformation COVID page on our reading of his article - eg it may be a "demonstrable fact" but still synthesis and original research for a BLP in absence of a source. Just that that's the hypothetical situation that is not the case here; there is clearly sourcing to support it, but as I said before, there has to be expansion around what his Medium stirred up and had resulted in the point-by-point debunking to make it all BLP tidy. --
Masem (
t) 17:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- The article doesn't ever make the claim that Wade is disseminating misinformation, though I'll note that this is a demonstrable fact, as Wade's claims have been debunked by multiple sources. The article links Wade's claim to a page that has "misinformation" in the title, because that is the most appropriate page for the claims Wade is making wrt the conspiracy to silence anyone who advocates for the lab leak theory, a claim that has nothing at all to do with the actual investigations into the origin.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 17:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't object to the China article. "Misinformation" just means wrong stuff. It just amuses me how on different articles editors seems to be arguing exactly opposite points apparently to advance a common political narrative.
Alexbrn (
talk) 16:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Then perhaps i misunderstood your parenthetical statement. I read that to mean that you object to expansively using the term misinformation in regards to the Chinese government. I object to the expansive use of the term misinformation in regards to Nicholas Wade. Whats the difference?
Bonewah (
talk) 16:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- "Misinformation" is non-judgemental. "Lies", "propaganda" etc would not be. Any fringe scientific proposition made does not get the protection of
WP:BLP, but - on the contrary - is required to be called out by core NPOV policy. That Wade has published misinformation is a plain fact, per RS, and if his views are floated on Wikipedia they must be qualified by this mainstream scientific context.
Alexbrn (
talk) 16:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I dont think 'misinformation' in this context is consistent with
WP:NPOV's call to 'Prefer nonjudgmental language.' If there are other words that would do, why not use them? And if you object to the use of 'misinformation' as a description of everything slightly erroneous irrespective of intent at
COVID-19 misinformation by China, then you should object to the same thing here.
Bonewah (
talk) 16:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- WP editors cannot called out Wade's article as "misinformation" or as a "conspiracy theory" or other related term directly, that is OR on a BLP which is a violation of policy, no matter how well the conclusion follows from reading the information. That does require other sourcing to be able to state. I think that does exist from scanning the sources I mention above, but that should be confirmed. --
Masem (
t) 16:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- If he's made wrong claims (which he has), that's misinformation. There are other words that could be used but this is an apt one for these circumstances. (What amuses me about this is how editors at
COVID-19 misinformation by China have been arguing for maximal inclusion of everything even slightly erroneous out of China because the concept is inclusive of everything wrong without imputing intent!)
Alexbrn (
talk) 15:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think the core problem here, at least as far as im concerned, is that editors are way to eager to use words like "misinformation". Sources contest some of Wade's claims, and it good and proper to note that. To go further and declare that Wade's article is 'debunked' or contains 'misinformation' is too far barring really good sourcing saying that specifically.
Bonewah (
talk) 15:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- It would be one thing if the COVID misinformation was framed around the first, neutral definition of "misinformation" (which incorporates both inadvertent mistakes and purposeful lies), but the misinformation article, as written, is framed around the second definition which is the deceptive practice aspect. ("The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in misinformation and conspiracy theories about the scale of the pandemic and the origin, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of the disease." as the leading sentence sets that tone immediately. The misinformation article does cover both unintentional and intentional misinformation (eg the section on misreporting is on unintentional issues) but the overall tone of the article is ascribed to purposely misinformation reporting, which is a contentious aspect. This is why, in absence of sources that place Wade's piece in that same type of work, it is a problem to link the work to that article. Now, that article itself can be fixed (as to be clear at the lede it is covering the neutral definition of misinformation and includes both unintentional and intentional cases), and in which case, now it becomes a case that linking Wade's article to that would be less an issue, though I would still argue that there's an OR factor of Wikipedia editors judging any work without sourcing that doesn't involve a 100% universally-agreed on scientific basis (eg the earth being spherical).
- But again, we have a clear solution outlined that is available via quality RSes - explain what happened after Wade's article was published, and include the sources that refute Wade's article point-for-point as to clearly make the connection to the COVID-19 misinformation article unquestionable. Everything else is hypotheticals for another day. --
Masem (
t) 18:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Masem, I do not at all agree that a lack of clarity on one page creates a BLP violation on another by dint of there being a wikilink between them. I don't think the wider community would, either. As for the word or the article title implying some negativity: that's not really our problem, is it? Wilikinks are to be to the article that covers the topic, and in this case, the misinformation articles covers the topic of Wade's claims. If that reflects poorly upon Wade, that's his fault for writing what he did, not our fault for accurately describing it.
- We both seem to agree that Wade's article is misinformation (IMO, it is most likely disinformation, as I doubt Wade really believes there is a global conspiracy about this), and I agree that we should expand the sourcing and content to reflect his debunked claims and show this. Bonewah and Stonkaments oppose this (Stonk is currently blocked for edit warring over it), and Peter Gulutzan has been cheering them on, though without really adding anything to the discussion. Otherwise, it would be done already.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 14:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- It is probably hard to talk about Wade's case given that we know there are now sources that exist that can be used to appropriately expand and spell out why linking his article to the COVID misinformation one is completely appropriate and free of any BLP/NPOV issues. That expansion just has to be added to Wade's article. I'm just trying to talk in a broader term (and thus why I'm suggesting this may be beyond this board), keeping in mind that BLP's default position is to do no harm and to avoid any type of characterization in Wikivoice. In the absences of any sources about Wade's article (again the hypothetical), we'd first even question if it was worth adding to Wade's page (unduly self-serving given as a self-published Medium source). If it was picked up by RSes but without any comment related to its claims/misinformation, then the question would be: would it be valid for WP editors to link that article to the COVID misinformation page? You are correct that we can read it and yes it is talking about many of the points on the misinformation page, so it seems like the right link. But, because of how the COVID misinformation article is framed at the start around deceitful misinformation rather than neutral, we would give the impression on Wade's page by simply linkage that Wade was being deceitful in Wikivoice without a source. That would be a problem in this hypothetical - we can't ascribe any motive as editors and require sourcing to give that. If the COVID misinformation article was more neutral in approach, being clear it covered both widely-mistaken reporting along with disinformation, it would be less an issue since we're now just pointing out his article repeats many things on that page, which I agree would not violate OR/SYNTH. But in the real case, we have plenty of sources that do express the likelihood that Wade was likely trying to provide disinformation, so we don't have to worry about the COVID misinformation page is framed, as long as we get expansion with attribution and sourcing. --
Masem (
t) 14:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Couple of points. The article also appeared in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, so not just self published. The Covid misinformation page contains no reference to Wade's work, linking to it because some editors think that Wades article contains disinformation would be OR. Likewise finding sources that refute some of Wade's claims, merely finding a source which contests Wade's claims does not make his article 'misinformation'. Again, this would be OR, in my opinion.
Bonewah (
talk) 14:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Given the sources that MPants has pointed out that refuse Wade's claims appear to be MEDRS-complaint sources - or at least far closer than Wade meeting MEDRS - means that we should absolutely take the more expert sources over Wade here to classify the work as misinformaion here. I would agree if we had another self-published source making the refuting points, that would be back to OR like you state. But these are RSes doing the job. --
Masem (
t) 18:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Some papers in this list's "Scientific papers on the origins of SARS-CoV-2" section take lab-leaks / gain-of-function / furin-cleavage / etc. seriously. The articles in Politifact and Infection, Genetics and Evolution (not subject to editorial review because the oncologist author is the editor) didn't make the cut. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 23:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Given the sources that MPants has pointed out that refuse Wade's claims appear to be MEDRS-complaint sources - or at least far closer than Wade meeting MEDRS - means that we should absolutely take the more expert sources over Wade here to classify the work as misinformaion here. I would agree if we had another self-published source making the refuting points, that would be back to OR like you state. But these are RSes doing the job. --
Masem (
t) 18:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Couple of points. The article also appeared in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, so not just self published. The Covid misinformation page contains no reference to Wade's work, linking to it because some editors think that Wades article contains disinformation would be OR. Likewise finding sources that refute some of Wade's claims, merely finding a source which contests Wade's claims does not make his article 'misinformation'. Again, this would be OR, in my opinion.
Bonewah (
talk) 14:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- It is probably hard to talk about Wade's case given that we know there are now sources that exist that can be used to appropriately expand and spell out why linking his article to the COVID misinformation one is completely appropriate and free of any BLP/NPOV issues. That expansion just has to be added to Wade's article. I'm just trying to talk in a broader term (and thus why I'm suggesting this may be beyond this board), keeping in mind that BLP's default position is to do no harm and to avoid any type of characterization in Wikivoice. In the absences of any sources about Wade's article (again the hypothetical), we'd first even question if it was worth adding to Wade's page (unduly self-serving given as a self-published Medium source). If it was picked up by RSes but without any comment related to its claims/misinformation, then the question would be: would it be valid for WP editors to link that article to the COVID misinformation page? You are correct that we can read it and yes it is talking about many of the points on the misinformation page, so it seems like the right link. But, because of how the COVID misinformation article is framed at the start around deceitful misinformation rather than neutral, we would give the impression on Wade's page by simply linkage that Wade was being deceitful in Wikivoice without a source. That would be a problem in this hypothetical - we can't ascribe any motive as editors and require sourcing to give that. If the COVID misinformation article was more neutral in approach, being clear it covered both widely-mistaken reporting along with disinformation, it would be less an issue since we're now just pointing out his article repeats many things on that page, which I agree would not violate OR/SYNTH. But in the real case, we have plenty of sources that do express the likelihood that Wade was likely trying to provide disinformation, so we don't have to worry about the COVID misinformation page is framed, as long as we get expansion with attribution and sourcing. --
Masem (
t) 14:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- I fully agree with this.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 15:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sure, given what I saw on gnews, there's a good handful of RSes that point-for-point break down Wade's article. Key is: to make this BLP compliant - not necessarily the way Stonkaments probably wanted but in line with sourcing - we need to spell out that effectively Wade's article created a wave in the news that some latched on to and required others to debunk as misinformation, or something like that. The sourcing fully appears to support that strongly. --
Masem (
t) 14:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- There's also
a Politifact piece that discusses Wade's article (debunking many of his claims) and
an article published in
Infection, Genetics and Evolution which addresses Wade's arguments directly.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 14:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Stonkaments did right per WP:BLPREMOVE and the link should not have been re-inserted without sourcing and consensus. Also poorly sourced is the article's following sentence ("This claim is at odds with the prevailing view among scientists that the virus most likely has a zoonotic origin.") -- the cites for that aren't by scientists responding to Mr Wade's article. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 22:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- The problem is that there's no direct mention of "misinformation" or "conspiracy theory" in the article text itself. An informative link (to the most relevant page - Wade did allege that the virus was engineered and that scientists are unethical) is perfectly acceptable, especially when care is taken to avoid using words which some might find objectionable. As to the "poorly sourced" sentence, that's adequately described at
WP:FLAT. There are multiple, independent sources which rebut Wade's claims, and the claims that there are no sources specifically about him are non-sensical: such sources have been listed on the talk page, and maybe the only reason why they're not yet on the main page is because of edit-warring and because of wishes to avoid
WP:CITEBOMB.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs) 00:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
-
MPants at work
no, I did not.
Bonewah (
talk) 13:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- You did not what? Pay attention to the link you provided? Read any definition that didn't suit your purpose? Read the numerous comments from numerous editors refuting your repeated assertions? Ever read and internalize WP:CRYBLP? There's a lot of things you haven't done, you need to be more specific, especially when I hadn't asked any questions of the "have you X?" form. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
-
RandomCanadian, It doesnt matter that there is no 'direct mention'. Neutraltiy and BLP still apply to wikilinks. Also, i dont see how that link is informative. The section linked to doesnt even mention Wade or his theory. Its only purpose seems to be to associate Wade's article to a bunch of other theories for the purpose of making Wade's work look less serious, in my opinion.
Bonewah (
talk) 13:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- How does it not mention Wade's theory? Wade is literally arguing that the virus was, deliberately, engineered in a lab, and that epidemiologists and the scientific establishment are conspiring to hide this. And there have been some sources given which explicitly mention Wade in the context of such conspiracies, notably the piece from Science-Based Medicine. In addition, wikilinks should go to the most comprehensive article on the most relevant subject. That's the misinformation article, whether you like it or not.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs) 16:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
-
MPants at work No, i do not think the word 'especially' was part of the sentence for aesthetic value. Since, 'especially' means 'very much' or 'this specifically' the definition of 'misinformation' should be read as 'false or inaccurate information, very much or specifically that which is deliberately intended to deceive.". Not sure what you were trying to prove, but it only underscores my point, that misinformation has a strongly negative connotation.
Bonewah (
talk) 13:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Who said the word had no negative connotations? I certainly didn't. I agree that it does. That's Wades' problem, though. Not ours.
- I pointed out that the most common definitions of the word (and I'll note I'm merely the second person to point this out in this thread) do not make any reference to intent. Your argument since has been that, because the word sometimes refers to intent, that means we have to prove Wade's intent, which is hilariously ridiculous.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 14:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Um, no. Connotations on words is our problem. We have a responsibility to write with an impartial tone, so words loaded with connotations have to be used very carefully. While this isn't an explicitly a WP: Say issue, the principle espoused in
MOS:WTW applies. --
Kyohyi (
talk) 14:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- If editors judge there's a possibility of undue connotation, why not just have a {{further|COVID-19 misinformation}} template at the top of the section, rather than an inline wikilink. Then everybody will be happy. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- You have it exactly backwards. Unless there's an argument that Wades article does not contain misinformation (and there are no such arguments here, and no defenses of Wade's article that I can find in the sources), then the only OR is us pretending that the article isn't misinformation. If the specific word used in the title of the most appropriate article to link to has connotations you don't like for this article, then that is categorically not a problem with the contents of this article.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 17:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Nope, that's antithetical to BLP Policy. The onus in BLP per BLPSTYLE is for you to demonstrate that the label is commonly used for the subject, not based on your opinion that the piped link fits. --
Kyohyi (
talk) 18:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- We're talking about an article, not a person. We do need to be a bit careful here since it is the person's work and "misinformation" does imply deceitfulness on the part of the author, so there are BLP aspects here, but we're focusing on the characterization of Wade's article, and given we're in the realm of biomedical information, how that is characterized by MEDRS-compliant sources. Which seems from my read are calling it misinformation. -- Masem ( t) 18:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- The linked article is shot through with references showing that it's disinformation. I don't have to do anything of the sort, as it's already done. And this is not about Wade, but about Wade's article.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 18:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- If it's not about Wade then it shouldn't be on the Wikipedia article about Wade. That's a fundamental tenet of Original Research. To go back to BLPSTYLE, if we cannot use clear direct language in the article, we should not be using an indirect method like a wikilink. --
Kyohyi (
talk) 18:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- I totally agree, a biography is not the place to litigate such claims. Same applies to the other contentious Wade work, 'a Troublesome inheritance'. Additionally, it wont do to find some source refuting Wade's claims, you would need high quality sourcing that specifically names Wade's article as misinformation to avoid performing OR. Bonewah ( talk) 18:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- You don't think the article that got him his new round of press coverage belongs in his article?
- Jesus surfs jello waves on a taxidermied deer. There; a response every bit as fact-based, logical and helpful as what you just said.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 18:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- I was rejecting your statement that this is not about wade, but about an article which Wade wrote. You can't separate the two on a BLP article about Wade. So the statement that this is about his article and not him is absolutely wrong. The issues are the requirements you need to get past to make the piped link's inclusion valid. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 19:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- I dont think his biography is the place to determine the truth of falsity of the claims he made in his article. Spouting gibberish and having a tantrum any time another editor disagrees with you isnt helpful.
Bonewah (
talk) 18:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- You're right. COVID-19 misinformation is the right place. And what do you know? We have a link to that article in Wade's already! Problem solved! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Let's speculate that we could create a standalone WP article on Wade's COVID article as to try to distance Wade BLP from Wade's COVID article. There's certainly enough sourcing to have a possible standalone WP about it (I don't suggest this however), and it doesn't sound like those having an issue about the "misinformation" label would see a problem being used on this theorhetical WP article about Wade's article, because we're not talking about Wade. But given all that, it would be inappropriate per UNDUE to not briefly summarize Wade's article on Wade's WP page - it has drawn a lot of attention to him (it is not like one article out of hundreds that got minimal notice). And to summarize it with respect to UNDUE, "misinformation" is absolutely going to come up, I am pretty sure based on my judging of the sources. It is unavoidable and would be a violation to not connect it to the COVID misinformation article given the weight of sources that consider Wade's article to be misinformation. So even if we did have a separate page for Wade's COVID article, we'd still be talking about it being misinformation on Wade's BLP page on WP, all within policy, because that is backed by RSes. --
Masem (
t) 18:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Accurate and relevant summary isn't the issue. The issues stem from the vagueness of a piped link. It's got the same problems as categorizations, where details specific to the article subject are not expounded upon, and just applies a broad brush label. --
Kyohyi (
talk) 19:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's why we have a full article on Wade, and why Masem is advocating for expanding the coverage of the article (which I'm working on ATM). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Accurate and relevant summary isn't the issue. The issues stem from the vagueness of a piped link. It's got the same problems as categorizations, where details specific to the article subject are not expounded upon, and just applies a broad brush label. --
Kyohyi (
talk) 19:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- If it's not about Wade then it shouldn't be on the Wikipedia article about Wade. That's a fundamental tenet of Original Research. To go back to BLPSTYLE, if we cannot use clear direct language in the article, we should not be using an indirect method like a wikilink. --
Kyohyi (
talk) 18:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Nope, that's antithetical to BLP Policy. The onus in BLP per BLPSTYLE is for you to demonstrate that the label is commonly used for the subject, not based on your opinion that the piped link fits. --
Kyohyi (
talk) 18:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Um, no. Connotations on words is our problem. We have a responsibility to write with an impartial tone, so words loaded with connotations have to be used very carefully. While this isn't an explicitly a WP: Say issue, the principle espoused in
MOS:WTW applies. --
Kyohyi (
talk) 14:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
-
MPants at work No, i do not think the word 'especially' was part of the sentence for aesthetic value. Since, 'especially' means 'very much' or 'this specifically' the definition of 'misinformation' should be read as 'false or inaccurate information, very much or specifically that which is deliberately intended to deceive.". Not sure what you were trying to prove, but it only underscores my point, that misinformation has a strongly negative connotation.
Bonewah (
talk) 13:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- How does it not mention Wade's theory? Wade is literally arguing that the virus was, deliberately, engineered in a lab, and that epidemiologists and the scientific establishment are conspiring to hide this. And there have been some sources given which explicitly mention Wade in the context of such conspiracies, notably the piece from Science-Based Medicine. In addition, wikilinks should go to the most comprehensive article on the most relevant subject. That's the misinformation article, whether you like it or not.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs) 16:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
-
MPants at work
no, I did not.
Bonewah (
talk) 13:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- We can avoid making the potentially contentious link from "a leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology" to COVID-19 misinformation#Wuhan lab origin. Instead, we can just wlink to Wuhan Institute of Virology which has a section with a discussion of the leak controversy. Terjen ( talk) 18:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
John McAfee's death
Can some regulars keep an eye on this article given the subject's recent death and cult-following? At the moment the drive-by vandalism and BLP vios seems to be under control, despite the rapid editing, but that may change. Thanks. Abecedare ( talk) 20:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory
HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Over the past couple months or so, any mention of #HAUTalk, a MeToo-analog within the anthropology community, has been removed from the HAU article as violating WP:BLP. The allegations of abuse against the journal's former editor-in-chief have not been confirmed by official investigations, but they have been discussed in reliable sources, including academic, peer-reviewed articles. What is the appropriate way to mention this in the journal's article, if at all?
(This issue has been brought up on the article talk page, but it's mostly me and one other editor, so I thought I would raise the issue here.) — Wingedserif ( talk) 14:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- I would appreciate it greatly if some other editors could take a look into this. I checked the article after this request and it looks like two SPAs are fighting to keep a well sourced and neutral section out of the article. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 22:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I've been following this story and you are obviously ignoring a number of BLP sensitive issues which two editors (studentspirit and Aquillon) have raised when they deleted the whole paragraph.
1) you are directly targeting a living person and naming a paragraph of a journal entry after him, proof of that is that you are not attempting to provide any neutral language but one where the editor, who has been acquitted from all allegations (twice -- January 2018 and November 2018) comes out as a horrible human being. 2) your paragraph (and title) implies that the editor was exclusively responsible for all the management of the journal while there were different boards, including one with an executive function (see constitution). If there were problems at the journal, they cannot be attributed to a single individual. 2) last but not least, your edits are defamatory and Wiki encourage immediate removal. It is irrelevant if the association between hautalk and metoo has been made by a peer-reviewed journals. Journal authors and articles may be libellous, too, even if they are peer-reviewed. You seem to be missing the point raised by the other editor (studentspirit):"(self-published or anonymous blog posts, even if these end up cited in another publication that can be cited)" they do not become reliable sources. See Wiki BLP policies: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." And the following: "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." ---This should be enough to disprove your sensationalist claim that studentspirit is “aggressively reverting” your edits. The user is following Wiki policy on BLP sensitive issues, which you are notalso see the sensitive issue re the policy for" people notable for one event", given that you named a whole sub-section after the editor" See also BLP policy re: Privacy of names: "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." --- Actually da Col's name should be removed and only reference to the “the editor" should be used in the talk page and here. Finally, see the paragraph "People accused of crime. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[d] include sufficient explanatory information." Was the editor convicted or even subjected to a police investigation? I don't think so. Associating him with metoo is also associating him with a movement emerged out criminal activities like sexual harassment and assault. I am not aware of any evidence of a single case of sexual harassment towards the editor emerging in the last three years. You are even repeating the sensationalist false claim in this notice board by calling hautalk "a metoo analog". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morph1989 ( talk • contribs) — Morph1989 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Tom Devine
I note there are repeated edits of questionable merit, neutrality and relevance on this article by a number of unregisters users (may be the same user). I recommend protecting this article until such time that the article can be cleaned up to a neutral point of view.
During my recent clean up of this article, I noted several things:
Career The 'prose' in paragraphs, includes such text which looks to sell or advertise, for example, within the section regarding the Research Institute of Irish and Scottish Studies it is written; "It became one of only two designated centres in the UK to be recognized in the phase two awards." Such text should belong within a new article on the Research Institute of Irish and Scottish Studies, without further expansion, the correlation between the Subject's involvement in the "recognition" is unclear, which may make similar text unsuitable. 'Public Appointments...' - I ask, is this list relevant? If so, perhaps it should be in its own section?
Awards and honours This section tends towards reading like a personal advertisement, for example, it is currently written; "Devine has won all three national prizes for research and writing on Scottish history: Senior Hume Brown Prize for the best first book in Scottish history (1976); the Saltire Society Prize for best book on Scottish History (1988); and the Henry Duncan Prize and Lectureship of the Royal Society of Edinburgh in Scottish Studies (1993).". It may be more appropriate, as an example, to re-write such paragraphs "Devine has been awarded the Senior Hume Brown Prize for 'Best First Book' in Scottish history (1976); the Saltire Society Prize for 'Best Book on Scottish History' (1988); and the Henry Duncan Prize and Lectureship of the Royal Society of Edinburgh in Scottish Studies (1993)."
There are other issues with the article, such as 'Alphabet soup' and a tendency to switch between styles.
Textualism ( talk) 08:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- I removed a lot of the promotional material, and tried to fix some of the inline sourcing and add citation tags where needed. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 20:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, it was quite a daunting task! Textualism ( talk) 07:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Bebo Kobo
Since 2016 there has been on and off edit-warring about whether or not to include the details of an 18-month prison sentence in the article for Bebo Kobo. Whilst the articles are all from reliable sources, namely Globes, Haaretz, and Calcalist, they are all in Hebrew, and the nuances may not be obvious from Google Translate. More at Talk:Bebo Kobo. Edwardx ( talk) 18:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- The article subject does not appear to be a low-profile individual under WP:LOWPROFILE, and I think it is likely they would be a public figure for the purposes of WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Also, WP:BLPCRIME does not really apply since there was a conviction and prison sentence reported in several reliable sources. However, there appears to be a dispute about whether the original publication that reported on the conviction later retracted that statement in legal proceedings. I think for the content to be included there would need to be an argument made that there are enough sources who have independently reported on the conviction beyond just the original publication or repeating claims from the legal proceedings. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 19:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- These sources are entirely sufficient for including the factual information that Kobo was convicted of rape. The new editor deleting this information is misbehaving here. It's disappointing to see that the article has been protected, preventing restoration of this information. (Hebrew-speaking editor here) Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 07:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
DRASTIC has an RFC on whether to include the term "conspiracy theorists" in our depiction of the group. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. -- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 19:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't 100% know that this is the proper place for this notice, since this is a group of people, not a single person. But I figured it would be better to err on the side of posting. Let me know if you think it's improper! Thanks. -- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 19:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
There's an ongoing dispute on the page for Rana Ayyub regarding the addition of (i)her having posted 'fake news' on her social media, certain instances of which have been picked up on some WP:RS (see the actual edit for info) (ii) her recent legal troubles because of an allegation of sharing fake news (again, well-cited with RS). The dispute can be read on talk page, and the edit in disputed diff revert is here. LΞVIXIUS 💬 15:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Some mention is probably fine based on the sources, but the content that was removed was excessive and did not appear to be neutrally written. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 17:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Before anything none of the RSes call any of that "fake news", it certainly doesn't merit a section called "fake news incidents". The edit also cherrypicks bits and pieces from sources and omits contextual information. It contains a "fact check" from The Times of India ( RSP entry) of a one line tweet by her. That is neither an RS nor does it have due weight for inclusion.
- The "legal troubles" goes as far as an First Information Report, she hasn't been charged. The addition itself omits the fact that in her tweet she quoted a claim from the victim, which the police is denying. It also omits the fact that, she is one among a group of people including a number of other journalists, Twitter and opposition leaders against whom the police has filed FIRs for reproducing the claims of the victim and that this has received backlash and condemnation. The framing of the section as well as the wording suggests that she has committed a crime which is a very obvious BLP violation.
- Regardlessly, I'd argue that a non partisan inclusion of any of this is giving undue weight to begin with, tweets which receive momentary attention in the media don't belong on Wikipedia articles. At best, if the police case goes forward or if she becomes more involved in the controversy then the last bit might merit inclusion but certainly not before that. Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
M. C. Josephine
M. C. Josephine, Indian politician, may need some BLP-watchers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- At the moment this article gives an almost entirely negative view of the subject. It consists only of a brief factual introduction of her and the posts she holds, followed by a Controversy section which accounts for most of the content. It needs to present a more neutral view. Neiltonks ( talk) 12:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
La La Anthony
La La Anthony ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My boss, "Alani Nicole "La La" Anthony? has a wrong date of birth on her info box and "Early life" section. There, it is written June 25, 1979. But her true date of birth is 25 June 1982. Each time she tries to correct it, some enemies will revert it. Many of such editors have been banned from editing wikipedia. My Boss, has her Drivers License which contains the correct date of birth. She asked me to upload it to the admins. I uploaded it to wiki commons just for this purpose. I don't know where I else I can upload.
Here's the link https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:D_license_Nicole.jpg
Please, We need the wiki admin to help us correct the right date as this is causing problems for La La Anthody. Her correct date of birth is 25 June 1982 as seen in the uploaded Driver's License. Pls help us correct this and stop enemies from changing it.
Thanks a lot
La La Anthony PA (
talk) 13:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- That has been discussed at Talk:La La Anthony/Archive 1#Age back in 2019, it appears that there is a gradual shift as time moves forward.-- Eostrix ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 13:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have no comment on the birth date issue, but please don't post ID documents here, it's a privacy issue and we can't use those as sources anyway. The image has now been deleted from Commons. Spicy ( talk) 13:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- All information must be
verifiable to a
reliable sources, especially
those involving living people. As a general practice, if I see a dispute between something that is sourced but believed to be incorrect, against something not sourced but believed to be true, I will remove the claim entirely, which is what I have done here.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 14:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- User:Ritchie333, Your final decision as an admin is accepted. We agree not to keep pressing to add the correct date of birth. However, it seems the enemy has returned again today with the wrong date of birth which you removed completely. This time around, they came with an IP account User contributions for 2603:6011:C206:7A00:55F3:DBF5:313F:4ECC. Please look into this and revert back to the earlier stand. I am also requesting for page protecting since these enemies keep coming back to add the wrong date of birth which is adversely affect the career of my Boss lady, La La Anthony. Thanks La La Anthony PA ( talk) 18:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Katie Ewer
Hi. I am the subject of this page and it contains quite a few inaccuracies that I would really like to be corrected. I know I can't edit the page myself, but would really like to understand how to get it amended. Thanks. Katie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie Ewer ( talk • contribs) 15:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- You can make
edit requests on the
article's talk page using the {{
Request edit}} template. Make sure you provide a
reliable sources for every claim.
Kleinpecan (
talk) 15:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- A review of her article shows too much reliance on her university and institute bios which seem to be WP:BLPSELFPUB and analysis of articles that she's written. This analysis may be where the inaccuracies stem from. Further, it's not clear if an Esquire profile itself is sufficient to establish notability under the GNG or whether she falls under WP:NPROF. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 23:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. There is unsourced, negative information in this article. I identified this information on the talk page, but was told to "establish a consensus for this alteration" by User:ScottishFinnishRadish. WP:BLP already has consensus. Can Somebody assist? 92.24.242.202 ( talk) 08:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- I responded at that talk page. I edited that section to cite the existing language to a source used earlier in the paragraph.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk) 08:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- @ Firefangledfeathers: Awesome, thank you! 92.24.242.202 ( talk) 17:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
There was a "Controversy" section that I have removed because it was sourced to three blogs, which should not be used for biographies per WP:BLPSPS. AntiFaAssociated reverted me without explanation, and I reverted them again.
This slow edit war about whether this section should stay in the article has been going on since at least March 2020 ( Special:Diff/947007696, Special:Diff/947496130). Kleinpecan ( talk) 12:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
-
El C semiprotected the article, but it still hasn't helped—the user made a bunch of useless edits to random articles in order to become autoconfirmed. Seems to me they are only here to edit war on that article.
Kleinpecan (
talk) 12:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
-
Indef p-blocked.
El_C 15:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Kleinpecan ( talk) 20:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
-
Indef p-blocked.
El_C 15:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Malicious Information - Boniface Mwangi Page
The page Boniface Mwangi contains malicious allegations cited from a blog, that borders on "defamation" and the user keeps reverting all my edits to amend the issue on the category "Controversy". Blogposts and tabloids are not reliable sources -- Ms Kabintie ( talk) 11:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- I removed some of the information
[25] because it was
WP:SYNTH (the references were being used by the IP to draw his own conclusions not explicitly stated in the references) and it appears that another editor removed the bulk of the rest
[26] as using unreliable sources.
Notfrompedro (
talk) 13:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Material added passes WP:GNG based on reference to WP:NEWSBLOG, where material was added with caution and specific description (with evidence) included. Çnyakundi.com has a page on its own to qualify as notable, independent,reliable reference for matters that are controversial such as this, hence it was accurate and reliable for this kind of stuff.
- Ms Kabintie has an edit history of editorial bias on the page e.g. she attempted to remove other verified unrelated material on the page even went ahead to tout promotional information on boniface mwangi see this that have been disputed by this entry. Which is a clearly lame assertion of neutrality about these edits.
- If mwangi has an issue with these edits, he should sue cnyakundi like anyone else, without attempting to fight WP:NEUTRAL points of view that seek to promote free speech on these matters about his individual actions.
- The specific issue based on these reference is that Mwangi is routinely involved in activities that are more promotional for himself to get publicity for himself, rather than activism. Anything that seems to be able to get headlines, mwangi just crosses the line for publicity.
- At this rate, mwangi's promotional activities will start becoming a basis for legitimate issues that are not verifiable anywhere and contravene basic WP:NEUTRAL on wikipedia.
-- 154.152.186.71 ( talk)
- No your edit are
WP:SYNTH and
WP:OR. You are using multiple references to support a conclusion not explicitly stated in any of them.
Lopifalko's edit summary was also clear that "Çnyakundi.com does not appear to be a reliable source + it does not support the claim here." Please read and understand the guidelines about referencing articles especially when it is a
WP:BLP.
Notfrompedro (
talk) 13:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see how WP:NEWSBLOG applies to Cynakundi. This isn't the blog of a some reputable Kenyan media organisation. It's a blog founded by one person who it's named after. It appears to have multiple writers, but it's unclear to me what sort of independent editorial control there is. Notably, the article in question seems to be written by the person the blog is named after strongly suggesting it's a WP:SPS. There's also button on the main page to contact the person the page is named after again supporting the idea that this blog is ultimately centred around one individual. Nil Einne ( talk) 13:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- No your edit are
WP:SYNTH and
WP:OR. You are using multiple references to support a conclusion not explicitly stated in any of them.
Lopifalko's edit summary was also clear that "Çnyakundi.com does not appear to be a reliable source + it does not support the claim here." Please read and understand the guidelines about referencing articles especially when it is a
WP:BLP.
Notfrompedro (
talk) 13:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
A question on MANDY and sourcing
Chris Avellone is a video game writer who got caught up in #MeToo-releated sexual misconduct allegations last year and as a result was removed from several projects. (These are well documented). Yesterday, Avellone posted to Medium an apology post, which seems the type of thing that falls under WP:MANDY in general that we wouldn't include without it be noted by sources in general. (In fact, one editor did try to add it but I did remove it on this basis). But I have been tracking sources to see if any RSes have noted this and given this is the weekend it may be too early for these to appear yet. I have seen appear in a weak RS, a Forbes contributor piece [27]. (As a note, this specific contributor is generally okay in the area of video games, but just falls under the general problem of Forbes contribs). This led me to wonder that in the context of MANDY and where we should look for sourcing to use for when it appropriate to include an accused's rebuttal/reaction/etc to accusations if it is noted by sources but these are not necessarily the highest quality sources we'd use in the article's context (in this case for video game-related content, sources like IGN, Polygon, or the Verge). If only weak/poor but not deprecated RSes noted this, as to avoid the issue of a unduly self-serving situation, would that become appropriate? -- Masem ( t) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- I wouldn't put much stock in that user essay as a general rule. It seems fairly recent and the Forbes link would probably be enough given our public figure policy.
PackMecEng (
talk) 17:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that the essay itself arguably passes BLPSPS about themselves, just that it generally states the expected "I'm sorry I did those things"-type language that I'd think nominally falls under MANDY. Hence wanting RSes to see if it merits inclusion. --
Masem (
t) 17:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's a user essay that loosen what we are required to do in BLP situations. It is not useable for anything.
PackMecEng (
talk) 17:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Agree. It's bad enough that some people think it's worth mentioning on a noticeboard where we're supposed to be discussing WP:BLP seriously, but worse to use it as the basis for reverting other people's edits. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 18:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's a user essay that loosen what we are required to do in BLP situations. It is not useable for anything.
PackMecEng (
talk) 17:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, I misread (as I see now), you're talking to MANDY as a user essay, rather than the BLP's essay themselves. But I've seen experience editors stand by MANDY as policy/guidance to BLP (given that "unduly self-serving material" is a part of BLPSPS) hence that there is a fair question here related to sourcing.
- To add, I have seen further that Avellone here has alluded to filing lawsuits against his accusers in the Medium, a fact picked up in the Forbes piece. This is a bit more than just the simple rebuttal and even ignoring MANDY and keeping to the scope of BLPSPS + related RS policy, is this at a sufficient point to include with only Avellone's own Medium piece and the Forbes contributor piece, or should we wait for better RS source on this to come along? -- Masem ( t) 18:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that the essay itself arguably passes BLPSPS about themselves, just that it generally states the expected "I'm sorry I did those things"-type language that I'd think nominally falls under MANDY. Hence wanting RSes to see if it merits inclusion. --
Masem (
t) 17:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- To speak to the essay of MANDY itself, I find it to be an extremely flawed position. It's basically using the very tactics it's arguing against. Of course a subject is going to deny allegations, but coming back with a loaded question like, "Well he would, wouldn't he?" is the equivalent of saying that denying the allegations is in itself proof of guilt. You might as well ask, "Do you still beat your wife?" It's the same thing. In my opinion, everybody has a right to respond to allegations, and denying them the right is creating the very false balance we wish to avoid. Whether we believe them or not is not for us to decide. That's up to the reader. But you can't give one side of the story and pat yourself on the back and call yourself neutral. As far as I can tell, the essay is an excellent demonstration of the dangers of loaded questions.
Zaereth (
talk) 20:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- We note denials by public figures under
WP:BLPPUBLIC. I don't see how less public figures should not be afforded the same.
Morbidthoughts (
talk) 00:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that we should generally include denials when someone has merely been accused of something. I also think that if someone is not a public figure enough for a self-published denial to be included in response to allegations of serious criminal conduct against the person, then those criminal allegations should probably not be included in the first place, given the considerations at WP:BLPCRIME. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 03:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- We note denials by public figures under
WP:BLPPUBLIC. I don't see how less public figures should not be afforded the same.
Morbidthoughts (
talk) 00:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- To speak to the essay of MANDY itself, I find it to be an extremely flawed position. It's basically using the very tactics it's arguing against. Of course a subject is going to deny allegations, but coming back with a loaded question like, "Well he would, wouldn't he?" is the equivalent of saying that denying the allegations is in itself proof of guilt. You might as well ask, "Do you still beat your wife?" It's the same thing. In my opinion, everybody has a right to respond to allegations, and denying them the right is creating the very false balance we wish to avoid. Whether we believe them or not is not for us to decide. That's up to the reader. But you can't give one side of the story and pat yourself on the back and call yourself neutral. As far as I can tell, the essay is an excellent demonstration of the dangers of loaded questions.
Zaereth (
talk) 20:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- To add, an article from at least one reliable source has come up to report on this, so the initial point is moot but the general issue is still a issue of debate. -- Masem ( t) 00:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Given
The accusation of both women, made even more intense by subsequent testimony from other people, originated on Twitter and never reached a court or the police.
I think the mention of the statement by the subject, ie his response, should be included in his BLP. (Especially since he wants to now take it to court as libel.) I think that would fairly follow fromNow, is it possible to characterize disputes fairly? This is an empirical issue, not a philosophical one: can we edit articles so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, and agree that their views are presented accurately and as completely as the context permits?
( WP:NPOVFAQ). ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 00:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)- Also arguably follows from
WP:BLPCRIME:
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.
It doesn't seem valid, to me, to include mention of an accusation of a possible crime and then exclude the subject's defence per MANDY. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 00:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)- I do want to note that the companies he was working with at the time of the accusations basically fired him. I believe we have carefully worded the language to avoid any intonation in Wikivoice he is guilty, but only factually to state what happened then. That he is looking to file suit because these accusations led to his firing seems reasonable to include, but there's that sourcing issue (that is now resolved in the specific case). --
Masem (
t) 00:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't say the mention needs to be removed, but in any case where an accusation with criminal implications without conviction is inserted into an article, the existence and form of the subject's substantive response (an apology, a rebuttal, a lawsuit, etc) should be too. It's then up to readers to make of the information what they wish, but its existence shouldn't be suppressed.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 00:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think that independent sources are necessary to include a denial of an accusation made against a living person, depending on the circumstances. Whether independent sources report on it should be relevant, but not the deciding factor. Similarly, it may not be appropriate to include a denial even when it is reported in reliable sources. However, I do not see how the arguments made in the
WP:MANDY essay would apply in this situation to someone who has only been accused of a crime or similar wrongdoing but no additional reporting or investigations directly claims that. For example, if the article subject here had been fired for misconduct after an investigation at the companies he left, then I think it would be more relevant to consider whether or not to include his denial. But no source articles appear to claim that Avellone committed sexual assault, and instead they only report on the accusations. I also wonder whether this article subject is a public figure (has he had a significant impact on the gaming industry or sought out media attention for himself?), and if he is, he would seem to barely be one, and so more consideration should be taken regarding criminal allegations included in the article. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 03:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- He's absolutely a "public figure" in the context of the video game industry if we consider anything prior to 2020; he was a designer and writer for many significant games, and I can attest that ignoring any cover of him from 2020, it's certainly not "him seeking media attention for himself". (Few VG people are "public" personalities like celebrities but they are still frequently talked about and interviewed and don't escape the media spotlight here). His article could probably be expanded more on the significance of his work. (Here's a google news search of 2019 + early coverage of him
[28] and just scanning down the first 5-6 pages of results gives me about 75% hits that are from VG's reliable sources) --
Masem (
t) 04:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Being well-known in an industry does not necessarily mean a person is a public figure, and normally that would also require something like having a significant role or impact, such as the lead designer of a major game as opposed to merely being one designer or writer alongside many others. Giving interviews would be voluntarily seeking media attention though, and so that would more likely indicate a person is a public figure or high-profile individual. It's really not about whether a person is a celebrity, but what level of involvement they have in the public sphere, either implicitly through their significance or impact, or explicitly through their public promotion or voluntary engagement with the media. It's also important to remember that a person can be notable without being a public figure. I think the explanatory supplement at Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual is very helpful. In this specific case, I agree that the article's prose should probably be updated to make his significance and impact clearer (e.g., the prose only discusses him being the lead designer on one bluelinked game, although it appears he has been the lead designer on several other notable games according to the "Works" credits listings). – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 05:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- He's absolutely a "public figure" in the context of the video game industry if we consider anything prior to 2020; he was a designer and writer for many significant games, and I can attest that ignoring any cover of him from 2020, it's certainly not "him seeking media attention for himself". (Few VG people are "public" personalities like celebrities but they are still frequently talked about and interviewed and don't escape the media spotlight here). His article could probably be expanded more on the significance of his work. (Here's a google news search of 2019 + early coverage of him
[28] and just scanning down the first 5-6 pages of results gives me about 75% hits that are from VG's reliable sources) --
Masem (
t) 04:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think that independent sources are necessary to include a denial of an accusation made against a living person, depending on the circumstances. Whether independent sources report on it should be relevant, but not the deciding factor. Similarly, it may not be appropriate to include a denial even when it is reported in reliable sources. However, I do not see how the arguments made in the
WP:MANDY essay would apply in this situation to someone who has only been accused of a crime or similar wrongdoing but no additional reporting or investigations directly claims that. For example, if the article subject here had been fired for misconduct after an investigation at the companies he left, then I think it would be more relevant to consider whether or not to include his denial. But no source articles appear to claim that Avellone committed sexual assault, and instead they only report on the accusations. I also wonder whether this article subject is a public figure (has he had a significant impact on the gaming industry or sought out media attention for himself?), and if he is, he would seem to barely be one, and so more consideration should be taken regarding criminal allegations included in the article. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 03:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't say the mention needs to be removed, but in any case where an accusation with criminal implications without conviction is inserted into an article, the existence and form of the subject's substantive response (an apology, a rebuttal, a lawsuit, etc) should be too. It's then up to readers to make of the information what they wish, but its existence shouldn't be suppressed.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 00:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I do want to note that the companies he was working with at the time of the accusations basically fired him. I believe we have carefully worded the language to avoid any intonation in Wikivoice he is guilty, but only factually to state what happened then. That he is looking to file suit because these accusations led to his firing seems reasonable to include, but there's that sourcing issue (that is now resolved in the specific case). --
Masem (
t) 00:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Also arguably follows from
WP:BLPCRIME:
Per WP:BLPSPS and WP:FORBESCON the Forbes contributor piece is useless. We can sometimes use self published material people publish about themselves. We cannot use self published material in relation to living persons written by someone else. And the Forbes contributor piece is treated as self published. It doesn't matter if the author is a subject matter expert, there is no subject matter expert exception for BLPs. Likewise User:PackMecEng is mistaken. We cannot use SPS about living persons even if the living person is a public figure. Public figure issues for WP:BLPCRIME only comes into play is the material is published in reliable secondary sources. It does not apply to material self published like Forbes contributor columns.
Also while handling the case where a subject has denied some claim but their denial isn't mentioned in reliable secondary sources is tricky, I don't think we can use WP:BLPSELFPUB for the denial in a case like this. I don't see how a denial could be said to not make claims about third parties.
(There is actually a similar issue for the public figure issue. Even if the subject of the article is a public figure and even if we did allow self published material written by someone else to be used for public figures which as I said we don't, it's unlikely the other people affected by the denial are public figures.)
IMO we need to just hope it's covered in a reliable secondary source, if the allegations were covered especially in a case like this where it's not that long after, the denials generally are eventually. It sounds like this might have happened now?
- I find the arguments against WP:MANDY above to be hollow, emotive and unpersuasive.
- With that being said, I don't think the essay applies to the question of whether we should mention his denial. There are a couple reasons why:
- These are unproven, unevidenced allegation. They might very well be true (and I generally assume they are true enough that the accusers aren't lying about them in cases like this), but we don't have any evidence on which to judge. That's a balancing factor between the accused and the accusers, and we all know the term for it: "He said/She said." I hate to be dismissive of allegations like this, but the simple fact is that we can believe the accusers and the accused, and we currently don't have any reason to favor either.
- These are allegations that don't involve any expertise to understand (contrast with allegations like these, where expertise is inarguably relevant), this is an additional balancing factor.
- we could apply the "Well, they would, wouldn't they?" standard to Techland for firing him, as well, which would leave the article in a funny state, to say the least.
- Finally, there's the question of timing: Avellone has been mum on the matter for a year, from what I can gather. If he had issued his response right away, it would be a very legitimate question to ask if it's worth mentioning. For a response that was a year in the making, well, that's a different beast.
- I think the only question here is whether his denial is WP:DUE by our regular standard. As this is a BLP, the Forbes piece by Erik Kain is probably less than useful. So there's only the weight of the Medium piece by Avellone himself to judge this by. It seems germane, as he's announcing a lawsuit against two of his accusers. It's still questionable, though.
- I, personally, would not yet include the denial. Not until an undeniable RS covers it. If and when a clearly reliable source covers it, we can add it in, but in order to comply with NPOV and nod to the underlying issue of MANDY, I'd keep mention short and sweet. Something like "In June 2021, a year after the allegations were made, Avellone published an article on
Medium denying the allegations and announcing a libel suit against two of his accusers."
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 14:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
-
MPants at work, given your response to my concerns on your talk page
[29], I will instead post my concerns here. I don't think anyone has made "emotive arguments", and if you think there has been, then you should be providing diffs rather than those types of aspersions. Especially considering you already removed part of your comment for similar concerns by another editor about you making accusations against others without evidence
[30]. I hope you will take the time to read
WP:NPA, which explicitly says that personal attacks include "accusations about personal behavior
that lack evidence". Civility is a fundamental pillar on Wikipedia, and making unsupported aspersions that other editors are not acting neutrally makes respectful discussions about contentious issues a lot more difficult. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 21:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 21:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
-
MjolnirPants/
MPants at work, considering you have been blocked more than once for personal attacks, and have had other editors bring up concerns about casting aspersions just in the past few months after you were unblocked earlier this year (after appealing an indefinite block from early 2019 that was placed due to comments that had to be oversighted), I think you should probably take some time to reevaluate your attitude towards others when working on a collaborative project. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 22:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Stop pinging me, for fuck's sake. I don't know where you got the notion that I owe you any explanation beyond "you're wrong", but I sure as hell don't. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
-
MjolnirPants/
MPants at work, considering you have been blocked more than once for personal attacks, and have had other editors bring up concerns about casting aspersions just in the past few months after you were unblocked earlier this year (after appealing an indefinite block from early 2019 that was placed due to comments that had to be oversighted), I think you should probably take some time to reevaluate your attitude towards others when working on a collaborative project. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 22:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 21:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
-
MPants at work, given your response to my concerns on your talk page
[29], I will instead post my concerns here. I don't think anyone has made "emotive arguments", and if you think there has been, then you should be providing diffs rather than those types of aspersions. Especially considering you already removed part of your comment for similar concerns by another editor about you making accusations against others without evidence
[30]. I hope you will take the time to read
WP:NPA, which explicitly says that personal attacks include "accusations about personal behavior
that lack evidence". Civility is a fundamental pillar on Wikipedia, and making unsupported aspersions that other editors are not acting neutrally makes respectful discussions about contentious issues a lot more difficult. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 21:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- And just to further add we now have (ETA at least 2) English-language VG/S-meeting RSes [31] reporting on it, so all immediate case concerns are dealt with. No need to incorporate the Medium or Forbes pieces. -- Masem ( t) 18:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Question for administrator (re: Lauren Southern)
<It seems like some of the contributor(s) to this page have some personal issue/bias against Mrs. Southern. People are entitled to their opinions, but it should be made clear that it is someone's opinion. You don't have to be a rocket surgeon to be able to craft sentences in a way that shows what is a fact and what is an opinion. People can word things in a way that communicates their message without being petty or outright aggressive. Yet, the article literally opens with libelous statements, and they do continue through the entirety of the page. Honestly, by the end of the article, it felt more like the wording being used went from being distasteful, to aggressive, and evolving in to the entire article being used as a weapon meant to hurl ad hominem attacks and misinformation as the subject.. Stating that Lauren is, in fact, a "white supremacist", and then using some vague quote completely out of context, or with false context, as evidence to express this subjective opinion as an objective fact is not only illegal, but it's also despicable. If the contributors cannot maintain some semblance or journalistic integrity and/or professionalism, then I believe it's time for Wikipedia to step up and do so. A failure to address issues like this will have long-lasting, maybe even permanent consequences that could well expand beyond the small border of a single URL, or person, or country, and actually influence or push a narrative. Let's all do our part and have some integrity, here... Not liking someone is perfectly fine, but that doesn't mean you can/have to do away with all professionalism or objectivity that should be the golden standard for contributors.>
-- 72.190.176.115 ( talk) 22:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Not done Your opinions are very interesting, but not actionable. You have not described any of these statements as being unsourced or poorly-sourced.- Moreover, the article explicitly does not describe Southern as a "white supremacist." It does state, accurately and with multiple reliable sources, that Southern is a white nationalist, and that her promotion of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory has been used to promote white nationalism. That you do not like this fact is not something we can fix. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 22:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Angela Rasmussen
This article should be tagged for deletion. There is no notability per BLP rules. RutiWinkler ( talk) 01:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Links for the lazy:
Angela Rasmussen (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views).
Firefangledfeathers (
talk) 01:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- She seems to meet WP:Noteworthy standards given the RS references and leadership in vaccine and immunology research, which an important topic today. There does not appear to be a formal AfD process initiated for the article, but I would vote to keep if there were. Go4thProsper ( talk) 09:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, the developer of this emulator apparently has committed suicide, and there have been attempts at including personal information that this person has disclosed about themself on message boards. [32]
I would expect that BLP here beats Verifiability, but am unsure how you work.
Would appreciate 2cts by someone in the loop.-- ze un fo un 18:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Aware of the situation around Higan's death, I have revdel'd the inclusion because it was sourcd to Kiwifarms which 100% fails BLPSPS (among other things). --
Masem (
t) 18:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you very much.--
ze un fo un 18:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- As a note, one of the RSes on Higan's death (Vice's article) does confirm the change of gender preference, so that's fine. The other factor that's coming from Kiwi Farms, (ties to the furry fandom) which is sorta obvious from Higan's profiles, I just can't find a RS for, nor essential for this. --
Masem (
t) 18:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Though the article only tells what pronouns they went with prior, fwiw.-- ze un fo un 18:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- As a note, one of the RSes on Higan's death (Vice's article) does confirm the change of gender preference, so that's fine. The other factor that's coming from Kiwi Farms, (ties to the furry fandom) which is sorta obvious from Higan's profiles, I just can't find a RS for, nor essential for this. --
Masem (
t) 18:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you very much.--
ze un fo un 18:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
"... he received a straight red card after lunging at Artem Besyedin, forcing the latter to retire injured." The wording concerning the contentious collision between Danielson and Besyedin is far from neutral and also mistakable.
- Agreed. I've edited it for more neutral wording, and because the original seemed rather long. Players get sent off from time to time, it's not career-defining. Neiltonks ( talk) 12:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Diethard Tautz
I am the person who is described in this artticle. I refer to the emglish version of it: Diethard Tautz
The article has a warning flag that says it needs to be checked. I can confirm that the contents are correct. The text is derived from a laudation for an award for which I was suggested. It should actually also be updated, based on the German version that is more up to date.
I would appreciate if the flag would be removed
Diethard Tautz
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.5.9.188 ( talk) 08:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Diethard Tautz, I appreciate you consider the contents are correct, but unfortunately that is part of the problem. It is believed that the content was written by someone who was paid to write it, and they did not disclose this as they are required to do according to the terms of use of Wikipedia. This is a major violation here. Content written by people with a conflict of interest, especially people who know the subject of the article or have received information from then is nearly always a problem since it's not written neutrally, and the information may also lack reliable sources which we require here on Wikipedia. Content written by people who were paid to edit tends to be worst of the lot. The fact the information is true is irrelevant to us if we lack reliable sources, the information needs to stay out of the article in the absence of such sources no matter that it may be true. I also have great concerns about your statement "The text is derived from a laudation for an award". How closely was it "derived"? Can you provide a link to this text so we can check it? It seems to be there is a strong risk the article may be a WP:copyright violation. Unless these concerns are addressed, it might be better if just delete the whole thing. Nil Einne ( talk) 13:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Audrey Mullender
- Audrey Mullender ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Fellow3 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A user who appears to be the subject (based on the pronouns used in edit summaries) is removing allegations that she destroyed the archives of Ruskin College, Oxford (where she was principal), which are sourced to an article by Hilda Kean, former dean of Ruskin College in an article on History Workshop. History Workshop describes itself as a "digital magazine that seeks to continue the spirit of the History Workshop movement by publishing accessible and engaging articles that deepen understanding of the past for historians and the public, and which reflect upon present day issues and agitate for change in the world we live in now" and appears to have a dedicated editoral team. This has already been posted on COIN but I also think this is a BLP issue. Audrey/Fellow3 has stated the allegations as "malicious untruth", "untrue and potentially libellous" as well as "something I did not say and a complete fabrication of my motivation; also ignoring the legal position at the time". Hemiauchenia ( talk) 14:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- There are three sources for the article's statement about the record destruction. The BBC article mentions that both the College and Mullender claim that they were legally required to dispose of the records because they contained personally identifying information, which I'm sure is what Fellow3 meant by "ignoring the legal position". I think we should definitely include something about that for the sake of balance. The current wording is quite one-sided. -- Fyrael ( talk) 19:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Not having read the sources, I hvee no opinion on whether the extremely negative editorializing detail , some involving named staff members, is appropriate. (I came across it by accident--dealing with this is fortunately not my field.) DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
RE: Daniella Levine Cava and Jew-Tagging
So Daniella Levine Cava has come into the national American news cycle recently, and as such there have been much more edits to her page. Among these edits are the inclusion of her being Jewish. At first, they were unsourced so easy reverts, but now there are reliable sources so it's a lot more hazy now. Jew-tagging is an area of where I wish we had a formal policy/criterion regarding, or even at least an essay; I'm surprised we don't have anything considering how often Jew-tagging is used as an argument at WP:AN and WP:ANI. The only even semi-formal thing that exists regarding Jew-tagging is this signpost from April 2020. I'm just seeking clarity as to where the border is regarding Jew-tagging being included vs unincluded. Curbon7 ( talk) 01:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Clarity is not easy to come by here, it can be a difficult subject: See
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive306#Edward_Kosner and
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive316#Coffee_removing_Categories_and_Lists_Inappropriately.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (
talk) 10:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Have not looked at this particular case, but in general even if people are adding someone's Jewish ethnicity to an article (with a reliable source), no one should be wikilinking Jew or Jewish, per
WP:OVERLINK.
Edwardx (
talk) 10:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- The most common and obvious tagging is the mixing or substitution of religion or ethnicity for nationality in the lead sentence - changing "Xxxx Xxxx is a German physician" to "Xxxx Xxxx is a Jewish physician." This is explicitly deprecated in the MoS - see MOS:ETHNICITY. In most, but not all cases, it's being done as a subtler alternative to placing an echo to highlight that the politician, journalist, banker or whomever is Jewish. We have an edit filter to catch that, and other tagging elsewhere in the article. Occasionally we see someone who wishes to highlight Jewish pride, who does the same thing. A limited exception would be a rabbi or Talmudic scholar, but those are obvious and few, and even then we would not mix or substitute nationality. Farther into the article, it becomes a matter of whether it's something central to their biography. For a politician in Miami? It could be a matter of some significance, but I'm not familiar enough with Levine Cava's background to feel confident. I'll give an essay some thought, since I've been dealing with malicious Jew-tagging for a long time. Acroterion (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Have not looked at this particular case, but in general even if people are adding someone's Jewish ethnicity to an article (with a reliable source), no one should be wikilinking Jew or Jewish, per
WP:OVERLINK.
Edwardx (
talk) 10:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I note that as currently written, She is the first woman and the first person of Jewish descent to serve as mayor of Miami-Dade County.[3] is
WP:LEAD-only, that argues for this being Jew-Tagging.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (
talk) 12:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- If there's no substantial content in the body of the article to explain why that's important, then I agree.
Acroterion
(talk) 12:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I had a sharp intake of breath when I read that she had overcome the difficulty of actually being a socialist to get the position of Mayor. Gosh. A socialist!! who would have thought it. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- If there's no substantial content in the body of the article to explain why that's important, then I agree.
Acroterion
(talk) 12:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
We don't have a WP:JEWTAGGING, in case someone wants to write an essay or something. No Jewtagging either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Andy Ngo - an admin or team of admins need to step in
I thought this would be a fairly straightforward case of one highly partisan and Edit-Warring-Oriented editor being swiftly reprimanded, and allowing folk to get on with improving the NPOV and encyclopedic tone of the article... How wrong I was to assume that the majority of interested-editors would be concerned with Wikipedia Policy! [33]
A wise man once said...
"I never challenged the sources in the two sections ("Credibility" and "Doxxing"), not a once. It doesn't matter if what the sources say are 100% accurate, it is not encyclopedic. Are you trying to create an encyclopedia or a tabloid? This whole article, like so many recentist (not a word) BLPs, is an absolute disgrace. Wikipedia loses so much credibility by maintaining these high-traffic articles on relatively insignificant individuals, which become nothing more than a repository of "all-the-junk-we-can-find-on-the-internet-about-this-person-who-barely-deserves-an-article-in-the-first-place-but-is-current-and-in-the-online-news-and-US-culture-wars-so-now- they're-more-notable-according-to-Wikipedia-than-real-influential-journalists/writers/academics/intellectuals." I mean Daily Dot as a reliable source? FFS."
TomReagan90 ( talk) 03:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- This noticeboard is for discussing edits to BLP articles. Please don't post whimsical comments about other editors or wise men or Wikipedia's credibility. Just identify an article (a link), and text in the article that might be a problem, and why. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I apologize if I was unclear. It wasn't my intention to appear "whimsical", it was sarcasm I was aiming for, my bad. The article in question is /info/en/?search=Andy_Ngo . And the edits? Well, virtually every sentence is problematic, but, just starting with the very first one. The editor SPECIFICO removed the term "journalist" from the opening sentence. [34] Despite the fact that I provided him with no less of a source than the NY Times as referring to him as in independent journalist (not to mention his 300+ by-lines listed at MuckRack for everything from Newsweek to the Wall Street Journal to Fox News), yet SPECIFICO has pointedly decided not to self-revert.
- Likewise, the editor NorthBySouthBaranof, in one single revert [35] deleted six (seven?) of my edits, with a deliberately misleading edit-summary which only referred to the two "Criticism" sections (which still exist in clear breach of WP:BLP). At any rate, by doing so NorthBySouthBaranof managed to remove all reference to the best-selling book this gentleman has just published from the lede also.
- So we're now at the point where the opening sentence reads "Andy Cuong Ngô (/noʊ/ n-oh; born c. 1986) is an American conservative social media personality [sic, emphasis mine] known for covering and video-recording demonstrators." And it's all downhill from there.
TomReagan90 (
talk) 15:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Sarcasm of that kind is equally inappropriate in this venue. Please present your concerns clearly and concisely. From what I can tell this should be addressed on the article talk page or on an editor’s talk page if you believe that there is a behavioral issue here. If no result comes of the talk page discussion then this would be a good place to turn. What I can address is the contention that the existence of a criticism section is a “clear breach" of BLP: you are mistaken, it is not.
Horse Eye's Back (
talk) 15:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I do apologize for the sarcasm. From WP:BLPBALANCE: "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral." And from WP:BLPUNDEL: "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis." TomReagan90 ( talk) 16:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Sarcasm of that kind is equally inappropriate in this venue. Please present your concerns clearly and concisely. From what I can tell this should be addressed on the article talk page or on an editor’s talk page if you believe that there is a behavioral issue here. If no result comes of the talk page discussion then this would be a good place to turn. What I can address is the contention that the existence of a criticism section is a “clear breach" of BLP: you are mistaken, it is not.
Horse Eye's Back (
talk) 15:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- So we're now at the point where the opening sentence reads "Andy Cuong Ngô (/noʊ/ n-oh; born c. 1986) is an American conservative social media personality [sic, emphasis mine] known for covering and video-recording demonstrators." And it's all downhill from there.
TomReagan90 (
talk) 15:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm curious how you explain
this edit summary, given the fact that the source is quoted referring to Ngo in the very citation you removed. I find this especially concerning in light of your demonstrably false claim above that
NorthBySouthBaranof used a deceptive edit summary.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 15:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- The source doesn't even mention Ngo. It's either an old link, or it never existed. Click on the URL. That's why I deleted it.
TomReagan90 (
talk) 16:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you're mistaken. When I open
https://www.cjr.org/special_report/newsweek.php, I get an article that includes the quote
"discredited provocateur Andy Ngo"
. Is the article not coming up for you for some reason? – dlthewave ☎ 16:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)- Wow, that's wild! I get an article about someone called "Nancy Cooper". It reads: "In March 20, Nancy Cooper, the editor in chief of Newsweek, sent an email to her editorial staff. The subject was “What is a Newsweek story?” Crazy! It must be tailored to different international audiences. Where can I upload the screenshots?
TomReagan90 (
talk) 16:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- That's the opening sentence of the article that mentions Ngo. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thats the right article, now actually read it. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, that's wild! I get an article about someone called "Nancy Cooper". It reads: "In March 20, Nancy Cooper, the editor in chief of Newsweek, sent an email to her editorial staff. The subject was “What is a Newsweek story?” Crazy! It must be tailored to different international audiences. Where can I upload the screenshots?
TomReagan90 (
talk) 16:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you're mistaken. When I open
https://www.cjr.org/special_report/newsweek.php, I get an article that includes the quote
- Excuse me? My "demonstrably false claim above that NorthBySouthBaranof used a deceptive edit summary"? Please substantiate this claim. How was NorthBySouthBaranof's edit summary not deceptive? He referred only to the two "sections" I removed. Yet he deleted the entirety of my contributions, with justification - until now (except for the mistake I admitted to regarding the linking of the book in the bibliography). By reverting all my contributions (which is surely a breach of 1RR) he undid, what I regard as, the improvements I made to the lede. So, please explain your charge MjolnirPants
TomReagan90 (
talk) 16:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- You already substantiated it for me by linking to the diff. It's right there for everyone but you to see that NBSB's edit summary is a fair description of the edit. And no, my revert is not a breach of 1RR. And I explained that revert in the edit summary: you're very clearly attempting to whitewash the article of a disreputable individual. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- The source doesn't even mention Ngo. It's either an old link, or it never existed. Click on the URL. That's why I deleted it.
TomReagan90 (
talk) 16:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm curious how you explain
this edit summary, given the fact that the source is quoted referring to Ngo in the very citation you removed. I find this especially concerning in light of your demonstrably false claim above that
NorthBySouthBaranof used a deceptive edit summary.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 15:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that before NorthBySouthBaranof mass reversion of all my edits, my version of the lede read like so:
Andy Cuong Ngô (/noʊ/ n-oh; born c. 1986) is an American conservative journalist known for covering and video-recording demonstrators and for his 2021 book "Unmasked: Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy". He is the editor-at-large of The Post Millennial, and a frequent contributor to the Conservative Review, Newsweek, RealClearPolitics, the New York Post and Fox News. He has also has published columns in outlets such as the Wall Street Journal and The Spectator.
Ngô first gained national notoriety for his controversial coverage of left-wing "Antifa" protestors, including a physical assault against himself that was shared widely on social media and attracted comments from US Congressmen. However, Ngô's journalistic objectivity and credibility has been the subject of criticism, as he has been accused of sharing misleading or selective material, and described by some as a provocateur.
Which I regard as significantly more neutral, informative and encyclopedic when compared with what stands now. But I am of course happy to be shown to be wrong. TomReagan90 ( talk) 15:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I thought this would be a fairly straightforward case of one highly partisan and Edit-Warring-Oriented editor being swiftly reprimanded
may turn out to be true, but not in the manner you expected. Ngo is not notable for being a (sort-of) journalist, his notoriety is for being an agent provocateur who misrepresents the facts to suit his narrative. This is well-established and supported by the sourcing present in the article. ValarianB ( talk) 16:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)- That may very well all be true, I don't particularly care, I have no dog in the fight (not American, not Rightist, not interested!) - it's just the encyclopedic tone I'm fighting for. It's the credibility of the Wiki Project that troubles me - not Andy Ngo whose videos and articles I've still never seen, and never will. I object to the Tabloidization and Twitterization of Wikipedia, not to Ngo's character or lack thereof. I hate the fact that I have to keep stating this over and over. NorthBySouthBaranof has already accused me 3 times of somehow being in cahoots with Ngo for personal or financial gain! TomReagan90 ( talk) 16:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Isaac_Butterfield_(comedian)
The page reads like a self-promotional spiel with little to ground it and mostly contains self-published, self-promoting references.
- Of the fifteen linked references: 8 Youtube videos are linked, none with any special reason, and they're all on his own channel;
- one link is to the general home page of his website (i.e. no specific reference);
- one link uses Web Archive to disguise that it links to his merch shop;
- one link is to his general podcast home page (i.e. no specific reference);
- one is his IMDB;
- only three are outside articles about controversy caused by his white nationalist views; and
- the article proudly brags of these views in the first paragraph, this is dogwhistling;
- the article contains trolling e.g. "resembles a Greek God".
The page has been semi-protected yet the self-promoting references and 'greek god' description have been left standing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Similarbite ( talk • contribs) 09:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, I have made Isaac Butterfield (comedian) a bit more neutral, and removed most of the YouTune references. Edwardx ( talk) 22:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Max Kolonko
Max Kolonko ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Max Kolonko is a journalist with low online following, who has attempted to go into Polish politics. His run was mostly unsucessful, however he still has a small number of loyal followers. I have reason to believe Rafalwlo is one of them. He cites poorly sourced and dubious claims, such as "threatened to otherwise issue a national call to boycott the election. [14] On April 30 2020 the call was picked up by three former Polish presidents and six prime ministers"" - this is an overreach. It is true that those figures have made such a call, but Max Kolonko had little do with it, and the source (now offline) says no such thing.
He has self-proclaimed himself a president of Poland (or to be exact, a completely unrecognized country of "The United States of Poland". The page currently states it as if it was an encyclopedic fact, and not merely his own words. Since Kolonko was a fairly well known recognized journalist a couple of years ago, media picked it up and mentioned it, however it is clear it isn't an endoresment or anything of the sort. Additionally, some of the sources cited link to his own political movements website - r-us.com.
I strongly believe an impartial opinion of an experienced editor (preferably some proficient with Polish language and politics) is needed.
77.65.1.253 ( talk) 18:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Looking at this article, most of the claims are cited to unreliable or primary sources, and it's been that way for years. It's essentially a
hagiography at this point. I chimed in at the Talk page that we might need to identify which sources are reliable and
start over.
Woodroar (
talk) 18:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think more BLPN regulars might want to look at this, especially any Polish speakers. I've outlined some of the problems at Talk:Max Kolonko#Rewrite based on reliable sources but I'm just not seeing much we can do with this article. One source mentions the subject as having a popular YouTube channel in Poland. Another is an opinion piece. The remaining sources are unreliable or are connected in some way to the subject, or are mostly unremarkable awards with no third-party coverage of the subject winning them. There might be more coverage at Google News, but I'm not sure which sources are reliable and which are not. Woodroar ( talk) 15:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Eric Clapton
Eric Clapton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have questioned the use of a quote attributed to Eric Clapton regarding a controversial incident at a Birmingham concert in 1976, cutting down what was not provided in the sources given (I would have deleted the whole thing, but was afraid someone would restore it and accuse me of being protective of the subject, rather than give a fair assessment). Another user brought back the longer quote (or at least something very similar), introducing more citations (all secondary): 1, 2, and 3. I then got into an argument on the talk page over whether or not the current sources were reliable, in that none of them verified the quote verbatim.
The user in question, JG66, has insisted the sources were reliable despite the lack of verification (for all we know, the respective authors got the alleged quote from Wikipedia), and that inclusion of the quote was fine if Clapton didn't object to it (even though that doesn't prove he said it exactly). JG66 also accused me of being "overzealous" after mere hours of discussion.
Sorry, this leaves me flabbergasted. I thought a BLP would be cautious about unproven quotes, yet someone claims this is okay just because it links to websites and an author considered reliable (appeal to authority?). I'm confused here. GarfieldHelper0 ( talk) 05:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- GarfieldHelper0, my apologies, but I think your interlocutor has the better part of the argument here. On Wikipedia, we base our content on verifiability, not truth -- see WP:VNT. And that means it IS okay if it links to reliable sources. Now granted, for the stuff in question, you would want high quality sources, but I think the three you link us to make for pretty solid sourcing. We're not a courtroom here -- we don't insist on first-hand accounts. All that said, reasonable minds may differ and others may disagree. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 06:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for that response. I am rather disheartened by the verdict (and with VNT, at least in some cases), but I can accept it for the time being. While I remain skeptical of the verbatim quote, I don't think there are much, if any, sources to the contrary. My main caveat aside, I think most of the links provided are likely okay (The Baffler notwithstanding, but I digress). I also figure the (mostly online) arguments over the incident won't cool down even if the Wikipedia article for Eric Clapton has nothing from that alleged quote. Thanks again, nevertheless.
GarfieldHelper0 (
talk) 06:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- GarfieldHelper0, I appreciate that it's not always the easiest pill to swallow, so thank you for taking my thoughts in the spirit in which they were offered. I agree, this will do nothing to calm the tsuris over Clapton, and as an old-guy guitarist myself, I feel I have a dog in this fight. At any rate, cheers and happy editing. Dumuzid ( talk) 06:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for that response. I am rather disheartened by the verdict (and with VNT, at least in some cases), but I can accept it for the time being. While I remain skeptical of the verbatim quote, I don't think there are much, if any, sources to the contrary. My main caveat aside, I think most of the links provided are likely okay (The Baffler notwithstanding, but I digress). I also figure the (mostly online) arguments over the incident won't cool down even if the Wikipedia article for Eric Clapton has nothing from that alleged quote. Thanks again, nevertheless.
GarfieldHelper0 (
talk) 06:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Libelous information in lines 20 and 62. See diff below
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bret_Weinstein&diff=next&oldid=1031657044— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:197:4480:F0:51D7:7286:4AD5:7D16 ( talk • contribs)
- Courtesy ping for Justiyaya Who reverted the eits by now-blocked Cs1327 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at said article. Victor Schmidt ( talk) 07:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- This is the fourth noticeboard this is now at. Is this really necessary? (see FTN RSN NPOVN). Alexbrn ( talk) 07:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping Victor Schmidt. Hi anon, I reverted the edits because the editor isn't really in good standing, the edits have been reverted before, the removed section seemed to have enough citations to support the claims and my first revert also fixed bad formatting. After looking through the article again, I believe that the section that was removed (but reintroduced or reverted by me) was fine, but I will also support a rewording (rewording "Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying have spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic on numerous occasions" to a more conservative, less blunt version) of the section if it is suggested by any editors. Just i yaya 08:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Arkebe Oqubay
The article on Arkebe Oqubay reads like a hagiography, with nice sentences praising the person. Text of earlier versions, that is not "politically correct" anymore, has been removed. Needs a warning header, and call for clean up, and retrieval of older texts. Rastakwere ( talk) 17:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- @ Rastakwere: Although I agree the article doesn't seem particularly neutrally written, what "older texts" that are not "politically correct" any more have been removed? I had a quick look at the history and don't see any such content. If anything removed content has been worse e.g. [36] Nil Einne ( talk) 22:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
The article Philip_N._Howard may be targeted for trolling and malinformation because of the nature of his work. One anon user generates long "criticism" sections, using twitter, blogs, tabloid, and ultra conservative outlets as sources or turning points of academic debate into personal criticism. Attempts to reconcile rebuffed and simply restored without new sourcing. Can someone help artibrate?— Preceding unsigned comment added by EJackIpuppy ( talk • contribs)
- I am starting to clean the article up as it seemed more like a resume/cv. Disputes about the article's content should be discussed on its talk page. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 00:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Iskra Velinova
The birthdate for Iskra is incorrect. It should be 8 Aug, not 18 Aug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutsf15c ( talk • contribs) 16:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- @ Nutsf15c, I've removed the full date of birth as a privacy issue. —valereee ( talk) 22:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists
There is an ongoing deletion discussion of this category, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_3#Category:COVID-19_conspiracy_theorists. Participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is objected to constant unsincere and unsubstantiated changes. There is a lot of activity on different internet sites which appears aimed at furthering the impact of Sedat Pekers YouTube videos. The changes on wikipedia are highly political and usually doesn't adhere to the guidelines.
There might be a case for setting the article in locked mode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.216.129.74 ( talk • contribs)
Himanta_Biswa_Sarma Official Portrait of the Chief Minister of Assam is being changed unnecessarily.
Do not add random pictures of the chief minister of Assam. The current picture is released by the Chief Minister's Office as the official portrait. https://assam.gov.in/honble-dignitaries/211 @Goswami21- Do not change the image without explaining yourself. If you think there are valid reasons behind your actions, then explain yourself.
Claude Joseph
The Article on Haitian politician Claude Joseph was updated today and that update if factually incorrect and gives total misleading information and further leaves out other important information, such as the fact that the President of Haiti and the governing council replaced Claude Joseph as acting Prime Minister and named Dr. Ariel Henry as Prime Minister two days ago.
The article has been written today with the following lines: "He ascended to the Presidency as a result of President Jovenel Moïse's assassination in the early hours of Wednesday 7 July 2021." "Claude Joseph is a Haitian politician serving as Acting President of Haiti since 7 July 2021, additionally he also serves as Interim Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship."
Apparently the contributor that wrote this either has jumped the gun or wants Mr. Joseph to become President of Haiti. Numerous articles have been written specifically stating the line of succession in the Haitian Constitution, and the "interim prime minister' who was just replaced is not on the list!
This article needs change to reflect reality and the law of Haiti. If Mr. Claude Joseph continues to act as Interim Prime Minister and does not resign and allow Dr. Henry to take over from him, or, claims to be the new president at some point in time without cabinet or council approval then the article can be re-written to clearly state those events in clear language as to what Mr. Joseph has done or claimed to do, legally or otherwise.
Larry Erickson 47.136.208.220 ( talk) 20:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
References
Twelve Forever
A new user added information about the creator of the television show Twelve Forever in this diff. I reverted the edit here, with an edit summary stating, "When discussing living people, high quality sources are needed. See WP:BLP." My reasoning was that the sources used were from an internet forum and thus did not meet WP:BLP. I then had a lengthy discussion with the user who wanted to add the information at User talk:FairyKingCorn and tried to explain our BLP policy.
I then examined the existing text of the section and found that two of the sources used to discuss the controversy around the creator of the show are probably BLP violations since the sources used to back up the contentions are not reliable. Specifically, one source ( Odyssey (publication)) is user-generated and the other ( Big League Politics) was the subject of a previous RSN discussion which seemed to indicate the source was unreliable. I have looked for reliable sources online to substitute, but I have not been able to find high quality sources appropriate for a BLP.
I removed the content but would appreciate some second opinions to make sure what I'm doing is appropriate since this is a sensitive topic and I would not describe BLPs to be my specialty area. I'm sure the user I discussed this issue with will object as well. (Also, the last time I edited this same section of this article, I seem to have really annoyed another user.) I appreciate any feedback and I am happy to defer to whatever consensus develops. Aoi (青い) ( talk) 07:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- The user has an internet archival website containing screenshots of any deleted messages from the subject, which would back-up the unreliable sources, however the screenshots are from the subject's Twitter and Tumblr pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FairyKingCorn ( talk • contribs)
- This looks like a good removal.
- I just did a google news search for
"Julia Vickerman" pedophileand"Julia Vickerman" stalking"and got nothing, which means whatever it is that started whatever kerfuffle these edits refer to was not juicy enough bait for any of the tabloids to bite, which in turn means there's nothing for the best news sources to write about. - Even the most professional looking source cited (Odyssey) claims to be UGC on its about page and doesn't even hint at any editorial staff or fact-checkers. Big League Politics indicates some efforts towards fact-checking in their first principle, but then the second principle takes a rather ill-informed view of the press' relationship with politicians by confusing journalists and lobbyists. That's a misconception that I see echoed by a whole lot of unreliable sources, and which I've never seen made by a reliable source. On top of that, a couple of conspiracy theories pushed by the site were highlighted in that linked RSN discussion.
- Additionally, reading the original post as cited in the reverted edit, and the tweets cited on the forum indicates little more than a weirdo being weird, so it's not surprising that nobody's picked up on it. Yes, it's creepy. But is it evidence of actually her being a pedophile (hebephile, if you want to be pedantic)? No, not even close. It's in the same ballpark, but up in the nosebleeds playing on it's phone and ignoring the game.
- This is, curiously enough, one of the rare clear-cut BLP vios I've seen on this noticeboard. You're correct to revert, and this content should not be added back in without high quality sourcing. If an edit war ensues, or you experience too much pushback, I'd notify an admin. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- This is actually funny that this is coming up again, because I'm 100% sure the comment "the last time I edited this same section of this article, I seem to have really annoyed another user" is referring to me, and specifically to this discussion last fall. I originally added those sources (probably some time in September 2020) with my thought process as "oh, these sources seem fine, and they talk about the controversy, yay!" but looking at them now, I admit, they aren't good sources. And I can't say I agree with anything I said back then. I'd say here that I am totally ok with removing those sources. I guess its just Twitter lore about the show based on a Tumblr post Vickerman published where she tagged "pedophila" or something. That's my memory of what I've seen on Twitter. But, even a general google search for "Julia Vickerman controversy" doesn't seem to come up with any reliable sources, just stuff like this. All EW says about Vickerman's departure from the show is: "EW has learned the producers on Twelve Forever parted ways with series creator Julia Vickerman. While a reason wasn’t given, various claims shared over Twitter allege a hostile work environment. A rep for Netflix declined to comment." That's it. So, I added that into that section (summarized of course), and improved it a little. So, I have to say I agree with ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants and FairyKingCorn. Historyday01 ( talk) 18:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- @
MPants at work and
Historyday01: Thank you for taking time to review the situation and the sources, and for trying to identify if there were any secondary sources that I missed. I greatly appreciate your perspectives and analysis and now feel better about the edits I made.
Aoi (青い) (
talk) 20:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, its my pleasure! I think I've gotten a lot better at editing since I had that discussion with you back in October of last year, so it makes more sense now than it did then. Historyday01 ( talk) 20:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- No problem. I calls em like I sees em, and your revert looks mighty fine to me.
- That should be read in Foghorn Leghorn's voice, for full effect. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- @
MPants at work and
Historyday01: Thank you for taking time to review the situation and the sources, and for trying to identify if there were any secondary sources that I missed. I greatly appreciate your perspectives and analysis and now feel better about the edits I made.
Aoi (青い) (
talk) 20:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Birth date disagreement
On Sky Brown, there is a disagreement about her birth date. Multiple newspaper sources give her birth date (implicitly) as 12 July 2008 e.g. [38] says she would be 12 years and 12 days at the original Olympic date (24 July 2020), and [39] says that she will be 13 years and 11 days on the day the Olympics now starts (23 July 2021)- this 13 years 11 days is also published in many other news sources. Both of these collaborate a dob of 12 July 2008. However, many new users including Lean1015 saying that her birth date is 7 July 2008, the source for this being her talent agency. 7 July 2008 also appears in some other self published, non reliable websites too. What should we do with regards to this disputed birth date? Joseph 2302 ( talk) 23:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
-
Joseph2302, do we need to include a date of birth at all?
WP:BLPPRIVACY says
Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public.
If we're having to calculate their birthday, that suggests to me that the date of birth is not widely published in reliable sources. And we should be even more cautious on articles about children, per WP:MINORS. Woodroar ( talk) 18:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)- I agree, let's stop posting the personal details of children, there's no need for a under-16 person's details to be in an encyclopedia.
ValarianB (
talk) 19:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Fine by me, as long as we're this stringent when IP users try and readd a dob. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 20:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've added a record of this discussion at Talk:Sky Brown#No birth date. Hopefully that'll stop the influx of requests relating to adding/changing the dob. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 08:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, let's stop posting the personal details of children, there's no need for a under-16 person's details to be in an encyclopedia.
ValarianB (
talk) 19:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Scott Stapp
Found some very weird edits inserting images of Stapp in various articles. [40], [41]. My guess is that there is someone who is trying to do this for Googlehacking purposes. If someone could go through and look at the uses of various images of this person to see if there may be other places I missed, that would be good. Also, it looks like these images keep getting reinserted into the articles over extended periods of time even after reverts. jps ( talk) 13:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Kavita Radheshyam
Kavita Radheshyam ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Would someone have a look at the lead section of this article and do whatever they feel is right. I have taken administrative action on the page so I’m recusing myself from content editing there. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
-
Malcolmxl5 I've removed the whole of the second paragraph, since the lede is supposed to summarise the article not add stuff that's not mentioned elsewhere. If someone wants to add the bits that have sources somewhere further down in the article, I wouldn't object.
Neiltonks (
talk) 08:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, Neiltonks. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Jon Hammes
Hello, I am looking for help with the article for Milwaukee businessman, Jon Hammes. For a while now, I've observed that his Wikipedia article is very atypical/not in line with biographies you see for other business people on Wikipedia. Much of the information in the article is not about Mr. Hammes himself nor is there information about his personal history and family. It feels (from my perspective, at least) like the page may have been created to push a particular viewpoint. I am looking for editors to give this an unbiased review because I have a COI as an employee of Hammes Company. I started my Wikipedia account to ask for edits to his page. I recognize it is a lot of work to address a Wikipedia article like this in its entirety, so I have worked on a draft and started with a suggestion to add some biographical details. My request is here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Jon_Hammes#Biographical_details_to_add
This noticeboard seemed like a good place for this request since editors here see a lot of biographical articles. Could anyone here help me?
Thank you. Brad KM ( talk) 18:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
The article describes Alan Dershowitz as an alleged sexual predator matter of factly in the controversies section. 132.147.45.65 ( talk) 04:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Meanwhile, Gerken handled another case very differently. In January 2020, when Trump attorney and alleged sexual predator Alan Dershowitz, with ties to convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, made a complaint to Gerken regarding medical faculty Bandy X. Lee about her public speech,[23] the Law School immediately ceased referring student cases to Lee,[24] which led to her termination from Yale for having no "formal teaching role."[25] Lee had been a popular professor[26] who taught at the Law School since 2003[27] through a partnership with Yale School of Medicine, covering mental health aspects of asylum law, criminal justice, and veterans’ legal services.[28] Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe dubbed it "a disgusting way for any university to act."[29] Lee is taking legal action listing five causes, including breach of contract, breach of good faith, and wrongful termination.[30]
132.147.45.65 ( talk) 04:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- I removed the alleged thing as at a minimum I think we need further details in the Gerken article if we're going to mention that. The ties thing doesn't really seem to count as further details since it's not necessary to mention the alleged thing if that is all there is. I've left in the ties thing since that sort of stands on its on although I'm not entirely happy with it. Note that the Trump thing while a part of the case is also without explanation in our article, it seems like a random detail just thrown in. I'm on wikibreak so won't be dealing with this any more but saw this when checking out the above and felt it was serious enough to try and partly deal with.
Nil Einne (
talk) 13:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Scratch that. I removed the whole thing since when reading again I realised it makes no sense that the law school would be significantly responsible for firing someone's who's main expertise and employment at Yale was medicine. Looking more carefully, none of the secondary sources mention Gerken except I couldn't check law360 so I don't know. This source [42] specifically says she had no connection to the law school. Perhaps that came about because of Gerken's actions I don't know. It's irrelevant to us as editors as long as the only sources mentioning it are court filings or other such legal documents. Until Gerken's alleged actions in relation to Lee are covered in reliable secondary sources, this stays out of her page. Nil Einne ( talk) 15:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Patrick McDermott
- Disappearance of Patrick McDermott ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Not sure if this fits here, but this is a good place as any. This individual disappeared in June 2005, presumed drowned. Since they were the romantic partner of famous actress Olivia Newton-John, they have been repeatedly subject to unsubstantiated tabloid rumours over the last 15 years that they are still alive in Mexico. The article is currently a mess of claims and needs cleanup. Thanks. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
User:Ibrahim shichenje
This user page purports to be a bio of the person whose name the account is named for. But it ends with unsourced negative claims involving criminal activity. Since it's a user page, I assume I'm not allowed to edit it, so I'm bringing it to the attention of others here. Largoplazo ( talk) 14:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Tagged for deletion WP:NOTHOST. Notfrompedro ( talk) 15:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
There are weakly sourced negative assertions of criminal activity, not all of which has apparently led to a conviction. I 'm not in a position to find good sources on this subject, so I'd appreciate another editor looking. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- @ DGG: I found Italian ex-minister jailed for nine years over bribery from Business Standard but that was all I could find for the actual conviction. For the fraud assertions, there is also an article from The New York Times: Italian governor is held on corruption charges. I don't know if either of these help at all. Notfrompedro ( talk) 15:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
H. D. Kumaraswamy
This article H. D. Kumaraswamy is filled with undue accusations in the controversy section likely by one user. Most of the page is now controversy and violates BLP. 2409:4072:806:73D5:2B21:F8A7:7958:1AF3 ( talk) 19:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I believe the material added to this article in [43] may be WP:BLPREMOVE or WP:UNDUE. I'm not able to read french clearly but it seems to me the translation of the information from the source has been mangled. I've tried to communicate this with the editor who added this but so far haven't gotten any dialog other than their initial message on my talk page. I'd appreciate clarification or discussion. Philipnelson99 ( talk) 18:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- It's not comprehensible in English and, to the extent that it is understandable, violates NPOV for the reasons you've stated. I reverted and pointed the editor to the talk page. I'll also drop a note on the user's talk.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib) 18:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- @
Eggishorn thanks. I just had been thinking about it and wanted a second look. I didn't realize there was a BLP noticeboard to handle this exact situation.
Philipnelson99 (
talk) 19:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- @ Eggishorn, the same content has been added again by a different editor without any discussion. Philipnelson99 ( talk) 01:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- @
Eggishorn thanks. I just had been thinking about it and wanted a second look. I didn't realize there was a BLP noticeboard to handle this exact situation.
Philipnelson99 (
talk) 19:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Is Layla Love a brand name foremost? What is her given name and what makes her notable? This biography of an artist unknown to the general public reads like a press release and links a website of merchandise. When I search this artist, a more popular person with the same name comes up and is an adult film actress.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sennagod ( talk • contribs) 13:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've removed what seems to be unsourced and confusing puffery from the lede. As for the rest of the article, it certainly comes across as rather promotional, and could do with trimming. I suspect that the sources cited are sufficient to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines though. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Jamie-Lee O'Donnell
Persistent attempts to add date of birth, when as detailed at Talk:Jamie-Lee O'Donnell there are multiple references giving different dates/ages, making the person's date, or even year, of birth unclear. FDW777 ( talk) 17:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Ramiz King : unfair edits by @bonadea
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ramiz King ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I want to highlight that I tried voicing my opinion to Bonadea on their talk page but they deleted it. It was about how they labeled a well reputed reliable source from Hindustan Times as a press release when it was a editorial independent and interviewed article written by a reputed journalist and this editor did not take in consideration that Hindustan Times adds a disclaimer to their press release articles and without any evidence they made a press release comment visible on the article and when confronted the messages were hidden and this makes me question all their edits which I want another mediator to do so too without being biased. Is this truly a fair space? Positiveilluminati ( talk) 19:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- @ Positiveilluminati: Your related complaint at WP:AN has just been rejected. Looks like you're admin-shopping. Favonian ( talk) 19:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Donald Trump's mental health
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would it be within policy (such as WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:NFRINGE) to add the following line to Donald Trump?
Since running for president, [1] Trump's temperament and mental fitness has been a regular topic of public discussion. [2] Trump has responded by saying that he has a "great temperament" [3] and is a "very stable genius". [4]
A similar issue was discussed at BLPN#Dianne Feinstein's health with @ Snooganssnoogans, Springee, Masem, ValarianB, GoodDay, Aquillion, PackMecEng, The Four Deuces, Einsof, and Elizium23:, and at Help desk#Health speculation with @ Alexis Jazz and Novem Linguae:
A relevant example is Kim Jong-un#Health which mentions the 2020 rumor of his death.
The outcome of this discussion could lead to a change to Donald Trump#Current consensus #39. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 19:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Updated proposal with quotes found here. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 19:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Levin, Aaron (25 August 2016). "History of Goldwater Rule Recalled as Media Try to Diagnose Trump". Psychiatric News. American Psychiatric Association. doi: 10.1176/appi.pn.2016.9a13. Retrieved 25 April 2020.
-
^
- McCarthy, Michael (February 17, 2017). "Experts debate Trump's mental health in US press". BMJ. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j864.
-
"White House Daily Briefing January 4, 2018". CSPAN. Retrieved 20 March 2021.
REPORTER: WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT'S REACTION TO THE GROWING NUMBER OF SUGGESTIONS BOTH IN THIS BOOK AND THE MEDIA THAT HE IS MENTALLY UNFIT TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT? MS. SANDERS: THE SAME WAY WE HAVE WHEN IT HAS BEEN ASKED BEFORE COMBAT IT IS DISGRACEFUL AND LAUGHABLE. IF HE WAS UNFIT, ...
- Rucker, Philip; Parker, Ashley (8 January 2018). "The White House struggles to silence talk of Trump's mental fitness". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 28 March 2020. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
- Maza, Carlos (24 January 2018). "The awkward debate over Trump's mental fitness". Vox. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
- Haghbayan, Hourmazd; Coomes, Eric A.; Cheema, Asim N.; Shojania, Kaveh G. (October 2018). "Media Dissemination of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment After President Donald Trump's Medical Evaluation". JAMA Neurology. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.1777. PMC 6233843.
- "The 25th Amendment: Can Trump be declared unfit for office? Democratic Congress members tell Vice President Pence that Trump cannot remain for full term as not 'mentally sound'". Al Jazeera. January 7, 2021. Retrieved 20 March 2021.
- ^ Cillizza, Chris (1 August 2016). "Donald Trump's ABC interview may be his best/worst yet". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 17 October 2019. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
-
^
- Rucker, Philip; Leonnig, Carol (2020). A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump's Testing of America. Penguin Press. ISBN 9781984877505.
- Cummings, William (July 11, 2019). "Trump says he's 'so great looking and smart, a true Stable Genius' in tweet bashing 2020 Dems". USA Today. Retrieved 22 May 2020.
- Parker, Ashley; Wan, William (July 22, 2020). "Trump keeps boasting about passing a cognitive test — but it doesn't mean what he thinks it does". Washington Post. Retrieved 1 July 2021.
- I would oppose any mention of "mental fitness". I don't see any problems with descriptions of temperament and personality quirks. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Bear in mind the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump, which focused to a great degree on reports regarding his mental health. BD2412 T 20:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Temperament and personality should be fair game, with all caveats of RS, BLP, NPOV, etc. Mental health rumor mongering is a problem in line with the
Goldwater rule, which maybe should be adopted by Wikipedia. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 20:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- The Goldwater Rule does not prevent members of the APA from discussing the fact that Trump's mental health is discussed in the media. Dr. Jack Drescher said the following in the APA's own publication:
"In the past four years, claims were repeatedly made about the mental health of President Trump and his psychological fitness to govern. As an APA member who follows the Goldwater Rule, I cannot ethically comment in a public, professional capacity on the mental health status of public figures—nor do I wish to.
" [44] Kolya Butternut ( talk) 20:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- The Goldwater Rule does not prevent members of the APA from discussing the fact that Trump's mental health is discussed in the media. Dr. Jack Drescher said the following in the APA's own publication:
- Given the consensus clearly expressed in the deletion process noted by
User:BD2412, I suggest you'll need much newer sources than those provided above. The many cogent arguments made in that deletion discussion demonstrate it would be difficult to find page consensus for inclusion on the subject's main article page. It's a BLP; the threshold is necessarily high. Putting these older sorts of sources and assertions into the Presidency of DT page would be more likely successful, but still unlikely.
BusterD (
talk) 20:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Unless those sources are
WP:MEDRS based upon direct examinations of the subject (not mere speculation), then I doubt they'll pass muster for BLP purposes. Due to things such as doctor-patient confidentiality, requests such as this almost never make it into articles.
Zaereth (
talk) 20:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- I have 2020 and 2021 sources included above. My proposal is not to write about Trump's health, but to write about the media's discussion of his health. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 20:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Unless those sources are
WP:MEDRS based upon direct examinations of the subject (not mere speculation), then I doubt they'll pass muster for BLP purposes. Due to things such as doctor-patient confidentiality, requests such as this almost never make it into articles.
Zaereth (
talk) 20:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- A distinction without a difference.
Zaereth (
talk) 20:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think there is; and I cited WP:NFRINGE. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 20:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- A distinction without a difference.
Zaereth (
talk) 20:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Trump was nuts & Biden is senile, so competing news media have told us. Which do we believe? GoodDay ( talk) 20:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Psychologists breaking the Goldwater rule and right-wing pundits spewing nonsense are very different beasts. Media coverage of the former is a question worth discussing (though only the media coverage of it; such claims should not be given credence for the same reason the Goldwater rule exists). The latter is clearly not suitable for inclusion.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 21:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- A question. If one of Trump's political opponents made a statement directly questioned his mental health, would we be able to cover it? Specifically, if they were to call him "slow", "crazy", "nutty", or terms like that, could we include those (with attribution) anywhere on Wikipedia, as we do on eg.
List of nicknames used by Donald Trump? Because Trump has called a lot of people crazy and we currently cover all of those despite the lack of a formal diagnosis. --
Aquillion (
talk) 23:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- I mean, if it were notable enough, yeah. In the case of Trump's disparagement of others, he's done so to a degree that the media took note, which made it notable (much to my chagrin, I might add).
- I'll note that this is why I said there's a discussion to be had about the Goldwater rule violations. We should be covering those incidents using the principles of WP:FRINGE, even though it could be argued convincingly that they're not actually fringe opinions (I'm sure there's a lot of agreement among psychologists that Trump isn't exactly "all there"). We write about what third parties have said about them, good and bad, with a focus on reality (that reality being that none of these experts have actually formally diagnosed Trump). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- A question. If one of Trump's political opponents made a statement directly questioned his mental health, would we be able to cover it? Specifically, if they were to call him "slow", "crazy", "nutty", or terms like that, could we include those (with attribution) anywhere on Wikipedia, as we do on eg.
List of nicknames used by Donald Trump? Because Trump has called a lot of people crazy and we currently cover all of those despite the lack of a formal diagnosis. --
Aquillion (
talk) 23:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Psychologists breaking the Goldwater rule and right-wing pundits spewing nonsense are very different beasts. Media coverage of the former is a question worth discussing (though only the media coverage of it; such claims should not be given credence for the same reason the Goldwater rule exists). The latter is clearly not suitable for inclusion.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 21:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- You cannot say something has been a regular topic of public discussion without a source that exactly says that, per unattributed contentions. Obviously for someone with his profile, lots of people are going to discuss him, but it's not significant unless it is noted in reliable sources.
- The lone source used is a BMJ news article that says 35 mental health professionals wrote a letter saying that "was unable to tolerate views different from his own." Sure that comes under temperament and mental health, but without reporting what they said it makes the criticism seem worse than it was. Also, 35 mental health professionals isn't a significant number. The American Psychiatric Association has 38.800 members, while the American Psychological Association hasw over 122,000 members.
- Also, instead of quoting Trump's response, it would be better just to say he rejects the claim. Without context, it's unclear if he was being ironic, whether that's how he normally speaks or whether he has delusions of grandeur.
- If you included it in a section about his personality, I would say that a group of medical professionals wrote a letter to the New York Times saying that Trump's lack of tolerance of other views made him unfit for office. That would be a neutral tone.
-
TFD (
talk) 22:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- "
[C]olumnists and op-ed writers decided en masse to diagnose one of the candidates with mental illness.
(Levin) - "
The White House is struggling to contain the national discussion about President Trump's mental acuity and fitness for the job
".(Rucker) - "
Is Trump mentally unfit to be president? That is an awkward question, but it's one that's being asked on every major news network in America. President Trump's fitness for office is now the top story in the country.
"(Maza, video) - "
The cognitive fitness of President of the United States Donald Trump and the ethics of his cognitive evaluation have been the topic of intense discussion among both the general public and medical professionals in recent months.
"(Haghbayan) - It could be included in a public image section. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 22:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Just to be completely clear, are you questioning whether sources that say that Trump's mental health has been a regular topic of public discussion exist, or are you just noting that we would have to actually include them? Either way, they plainly do exist (some of them referenced above, but for completeness):
-
[45]:
Trump’s mental health (or lack thereof) is a trending topic on the Internet; on cable news programs; in magazines and newspapers; and most hilariously on Saturday Night Live. And political pundits, politicians and comedians pored over the so-called Bible of Psychiatry, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and reached the consensus that Trump suffers from narcissistic personality disorder.
(The author opposes this diagnoses, but acknowledges that Trump's health has been a major focus of conversation over an extended period of time.) -
[46]
After several calls from high profile psychiatrists with concerns about Trump’s mental health, what does the MoCA tell us about his cognitive health?
- Experts debate Trump’s mental health in US press
-
Scientific American
Yet the rioters’ actions—and Trump’s own role in, and response to, them—come as little surprise to many, particularly those who have been studying the president’s mental fitness and the psychology of his most ardent followers since he took office.
-
CJR:
Just about every week, the media invites a psychiatrist or psychologist to admonish other psychiatrists or psychologists for calling Donald Trump mentally ill.
-
Politico:
Consequently, he is plainly out of sorts, say former close associates, longtime Trump watchers and mental health experts.
...The people who’ve known Trump well, the people who’ve watched him for a long, long time, the mental health professionals — they’re worried, they told me, about what’s to come, in the next month, and in the months and years after that.
-
Washington Post
The White House is struggling to contain the national discussion about President Trump's mental acuity and fitness for the job, which has overshadowed the administration's agenda for the past week.
-
mlive.com:
U.S. Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Holly, joined growing calls to remove President Donald Trump from office before the next president is sworn in on Jan. 20, citing concerns from high ranking military officials that Trump is unfit for office. Slotkin, a former CIA analyst and Pentagon official, said she’s been in conversation with senior military officials at the Pentagon who are concerned about the president’s mental health. Members of Congress were forced to evacuate offices and barricade themselves as pro-Trump protesters broke into the U.S. Capitol and disrupted the certification of Electoral College votes.
-
BBC:
It is a question that has dogged Donald Trump - fairly or otherwise - since he was elected president: is he mentally fit for office?
-
[45]:
- I can find many more comparable sources if people want to see them, but you get the idea. Note that many of these sources are new and postdate previous discussions (in particular there was increased coverage following the January 6th riots, though almost all of it notes that it is an extended controversy that dogged him for most of his time in office.) I think it's obviously important that we avoid implying a specific diagnosis in the article voice, but given the sustained nature of those discussions and the significant impact it had, we have to acknowledge that they took place; when it comes to public figures, the Goldwater Rule and similar cautions only mean that we cannot imply that someone has been diagnosed when they haven't, not that we must omit any coverage of discussion that relates to their mental health at all. This is no different than eg. a public figure who is suspected of a crime - the bar for covering that without a conviction is high, but it is not at the unreachable point where some people are trying to argue we need to place eg. extended media coverage discussion a politician's mental health. In fact, Trump's article currently lists numerous accusations, investigations, and so on that did not result in a formal conviction; discussions of his mental health seem precisely comparable. Yes, we must be cautious with such controversies, but when a controversy follows a politician for their entire time in office - and multiple high-quality sources describe it as such - we are clearly required to at least note its existence. --
Aquillion (
talk) 23:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- I was replying to the question posted which begins with a source saying that 25 mental health professionals question Trump's tolerance for differing opinions. Bear in mind that conclusions reported in articles, in this case that "Trump's temperament and mental fitness has been a regular topic of public discussion," should be based on sources that make those conclusions not on the conclusions reached by Wikipedia editors, per no original research.
- I would point out also that only one source is required for any statement made in Wikipedia. In my experience, when editors provide multiple sources, none of them say exactly what they want to say, but they believe that all put together they do, which is implicit synthesis.
- The one source you provided I looked at was "Misdiagnosing Donald Trump," which says, "Trump’s mental health (or lack thereof) is a trending topic on the Internet; on cable news programs...." It doesn't say that "Trump's [mental] health has been a major focus of conversation over an extended period of time." Trending means "currently popular." (Oxford) [47] Nor does it say that the discussion is significant relative to overall coverage of Trump, which is required to support noteworthiness in the article.
- I don't see why I should have to read 20 articles to determine if any of them support the text. Please hit me with your best shot and provide ONE source that alone is adequate to support the text.
- As an additional comment, should the information be added, it should also explain the degree of acceptance of the claim.
-
TFD (
talk) 01:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Let's not get hung up on the precise language proposed; the question is whether to include any content about the attention given to Trump's mental fitness/health. There are so many examples I'm not sure which one is best, but notice a quote I already mentioned:
"In the past four years, claims were repeatedly made about the mental health of President Trump and his psychological fitness to govern."
(2021) [48] Kolya Butternut ( talk) 04:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)"The questioning of Trump’s fitness has persisted throughout his Presidency, as members of his party and his close associates fed the narrative of a deteriorating mind. "
(Oct 2020) [49] Kolya Butternut ( talk) 14:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Please hit me with your best shot and provide ONE source that alone is adequate to support the text.
I do not believe one source could ever be sufficient, since WP:SUSTAINED coverage is necessary for something of this nature, and since (as I'm sure you're aware as an experienced editor) WP:PUBLICFIGURE specifically says thatIf you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out
- multiple sources are flatly required by policy here, and in general, for something as high-profile as this, I would expect people to at least skim a large number of sources to make sure that the ones being directly cited are representative per WP:BLP's requirements and to come up with a sentence that accurately reflects what they say. But if you're unwilling to do that extended reading, two of the most useful ones I linked are are:
-
BBC (
It is a question that has dogged Donald Trump - fairly or otherwise - since he was elected president: is he mentally fit for office?
) -
Washington Post (
The White House is struggling to contain the national discussion about President Trump's mental acuity and fitness for the job, which has overshadowed the administration's agenda for the past week.
)
-
BBC (
- I should emphasize, as mentioned above, that my point isn't to decide one specific wording (that is another reason I presented so many sources, allowing us to go over them and figure out the best wording out of what they cover) - the question we're deciding now is whether we should say anything at all about the discussion over Trump's mental health. That requires an extended survey of a large number of sources to establish whether it meets the high standard set by BLP. -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- "
- This is likely a topic that we should wait until we have better backwards-looking sources covering Trump's presidency as a whole to make a summary like this, along the likes of TDF's comments above. Certainly the subject of Trump's mental health has been reported, but it would be so piecemeal that we risk potential problems (given the close on the other health article). But backwards-looking summaries of his presidency would be a better place for us to start with the type of summary that is being asked. If this is added before we get a good summary, it must be kept brief and short as suggested. --
Masem (
t) 04:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not 100% sure I agree with the implication that we'll have a better view in years to come, but it's likely good advice nonetheless.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 13:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Not necessarily that we'll have a better view, but we'll most likely have a better retrospective that can frame how his mental health (or discussions relating to it) framed his presidency, to provide the type of structure that is a good secondary or even tertiary source to build from. Then we can fill pieces with now-current sources on specifics if necessary. --
Masem (
t) 15:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, sorry, I believe I was being unclear. I agree with your advice. I was just saying that there's no guarantee that we'll have any better perspective on a subject like this, where Trump can (and absolutely will) do his best to obfuscate any information that might reflect poorly on him, and will (inadvertently) endeavor to get any information that reflects well on him pushed out in a manner that draws it into doubt and/or incoherence.
- Most topics; yes, we'll definitely have a better picture in years to come. This topic? I think it's very unlikely that we'll look back in ten years and have any clearer of a picture than we do now.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 16:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree on the specific topic of Trump's mental health we'll likely not have a solitary work devoted to it in the future. But we will likely have plenty of works to discuss his presidency and lead-up to it (and likely fallout), and those works, if his mental health or the discussion around it was a core part of the narrative around his presidency, will find a place to document enough of it for us to know where to discuss it and to what level of detail, drawing from now-current sources if necessary. Maybe it will be found to have been a red herring for the most part and its simply glimpsed over, and to that end we should remain vague as well (which is what most advice here is recommending as well if mention is even made). --
Masem (
t) 16:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yep. I would dearly love to see the results of a legit psych exam, though. And an IQ test.
- Not just because of my own views on the topic (I'm so far convinced he's just dumb and narcissistic, with no other pathology there), but because of the fact that it's been such a topic of hot discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree on the specific topic of Trump's mental health we'll likely not have a solitary work devoted to it in the future. But we will likely have plenty of works to discuss his presidency and lead-up to it (and likely fallout), and those works, if his mental health or the discussion around it was a core part of the narrative around his presidency, will find a place to document enough of it for us to know where to discuss it and to what level of detail, drawing from now-current sources if necessary. Maybe it will be found to have been a red herring for the most part and its simply glimpsed over, and to that end we should remain vague as well (which is what most advice here is recommending as well if mention is even made). --
Masem (
t) 16:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Not necessarily that we'll have a better view, but we'll most likely have a better retrospective that can frame how his mental health (or discussions relating to it) framed his presidency, to provide the type of structure that is a good secondary or even tertiary source to build from. Then we can fill pieces with now-current sources on specifics if necessary. --
Masem (
t) 15:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not 100% sure I agree with the implication that we'll have a better view in years to come, but it's likely good advice nonetheless.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 13:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- @
Kolya Butternut:
The outcome of this discussion could lead to a change to Donald Trump#Current consensus #39.
Then why start this discussion here and not on the Donald Trump talk page? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 09:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)- This is the place to have a community-wide discussion for policy questions about BLPs... Kolya Butternut ( talk) 10:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
NO, not unless he had been Profesionally diagnosed by a qualified professional as part of a formal (and face to face) examination. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- As a general comment, I'd say that "Over the past several years, numerous experts have raised concerns about Donald Trump's mental health..." and "Over the past several years, numerous claims about Donald Trump's mental health have been made..." are two very different ways of phrasing this. The former is flatly unacceptable, and should never be entertained, even though it's strictly true. The second is worth discussing, but I'm still unsure of whether it's a good move myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Some inclusion of the rampant speculation about his mental state seems DUE but needs to be carefully worded. It cannot be "numerous experts" because I'm pretty sure providing armchair diagnosis, as some of them did, is in violation of practicing guidelines for licensed practitioners; you cannot diagnose someone who isn't even your patient and who you haven't even examined. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 14:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- I would disagree that speculation about his mental health should be included. There is so much speculation about Trump and it's hard to say what is legitimate vs motivated by dislike of a person who was easy to dislike... even before he ran for office. I agree with Masem that this is a case where we really should wait for a retrospective review of the topic and it's impact. We should also keep BLP and the idea of do no harm (even if it is Trump) in mind. Springee ( talk) 02:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- No. We should stick with the longstanding local consensus (#39 as mentioned by the OP) not to include any speculation about his mental health. For heavens sake, our BLP policy clearly states that we need firm sourcing to say negative things about a living person. There is nothing but speculation, "armchair diagnosis," and POV-influenced punditry as sources about his mental health. We should not raise questions about it, and we should not report that other people have raised questions about it. BTW this discussion should not be influenced by how we personally feel about Trump or the state of his mental health. This is the BLP board and we are discussing how to apply BLP policy. --
MelanieN (
talk) 15:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- This is why I think it's worth discussing. There are arguments to be made for inclusion (the broad coverage in sources, for example), but as you pointed out, there are arguments to be made for exclusion, as well.
- If a consensus to report on this stuff emerges, I'm gonna look like a red hatted POV pusher to anyone not familiar with my editing history in discussions of how to include it. It's gonna have to be absolutely neutral and dispassionate and there can't be even a hint that WP endorses any of those views. They'll need to be framed as examples of people breaking the Goldwater rule, not as examples of experts describing Trump's mental state. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- I am somewhat upset at Kolya's now second attempt (at least) to try to relitigate the mental health RfC. The RfC was vitriolic, long, and painful. The issue was solved according to our policies, leading to consensus #39, and should stay put to rest. This is little more than a disruptive attempt to find a different venue that might agree with them. I have no personal opinion on the subject but firmly stand by my close of the mental health RfC, believe little new info has come out that would change the decision, believe consensus has not changed, and ask Kolya to drop the stick already. This is a waste of editor time.
CaptainEek
Edits Ho Cap'n!
⚓ 20:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the course of that RfC, but assuming you're correct, I may need to re-evaluate the advice I gave them below to go with a new RfC. I'm going to go look it up now, and my impressions of that will color my next response to Koyla. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- I am raising this again now because I have found so many sources which were not discussed in the previous RfC (and many newer sources since 2019), but I guess in this forum I should have asked the general policy questions below not specific to Trump. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 21:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- I read through the RFC linked to #39 above, and I think there is a subtly different question being asked - or least as editors here have responded. No, we don't want a paragraph-length discussion about his mental health until better sources as identified at the RFC come about. But acknowledging briefly that there has been discussion in political media related to his mental health in a sentence or two at most is a far different issue than what details were being sought at at the RFC. This is not to say we need to have it, it's still very touchy if we should and there's clearly overlapping issues to consider. -- Masem ( t) 21:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- The problem I see is that if we do it for Trump, then we have to do it for everyone else. How much coverage did speculation about McCain's health (both mental and physical) get? The answer is: a hell of a lot. Same with Palin. Same with Bush, and Reagan. Not that it's limited to one side of the aisle, what about all the speculation about Hilary Clinton's health? Joe Biden's? Walter Mondale? Bob Dole? Would people be arguing this same thing for candidates they like, or is it only limited to one's they dislike?
- I consider myself impartial, because I dislike them all equally. I'll admit, I voted for Trump, but I would have voted for Daffy Duck if that was an option, just to give my big middle finger to the entire system. Trump's one redeeming quality is that he had no filter. I don't think he could pull off a lie with a costume, stunt double, and a script, which is a rare quality in any politician.
- They taught us in debate class to play devil's advocate; to walk a mile in your opponent's shoes, so to speak. You learn a lot when you try to argue the position you're against. If the situation were reversed, and we were talking about your favorite candidate (using "your" in the collective sense) would you still be in favor of this? I think it's a Pandora's box that we don't want to open, even if it is Trump we're talking about. We need to have better standards than that, and I wouldn't want to set a precedence.
Zaereth (
talk) 22:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it is different with Trump. The Goldwater Rule was even violated. A video summary of coverage just in January 2018:
[50]
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 22:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- No it's not. Anyway you try to rationalize it, it's still the same. The Goldwater Rule is a code of ethical conduct within the psychiatric community, not a law. Trump is not a psychiatrist. You can find all kinds of psychiatrists breaking that rule for McCain, Palin, Clinton, etc... Maybe it's just me, because I have an eidetic memory, or maybe others just have the memories of goldfish, I don't know, but I see no difference between this and all the others. It's so much the same it's like they just keep recycling the same script, just changing the names. Zaereth ( talk) 22:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it is different with Trump. The Goldwater Rule was even violated. A video summary of coverage just in January 2018:
[50]
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 22:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- They taught us in debate class to play devil's advocate; to walk a mile in your opponent's shoes, so to speak. You learn a lot when you try to argue the position you're against. If the situation were reversed, and we were talking about your favorite candidate (using "your" in the collective sense) would you still be in favor of this? I think it's a Pandora's box that we don't want to open, even if it is Trump we're talking about. We need to have better standards than that, and I wouldn't want to set a precedence.
Zaereth (
talk) 22:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Masem, you seem to appreciate what I'm asking about here. I still have several unanswered questions I wonder if I can get your opinion on.
- Do you think the previous RfC and Consensus #39 may not apply here? The RfC seemed to be about whether to maintain the previous consensus to "
include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him.
" [51] Previously included paragraph found here. My proposal is just to briefly mention the media story in the Public image/profile section. - Can you discuss PUBLICFIGURE and BLPGOSSIP? Do both of these policies apply, and inclusion is simply a question of WEIGHT? Kolya Butternut ( talk) 23:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
CaptainEek, can we start over? I understand that you are frustrated, but I have brought this question up again after finding many more sources since last year, including more current sources. I thought it made sense to post here to discuss the policy questions before discussing starting a new RfC or challenging your RfC close. I want to proceed with the least disruption possible, but there are many issues I feel need to be addressed. I am considering first challenging your RfC close as overbroad, and then at Talk:Donald Trump discussing the new sources I've found to see if folks think this content is now DUE. Do you have any thoughts on this? Kolya Butternut ( talk) 01:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- Community consensus has been pretty clear and consistant on this topic and the topic in general. Speculation like this has no place in a BLP.
PackMecEng (
talk) 02:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
-
PackMecEng, can you tell me which discussions you're referring to? Even thought the Trump RfC wasn't about including the speculation itself, above I gave the example of Kim Jong-un's rumored death. We also write about speculation that
Sean Mendes is gay.
[52] Speculation about Anderson Cooper's sexuality had been included before he came out.
[53]
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 14:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
-
Kolya Butternut, Yes I am referring to the RFC at the Trump article
here. I believe that speculation on mental or physical health should not be included in any BLP article. And yes unless a doctor has examined and diagnosed the subject in person it is indeed speculation. I would oppose it in all the ones you listed as well as Biden's article for example. It is not appropriate.
PackMecEng (
talk) 14:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- PackMecEng, what is the policy basis? Even noteworthy speculated diagnoses should be included per NFRINGE (not in this case IMO). Kolya Butternut ( talk) 14:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC) added ping Kolya Butternut ( talk) 15:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- Paul McCartney's 1969 death rumor is included,
[54] and it's a featured article.
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 15:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- Kolya Butternut, It is rooted in BLP policy and a broad consensus. Again I do not care about what other articles, also that example has nothing to do with this. PS your ping did not work PackMecEng ( talk) 15:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
-
Kolya Butternut, Yes I am referring to the RFC at the Trump article
here. I believe that speculation on mental or physical health should not be included in any BLP article. And yes unless a doctor has examined and diagnosed the subject in person it is indeed speculation. I would oppose it in all the ones you listed as well as Biden's article for example. It is not appropriate.
PackMecEng (
talk) 14:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
-
PackMecEng, can you tell me which discussions you're referring to? Even thought the Trump RfC wasn't about including the speculation itself, above I gave the example of Kim Jong-un's rumored death. We also write about speculation that
Sean Mendes is gay.
[52] Speculation about Anderson Cooper's sexuality had been included before he came out.
[53]
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 14:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Donald Trump mental health - policy analysis
Could we have more direct analysis here of WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:NFRINGE, etc.? Kolya Butternut ( talk) 19:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Why? Those policies have nothing to do with the question at hand. PUBLICFIGURE is an exception to BLPCRIME, but we're not talking about any crime here. NFRINGE is about the notability of fringe theories, which is again is completely off topic. What we're talking about is what happens with every politician: political rhetoric and rank speculation. It's about as likely to gain consensus here as it did with McCain, Palin, Obama, Clinton, Bush, and all of the others since the beginning of time. Normally this kind of thing would simply be undue weight (eg: trivial nonsense), but when you start getting into any speculation about a subject's medical health or conditions, suddenly you've entered the world of MEDRS, and standards there are extremely high.
- Mostly, it's about common human decency, and you'll have a hard time convincing people that this kind of stuff is not in incredibly bad taste and thus encyclopedic in nature. We should not be a vehicle for pushing political diatribe.
Zaereth (
talk) 19:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- In their close,
CaptainEek wrote that
armchair diagnosis is likely WP:FRINGE, and must meet the requirements of WP:EXCEPTIONAL
. So a question here is whether the coverage since the last RfC raises characterizations of Trump's behavior to notable fringe. I'm not arguing either way on that point. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 20:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
-
WP:BLP is about getting it right (according to the best sources available). What happened in the latter part of Michael Jackson's life was a tragedy, but it is fact that speculation about his medical and mental health had a massive, life-changing impact on his later career; covering that is not optional, and appealing to
common human decency
to argue that we had an obligation to omit it while he was alive is an inappropriate attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by arguing that the genuine, wide-spread coverage in reliable sources was unfair and that the impact it had on him is a tragedy that Wikipedia should correct. We aren't allowed to make those determinations. "The sources are bad", fine. "It's not significant enough based on the sourcing", fine. "Only a medical diagnosis, fullstop" is inappropriate and not defensible as a standard. And certainly MEDRS does not apply to covering the existence of public debate regarding the health and mental state of a public figure, since it is not something that implies treatment. The question for us is purely how significant that public debate is, how much impact it had, and whether it is a major part of the subject's biography (a point at which, not-incidentally, appeals tobasic human decency
fall flat because our coverage of something that is manifestly a major part of the subject's biography cannot reasonably harm them; Jackson may have detested theWacko Jacko
nickname and the reputation that came with it, but it played a major role in his life to the point where it's unrealistic to argue that we harmed him by reporting on it during his life.) I am fine with the argument that such things are often or usually not significant, but there are plainly places where it defines the course of the subject's life, and in those cases we cannot omit it. -- Aquillion ( talk) 02:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- In their close,
CaptainEek wrote that
Donald Trump mental health - WP:PUBLICFIGURE
Does
WP:PUBLICFIGURE only apply to criminal allegations and incidents, or would it apply to noteworthy claims and speculations about health, etc?
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 20:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 20:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Why are you asking this? Both of the cited examples are non-crimes. I do see someone asserting that this only applies to crimes, but the section very clearly doesn't.
- Zaereth raised other points which are worth addressing (or acknowledging). Focusing on the one instance of a clearly wrong claim, and pretending to need clarity about whether it's wrong isn't helpful.
- The question about whether to include this information is not directly addressed by policy, so trying to make a policy-based case for it is misguided at best. There is a consensus answer to this specific question,
and if you want a different answer, the way to get that is to try to achieve a new consensus. To that end, an RfC at the appropriate talk page is the way to go.Continuing to argue your case here is not helping. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)- I'm asking a good faith question. I didn't phrase it well. I could have asked whether it only applied to allegations of wrongdoing, although it's true that the divorce example shows it's broader than that.
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 20:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- I want to repeat my advice:
Go start an RfC to discuss this.I'm fairly neutral on the core question of whether or not we should have this material, though I lean very slightly towards "yes". But this is not the place to decide that. This is an open question wrt our actual BLP policy, so you need a consensus to do this, and given that a consensus not to do this exists,you need to address that by way of a new RfC.A notification here would be appropriate, but trying to establish the consensus here... Well, not so much. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)- Maybe a better question here would be about if and when any material like this would be in a BLP, rather than about Trump in particular, to answer the policy questions.
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 20:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note my comment in response to Captain Eek above. I've reviewed the previous RfC (and the closing statements of the AfD and the prior discussions...) and I'm now of the opinion that you should drop this matter and simply accept that this is not going to happen.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 21:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- That RfC was mostly about including information about his mental health, not just mentioning that there has been public discussion of his mental health. And like I said we have many more sources now. I'm still looking for where sources were discussed in that RfC but I haven't found much. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 21:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note my comment in response to Captain Eek above. I've reviewed the previous RfC (and the closing statements of the AfD and the prior discussions...) and I'm now of the opinion that you should drop this matter and simply accept that this is not going to happen.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 21:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe a better question here would be about if and when any material like this would be in a BLP, rather than about Trump in particular, to answer the policy questions.
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 20:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- I want to repeat my advice:
- I'm asking a good faith question. I didn't phrase it well. I could have asked whether it only applied to allegations of wrongdoing, although it's true that the divorce example shows it's broader than that.
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 20:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- I am curious how people who want to omit this feel we should have covered Michael Jackson when he was alive. Speculation about his health and mental state were major aspects of his notability in the later part of his life and completely defined the final parts of his career - is the argument here that we would have had to completely omit them, regardless of the level of sourcing, unless we had someone presenting a formal diagnosis? This does not seem to reflect WP:BLP; we obviously have to be careful about what we state in the article voice, but allegations about public figures should be covered (and in extreme cases must be covered), with attribution, if they become a significant part of their notability. The sourcing requirement to cover such things is high, but requiring a medical diagnosis specifically, simply to cover high-profile opinions with extensive secondary coverage, is completely unsupported by policy and completely unworkable as a standard. Sometimes people speculate about other people's mental health; sometimes that speculation, itself - whether it is right or wrong - becomes central to the course of events and receives massive secondary coverage to the point where an encyclopedia cannot ignore it. I can understand the people who are uncertain whether discussion over Trump's mental health reached that point (ie. if it passes the "Wacko Jacko" standard, where a biography of the subject simply does not make sense and can never be called complete if it is omitted), but I do not think that strictly requiring a formal diagnoses is a defensible position. A hypothetical, for example - suppose we had extensive, high-quality WP:RSes stating that public concerns over Trump's mental health played a role in his losing the election. Could we omit that? (Partially, more than Trump specifically, I want to nail down what people consider the dividing line.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 02:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
| This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
Marek Kukula
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Should the Wikipedia biography of Marek Kukula mention his child pornography conviction?
As you can see from this version (where it had been included, and subsequently rejected, as a nominal "Personal Life" entry), it takes quite a lot of text to properly explain and fairly contextualize this event in a neutral fashion, based on what is available from the sources (I have no idea how to obtain the primary source court documents, should people prefer to go that way).
But as is also hopefully rather obvious, not mentioning it gives a hugely misleading impression, up to and including the inference that he is still actually employed as the Public Astronomer of the Royal Observatory. He obviously isn't, but that can actually only be inferred by the fact he no longer has an employee page on their website.
Nobody else seems prepared to admit, in print, that this man clearly lost his job because he downloaded child sexual abuse imagery, regardless of reasons or circumstances. The news of his conviction was only reported by the Daily Mail and The Sun, which I gather both can't be used by Wikipedia (an attempt to include the Mail as reference 17 was bizarrely completely rejected by the editing software, even though including it would lend credence to the reliability of The Sun reference, which it did allow, but bizarrely duplicated as a second copy of reference 16).
I personally am not seeing any reason why they cannot be used in this particular context, since both reports were virtually identical, and were published under different bylines, suggesting factual accuracy as a result of direct court reporting. I suppose they could both be the result of some elaborate fraud with one originating source, perhaps someone who wants to do Marek harm and has a means of fooling court reporters at not one but two national newspapers, and there is otherwise a perfectly innocent explanation for his apparent departure from the Observatory and indeed complete departure from public quotation as an astronomy expert. It certainly seems unlikely nobody would have noticed much less not acted on false reporting that directly attributed statements to a named lawyer, prosecutor and judge.
In case anyone is thinking that the best way to deal with this paradox is to just get rid of the article, that potential course of action was only recently debated, and it was concluded based on what could be said about this man from reliable sources, that he deserves a Wikipedia biography.
It may be the case, as the version which includes the conviction perhaps now shows, this was an error, and that when viewing it with that material in it, due to its necessary bulk in relation to what else can be said about the man, it does become rather obvious that this piece is not what anyone could reasonably call a biography.
Although what exists may be entirely accurate, it probably fails the fairness test, due to the prominence of the conviction material. And yet perhaps not - in terms of his career and public profile, the conviction is likely to be the single most important aspect of his life, and as has been shown by the material, was something directly brought about by his career choices. Documenting such things is what a biographer does, whole omitting them is what an autobiography would do (in general, the material might actually suggest Kukula is genuinely contrite and happy to own his mistakes).
That would potentially harm Wikipedia though, since it seems obvious that other biographies that are as brief as this, for other academics, and which are largely sourced the way this one was, from first person interviews given due to a specific single aspect of their career, are quite numerous on Wikipedia. It seems not quite right that the existence of these pages on Wikipedia should be determined solely by whether or not they later commit a crime that is only reported on by sources deemed unreliable by Wikipedia.
And it is worth noting that in this case, the crime occurred before he obtained the role that generated all that media interest, and it was only later, much later, that it was discovered and he was convicted. In extremis, as this example seems to show, taking the deletion approach, or indeed the keep but do not mention approach, could make it appear as if Wikipedia wants to be complicit in an attempt to shield pedophiles from the consequences of their actions, and prevent readers from obtaining a neutral account of what happened, and in proper context, without having to put money into the advertisers pockets of the Sun and Mail.
As I tried to convey previously, apparently successfully, this is not an ethical Google visibility issue, in that the harm is evidently already done, and people searching for this man's name, or indeed simply his apparently now defunct job title, will find the Sun and Mail reports are prominent in the results. Having a neutral Wikipedia page returned higher than them, would seem to serve everyone's interest, including Wikipedia's aspirations. Obviously, should Marek ever succeed in an actual Right To Be Forgotten case to alter the visibility of those reports, the moral case for keeping his Wikipedia biography should be reconsidered (although as I understand it, Wikipedia editors are broadly against any law that holds that the internet can and should forget certain things at certain times).
If there were concrete and specific reasons as to why, in this specific circumstance, the reporting of the Sun and Mail cannot be relied upon to create a complete and fair biography here, I could be persuaded that not mentioning it might be wise. But I am not seeing any such reason, and as the proposed addition shows, it is possible to extract from them the relevant factual material, while not including their tabloid takes (not that anyone can seriously argue that images of boys aged between 10 and 14 having sex with each other are not fairly described as depicting "vile" child abuse in this day and age). Mr Happy Shoes ( talk) 15:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- If the only sources that report it are deprecated sources, (despite the fact that the BBC/Guardian had mentioned him before multiple times), it begs the question if we need to include it. We are not here to right great wrongs, and while the conviction etc may all be true, we have to have usable sources to work from. DM and Sun are not usable sources, particularly for a bio. We simply can't included that until we actually have such an RS. (Yes, I find it rather odd that no other RSes have picked up on this. I don't know why they aren't even just giving even a brief paragraph to this) --
Masem (
t) 16:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Like I said, I am looking for a specific reason why these specific sources cannot be used for this specific circumstance, since it cannot rationally be argued there is any doubt at all that they are factually correct. They agree with each other, they are bylined and carry identical attributed quotes from identified people, and there is nothing out there that contradicts their contents, either the specifics, or the general supposition that this conviction is why he has ceased to have an employee profile at the Observatory, and indeed no longer has any public profile to speak of. The BBC/Guardian are under no actual obligation to make sure their subsequent editorial choices don't contradict their previous reporting. Wikipedia is. That is the difference between a newspaper and an encyclopedia, whose contents are in large part, "biographies". A biographer would include this information, whereas an autobiographer, and the Observatory, have the luxury of choosing not to include potentially embarrassing or damaging information. The actual need to include this information is beyond obvious, if Wikipedia wants this to be read as a biography. To do otherwise, is clearly quite literally deceitful (lying by omission) and potentially dangerous. While admittedly an unlikely scenario, and perhaps unfair to the man himself, but it's not beyond credulity that he could use this page to convince a child that he is still a respected academic with a cool job at the Observatory. The reliable sources document his interest in child engagement, and importantly, this was in pieces they wrote after he had actually committed the crimes that, his excuses aside, do suggest he is a danger to children. To omit that context from this biography, is what needs to be justified in the strongest possible terms. The mere fact that Wikipedia doesn't like the Sun or the Mail, doesn't really cut it. This is, for me, the oddest part of why the BBC chose not to report on this conviction. But the mere fact they are publicly funded and have a legal duty to inform and educate the public on important matters (such as, how well, or how badly, our museums and government are protecting children from readily identifiable pedophiles) sadly doesn't allow me to overrule (or even know) by what means they chose not to report on the conviction.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 17:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Let's start with a problem in the argument that you're framing, that there is an issue that we are not presenting Kukula as a pedophile (assuming these charges are true). This the "right great wrongs" argument we have to avoid. We are not legally or morally or ethically bound to inform readers about the crimes of any person, even for something like pedophilia, if that information cannot meet WP:V and BLP, which at this point, using DM or Sun would fail. If the mainstream sources that are reliable like the BBC and Guardian have decided to ignore this convict and whitewash it away, we are sorta stuck and cannot do anything about that since we're required to summarize from reliable sources. Again, why the BBC/Guardian and others have decides to ignore this is extremely odd to me as well, but we can't make a special case here. -- Masem ( t) 17:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Like I said, I am looking for a specific reason why these specific sources cannot be used for this specific circumstance, since it cannot rationally be argued there is any doubt at all that they are factually correct. They agree with each other, they are bylined and carry identical attributed quotes from identified people, and there is nothing out there that contradicts their contents, either the specifics, or the general supposition that this conviction is why he has ceased to have an employee profile at the Observatory, and indeed no longer has any public profile to speak of. The BBC/Guardian are under no actual obligation to make sure their subsequent editorial choices don't contradict their previous reporting. Wikipedia is. That is the difference between a newspaper and an encyclopedia, whose contents are in large part, "biographies". A biographer would include this information, whereas an autobiographer, and the Observatory, have the luxury of choosing not to include potentially embarrassing or damaging information. The actual need to include this information is beyond obvious, if Wikipedia wants this to be read as a biography. To do otherwise, is clearly quite literally deceitful (lying by omission) and potentially dangerous. While admittedly an unlikely scenario, and perhaps unfair to the man himself, but it's not beyond credulity that he could use this page to convince a child that he is still a respected academic with a cool job at the Observatory. The reliable sources document his interest in child engagement, and importantly, this was in pieces they wrote after he had actually committed the crimes that, his excuses aside, do suggest he is a danger to children. To omit that context from this biography, is what needs to be justified in the strongest possible terms. The mere fact that Wikipedia doesn't like the Sun or the Mail, doesn't really cut it. This is, for me, the oddest part of why the BBC chose not to report on this conviction. But the mere fact they are publicly funded and have a legal duty to inform and educate the public on important matters (such as, how well, or how badly, our museums and government are protecting children from readily identifiable pedophiles) sadly doesn't allow me to overrule (or even know) by what means they chose not to report on the conviction.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 17:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- There is a moral duty here, I have already explained it. Wikipedia is an influential website, it matters if you are giving a false impression of people like Kukula when it comes to his potential risk to children. This page currently implies for example that he is still employed as the Public Astronomer, and will have to remain in that state under your explanation of Wikipedia's obligations to only reflect what the broadsheets determine as newsworthy. In terms of framing, I am still not seeing from you, any specific reason why Wikipedia would be "required" to ignore these reports, other than the title of the publications and the nature of the information. I understand a broad editorial preference for non-tabloids, but that is an internal decision, one that obviously has to be re-examined in a special case like this, precisely because it raises serious moral questions. Mr Happy Shoes ( talk) 18:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's where you're mistaken. There is no moral duty. See:
WP:Right great wrongs. Daily Mail and The Sun are tabloid journalism, and we can't trust them. Simple as that. The Daily Mail has been caught lying so many times no one in their right mind would believe a word they print. If reliable sources haven't picked up on it, then we can't use it, and BLP policy makes that very clear.
Zaereth (
talk) 18:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- How am I mistaken? Nobody in their right mind would believe the Mail has EVER printed a false report that said a named person with a reasonably public job was convicted of serious offences, one which includes actual quotes from a judge, prosecutor and lawyer. The very idea is absurd. It has never happened, and if you think otherwise, please provide your proof. If there is any Wikipedia policy that supports such nonsense, it needs to be rethought as a matter of urgency. In this specific circumstance, with all the supporting evidence that the reports are true, and zero actual evidence to the contrary, and with a valid moral case established, there is actually no reason anyone would willingly choose to still think there is any valid reason to pretend they are fabrications.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 19:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- How? Read the policy I cited above and it will explain it to you. I never said they were fabrications. I simply said we can't trust the sources they came from. Maybe true. Maybe not. Who knows. The
WP:BURDEN is on you to provide proof, not me. You do that by providing reliable sources (eg: sources we can trust). Insisting that unreliable sources are good enough doesn't cut the mustard. Our moral obligation is to get info right, and providing untrustworthy sources doesn't instill a lot of confidence. In journalism, trust and reputation are everything, and once you lose the people's trust, you'll play hell getting it back. As the old saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".
Zaereth (
talk) 19:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- In other words, you don't want to do what was asked of you. You simply want to fall back on this obviously absurd notion, in the absence of any actual facts about the reliability of these newspapers for reports of this nature, which would justify it. And you almost fooled me once about policy too with "Right Great Wrongs", since it seems to be perfectly fine according to that page, to wait for the mainstream media, which the Mail and the Sun most assuredly are. Mr Happy Shoes ( talk) 19:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- How? Read the policy I cited above and it will explain it to you. I never said they were fabrications. I simply said we can't trust the sources they came from. Maybe true. Maybe not. Who knows. The
WP:BURDEN is on you to provide proof, not me. You do that by providing reliable sources (eg: sources we can trust). Insisting that unreliable sources are good enough doesn't cut the mustard. Our moral obligation is to get info right, and providing untrustworthy sources doesn't instill a lot of confidence. In journalism, trust and reputation are everything, and once you lose the people's trust, you'll play hell getting it back. As the old saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me".
Zaereth (
talk) 19:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- How am I mistaken? Nobody in their right mind would believe the Mail has EVER printed a false report that said a named person with a reasonably public job was convicted of serious offences, one which includes actual quotes from a judge, prosecutor and lawyer. The very idea is absurd. It has never happened, and if you think otherwise, please provide your proof. If there is any Wikipedia policy that supports such nonsense, it needs to be rethought as a matter of urgency. In this specific circumstance, with all the supporting evidence that the reports are true, and zero actual evidence to the contrary, and with a valid moral case established, there is actually no reason anyone would willingly choose to still think there is any valid reason to pretend they are fabrications.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 19:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's where you're mistaken. There is no moral duty. See:
WP:Right great wrongs. Daily Mail and The Sun are tabloid journalism, and we can't trust them. Simple as that. The Daily Mail has been caught lying so many times no one in their right mind would believe a word they print. If reliable sources haven't picked up on it, then we can't use it, and BLP policy makes that very clear.
Zaereth (
talk) 18:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm about 75% sure these allegations are true, per Occam's razor. But given the sourcing and their penchant for sensationalist lying, I can never be 100% convinced until we have better sourcing. I would not include them.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 19:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's ironic perhaps, that it's an extremely serious thing to claim in print (Wikipedia is digital print for legal purposes), that a national newspaper would knowingly print a false report of this specific nature. Even if you're only 25% sure of your suspicion (it could perhaps be used to reduce the potential damages by 75%?). I am 100% confident, by contrast, that Kukula is guilty of the crimes attributed to him. My legal defence? See above. Two national newspapers. Corroboration. Direct quotes. Absence of any contrary evidence. No sensible reason to think this is the sort of thing the tabloids would just make up. Common sense alone is enough to beleive that these reports are true, and those who think otherwise, really need to start providing some concrete reasons why anyone would think they are not. Other than use of terms like "vile" and the headlines (which are not written by the journalists), there's nothing particularly sensationalist about these reports. Shocking, damaging, serious, yes. And it would surely be a very wierd meeting where the economic case was made that fabricating this sort of seriously damaging report about a person this relatively unknown, would be in the paper's best interest. Celebrity gossip, it is most assuredly not. As anyone can see.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 19:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Both papers have been demonstrated in the past of fabricating quotes, not in situations related to crimes or the like, but they have been caught doing this. As such, there is a huge grain of salt to assume that they are being truthful here. It does seem very likely this happened given how his name has been scrubbed (as mentioned at the AFD, he's been seemingly made an un-person per 1984) but it is not our place to make assumptions without quality sourcing to work from that. --
Masem (
t) 19:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- "Not in situations related to crimes". Exactly. For very good reasons. So, to those who are trying to argue this is somehow the time and place they would have started doing that, and so Wikipedia should be taking these specific reports with a pinch of salt, especially when there is no other evidence to suggest they are false, I would love to know why.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 19:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with the others above that Wikipedia is not the place to
WP:Right great wrongs, and that the sourcing is not adequate to include these types of claims. Also, I'm not sure how a 3-year-old conviction is "a matter of urgency". The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for factual information, and even if some information in an article is accurate, there is no reasonable way to determine how much is accurate and what is relevant to include from the article when no other reliable sources have reported on it. There is also the problem with using deprecated-tabloid sources to determine what is
WP:DUE in an article, especially for a serious crime. It appears that publications like the BBC have simply decided not to report on the article subject anymore after his conviction, and while that will make it difficult to find reliable sources on the conviction, it also means that there will be significantly less information about the article subject generally. While I think that could justify using smaller, local papers or some lower quality sources, using two sources that have been deprecated because of purposely spreading false information would not be appropriate. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 19:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- The fact it has already been admitted above that the Mail has never fabricated a report of this nature, and for reasons that make absolute commercial sense even if the rest of their business is about sensationalism, is very reasonable way of deciding whether to trust this specific report or not. It really does seem like literally the only argument anyone can offer here to suggest this report is false, is that it came from the Mail. Which of course ignores the fact it was also reported by The Sun. And since their reports match, right down to perfect agreement between quotes, is yet more reason to assume that these specific reports for his specific circumstance, are accurate. Nobody will ever know why the BBC et al have chosen to treat it as a non story, but what is as plain as day, is that they would not have based that decision on the frankly absurd idea that it wasn't somehow important to his life. They are not in the business of documenting his life. They don't do biographies. Wikipedia does. Wikipedia's biography on this man is lying, by omission. He is being resented here as if he were still the Public Astronomer, which is absurd. "Right Great Wrongs" says wait for the mainstream media before thinking about updating Wikipedia entries with new, pertinent information. Doesn't get more mainstream than the Mail or the Sun in terms of the British print media.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 20:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
-
Mr Happy Shoes, popularity is not
reliability. You are just wasting others time now repeating your same claims in these long comments and responses. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 20:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- And you are wasting my time by not acknowledging that "Right Great Wrongs" says wait for mainstream media before considering adding pertinent and important information, rather than, say, broadsheet media. The Sun/Mail are mainstream media, or are you seriously disputing that? I am repeating my points more generally, because people like you seem determined to pretend you didn't hear them. I am here to ask for a specific reason why these specific reports cannot be used for this specific purpose. And it can readily be assumed by anyone who arrives from now on, that I surely know and understand the general points about why Wikipedia prefers not to use tabloids. So please don't waste my time by repeating these rather useless generalisms. I want specifics. I want proof that anyone here has actually properly applied some critical thought here. I am looking for an explanation which would not produce an absurdity such as where it has been claimed it would somehow be fauthful to a Wikipedia core policy to knowingly falsely present someone convicted of these offences, as if they were still an employed and employable person in the public outreach field. Mr Happy Shoes ( talk) 20:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
-
Mr Happy Shoes, popularity is not
reliability. You are just wasting others time now repeating your same claims in these long comments and responses. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 20:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- The fact it has already been admitted above that the Mail has never fabricated a report of this nature, and for reasons that make absolute commercial sense even if the rest of their business is about sensationalism, is very reasonable way of deciding whether to trust this specific report or not. It really does seem like literally the only argument anyone can offer here to suggest this report is false, is that it came from the Mail. Which of course ignores the fact it was also reported by The Sun. And since their reports match, right down to perfect agreement between quotes, is yet more reason to assume that these specific reports for his specific circumstance, are accurate. Nobody will ever know why the BBC et al have chosen to treat it as a non story, but what is as plain as day, is that they would not have based that decision on the frankly absurd idea that it wasn't somehow important to his life. They are not in the business of documenting his life. They don't do biographies. Wikipedia does. Wikipedia's biography on this man is lying, by omission. He is being resented here as if he were still the Public Astronomer, which is absurd. "Right Great Wrongs" says wait for the mainstream media before thinking about updating Wikipedia entries with new, pertinent information. Doesn't get more mainstream than the Mail or the Sun in terms of the British print media.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 20:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with the others above that Wikipedia is not the place to
WP:Right great wrongs, and that the sourcing is not adequate to include these types of claims. Also, I'm not sure how a 3-year-old conviction is "a matter of urgency". The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for factual information, and even if some information in an article is accurate, there is no reasonable way to determine how much is accurate and what is relevant to include from the article when no other reliable sources have reported on it. There is also the problem with using deprecated-tabloid sources to determine what is
WP:DUE in an article, especially for a serious crime. It appears that publications like the BBC have simply decided not to report on the article subject anymore after his conviction, and while that will make it difficult to find reliable sources on the conviction, it also means that there will be significantly less information about the article subject generally. While I think that could justify using smaller, local papers or some lower quality sources, using two sources that have been deprecated because of purposely spreading false information would not be appropriate. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 19:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- "Not in situations related to crimes". Exactly. For very good reasons. So, to those who are trying to argue this is somehow the time and place they would have started doing that, and so Wikipedia should be taking these specific reports with a pinch of salt, especially when there is no other evidence to suggest they are false, I would love to know why.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 19:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Both papers have been demonstrated in the past of fabricating quotes, not in situations related to crimes or the like, but they have been caught doing this. As such, there is a huge grain of salt to assume that they are being truthful here. It does seem very likely this happened given how his name has been scrubbed (as mentioned at the AFD, he's been seemingly made an un-person per 1984) but it is not our place to make assumptions without quality sourcing to work from that. --
Masem (
t) 19:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's ironic perhaps, that it's an extremely serious thing to claim in print (Wikipedia is digital print for legal purposes), that a national newspaper would knowingly print a false report of this specific nature. Even if you're only 25% sure of your suspicion (it could perhaps be used to reduce the potential damages by 75%?). I am 100% confident, by contrast, that Kukula is guilty of the crimes attributed to him. My legal defence? See above. Two national newspapers. Corroboration. Direct quotes. Absence of any contrary evidence. No sensible reason to think this is the sort of thing the tabloids would just make up. Common sense alone is enough to beleive that these reports are true, and those who think otherwise, really need to start providing some concrete reasons why anyone would think they are not. Other than use of terms like "vile" and the headlines (which are not written by the journalists), there's nothing particularly sensationalist about these reports. Shocking, damaging, serious, yes. And it would surely be a very wierd meeting where the economic case was made that fabricating this sort of seriously damaging report about a person this relatively unknown, would be in the paper's best interest. Celebrity gossip, it is most assuredly not. As anyone can see.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 19:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
On righting great wrongs
I was amused to note that in that very page that is being used to suggest Wikipedia must not pu push certain information, people are told "you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media." The Mail and the Sun are of course, the first and second most read newspapers in Britain. Mr Happy Shoes ( talk) 19:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Popularity does not equate to truthfulness. Fox News is one of the most-watched networks in the US, for example. -- Masem ( t) 19:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I am only telling you what that page says, and I quoted it. If it is inaccurate, change it. Mr Happy Shoes ( talk) 19:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- 'Tis the nature of sensationalism. They make their money by making stories a juicy as possible. It's entertainment; not news. And I was gonna follow up with what Masem said, but am not a fast enough typist, so ditto.
Zaereth (
talk)
- Which is frankly an absurd argument, in this specific context. Knowingly printing false reports about convictions of this nature for mere clicks, about people who were virtually unknown but connected to beloved public institutions, is a fast route to bankruptcy. Mr Happy Shoes ( talk) 19:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- 'Tis the nature of sensationalism. They make their money by making stories a juicy as possible. It's entertainment; not news. And I was gonna follow up with what Masem said, but am not a fast enough typist, so ditto.
Zaereth (
talk)
-
Mr Happy Shoes, this noticeboard is not the place to debate the general reliability of deprecated sources. If every response to your long comments above has agreed the sourcing is not appropriate for the content being added, then it is probably time to
WP:DROPTHESTICK. Considering that your account was created a week ago and has
solely been used to make edits about Marek Kukula's convictions, you may want to work on other areas to get more familiar with Wikipedia's sourcing policies, especially as they relate to
biographies of living people. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 19:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I am not debating general reliability. I have been quite clear, this is an issue about a specific usage in specific circumstances, a point which is being largely ignored by those responding so far. It is they who are responding in general terms, seemingly because they don't seem to want to acknowledge how absurd it would be in these specific circumstances, to assume that these reports were knowingly false. Mr Happy Shoes ( talk) 19:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- The simple fact is: what you want is a breach of the core policies of Wikipedia, WP:V, WP:RS, and by extension WP:NPOV (because we have no way to determine balance and weight without RSs). This here is exactly why such policies were created in the first place, to separate us from the blogs and tabloids. In these specific circumstances, these are very extraordinary claims, and that requires very extraordinary sources.
- The way around all this is quite simple: find the info in reliable sources. EZPZ. And if no such sources exist, the the solution is equally simple: leave it out. Now, if you want to change policy, you can go over there and discuss it all you like (but I'm not hopeful for your outcome). This is the very basic foundation of Wikipedia.
Zaereth (
talk) 20:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- No, the simple fact is, you are deliberately choosing not to engage with what is being said about the specifics of this case. If you're OK with that, fine, but it leaves me thinking that you genuinely seem to think it is or would ever be a Wikipedia "core policy" to knowingly, falsely present a man as a Public Astronomer and no threat to children, even when there are not one but two mainstream media reports (c.f. "Right Great Wrongs") which make it clear this is not the case, and where there is no credible reason being offered as to why they can't be assumed to be true. In context, this is a super ironic case of Wikipedia apparently wanting to ignore reality, to right what it apparently perceives to be a great wrong, namely that people read and believe the Sun/Mail, certainly for reports like this. Since we can certainly rest assured that there isn't a single person out there who is ever giving this man another job which involves access to kids, except those who, and we can only hope this is not the case, only get their background information on prospective hires, from Wikipedia. Maybe you disagree. Maybe you would hire this man, and not think twice about it. Is that how far you would be prepare to go, to defend what you are surely mistaken about, regarding Wikipedia's supposed core principles? Can you state for the record, whether you would hire this man or not, if you were looking to fill a role his experience lends itself to, according to his Wikipedia biography. And if not, why not?
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 20:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's correct. I'm glad you picked up on that. I know nothing about this case and really don't care, so I'm what we call a neutral, outside observer. I care only about policy, and notice that you are deliberately choosing not engage in policy-based discussions. If people are only getting info from Wikipedia, then they are fools, but I've never met anyone in an HR department who doesn't run real background checks. Nevertheless, that's really moot. You're using
circular reasoning and
argument from repetition as the basis of your arguments, and as those are fallacies they will always fail to convince others. My suggestion is: take some time to reformulate your premise, and come back when you are not so emotionally involved. It's best to begin on articles you are not so passionate about, at least until you get a good handle on how this all works and why these policies exist.
Zaereth (
talk) 20:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- "I know nothing about this case and really don't care". Exactly. I am not interested in anyone who comes here with that attitude, because they frankly aren't going to appreciate the serious potential harm they are advocating, apparently in the name of Wikipedia's core principles. It is important that you show you have read and understood the specifics of this case, before you seek to comment. Otherwise your comments on what is a specific circumstance, are frankly, irrelevant, since it obvious no policy exists in a vacuum, nor can they cover every scenario. The above was only an example. I have others, if you are unconvinced. They are all predicated on basic facts of life, such as people do trust Wikipedia, especially children. And pedophiles would know that.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 20:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- But without reliable sources, how can here be any specifics? I won't waste my time reading The Sun or Daily Mail. That's what I mean. Your logic is circular, meaning you keep beginning with what you end, which leave nothing. Even the MSM is, in my opinion, at the bottom of the barrel as far as reliability goes, and I would much rather see info come from far more reliable sources, like books by reputable publishers, but the MSM is considered reliable for biographical purposes.
- "I know nothing about this case and really don't care". Exactly. I am not interested in anyone who comes here with that attitude, because they frankly aren't going to appreciate the serious potential harm they are advocating, apparently in the name of Wikipedia's core principles. It is important that you show you have read and understood the specifics of this case, before you seek to comment. Otherwise your comments on what is a specific circumstance, are frankly, irrelevant, since it obvious no policy exists in a vacuum, nor can they cover every scenario. The above was only an example. I have others, if you are unconvinced. They are all predicated on basic facts of life, such as people do trust Wikipedia, especially children. And pedophiles would know that.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 20:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's correct. I'm glad you picked up on that. I know nothing about this case and really don't care, so I'm what we call a neutral, outside observer. I care only about policy, and notice that you are deliberately choosing not engage in policy-based discussions. If people are only getting info from Wikipedia, then they are fools, but I've never met anyone in an HR department who doesn't run real background checks. Nevertheless, that's really moot. You're using
circular reasoning and
argument from repetition as the basis of your arguments, and as those are fallacies they will always fail to convince others. My suggestion is: take some time to reformulate your premise, and come back when you are not so emotionally involved. It's best to begin on articles you are not so passionate about, at least until you get a good handle on how this all works and why these policies exist.
Zaereth (
talk) 20:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- No, the simple fact is, you are deliberately choosing not to engage with what is being said about the specifics of this case. If you're OK with that, fine, but it leaves me thinking that you genuinely seem to think it is or would ever be a Wikipedia "core policy" to knowingly, falsely present a man as a Public Astronomer and no threat to children, even when there are not one but two mainstream media reports (c.f. "Right Great Wrongs") which make it clear this is not the case, and where there is no credible reason being offered as to why they can't be assumed to be true. In context, this is a super ironic case of Wikipedia apparently wanting to ignore reality, to right what it apparently perceives to be a great wrong, namely that people read and believe the Sun/Mail, certainly for reports like this. Since we can certainly rest assured that there isn't a single person out there who is ever giving this man another job which involves access to kids, except those who, and we can only hope this is not the case, only get their background information on prospective hires, from Wikipedia. Maybe you disagree. Maybe you would hire this man, and not think twice about it. Is that how far you would be prepare to go, to defend what you are surely mistaken about, regarding Wikipedia's supposed core principles? Can you state for the record, whether you would hire this man or not, if you were looking to fill a role his experience lends itself to, according to his Wikipedia biography. And if not, why not?
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 20:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- The way around all this is quite simple: find the info in reliable sources. EZPZ. And if no such sources exist, the the solution is equally simple: leave it out. Now, if you want to change policy, you can go over there and discuss it all you like (but I'm not hopeful for your outcome). This is the very basic foundation of Wikipedia.
Zaereth (
talk) 20:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'll take one more shot at explaining this, using an analogy. Let's say some tabloid reports that consumption of honey will cure COVID-19. (Why not? It supposedly cures everything else.) Should we report that as well. Maybe they have doctors to quote or centuries of folk-lore to fall back on. Does that make the specifics any more reliable? Of course not. Unless a medically-reliable source confirms it, we can't report it. This is how we keep medical quackery out of articles (where there is a very real danger that we, ourselves, may cause harm), fringe science, celebrity gossip, and at the top of that list, falsely accusing someone of a crime without extremely good evidence. (That's where BLP policy comes into play.) You simply need better proof. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. Even a child can understand that. Without it, any discussion of specifics is moot. The first step is providing reliable sources.
Zaereth (
talk) 21:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Why use an analogy when it is this exact case that shows your stance for what it is? Absurd dogma. Thwt is what I mean when I say specifics. Wikipedia is currently hosting a biography which claims the subject is still in a public engagement role, and poses no risk to children. That is all that is known, according to supposedly reliable sources. It contradicts all observeable reality however, wherein the institution no longer has an employee page for him, he has stopped being quoted in the media as an expert, and there are two reports in the two most widely read UK newspapers, quoting lawyers, prosecutors and a judge, that are both byelined, don't disagree, and which both say he was convicted of a crime serious enough to have him fired from that role and never hired to a similar one for at least seven years, by law. There is no information out there anywhere, reliable or otherwise, that offers a contradictory account. Least of all the persons and institutions that would understandably be outraged at such a fabrication. The most plausible explanation for these observable facts, is that this man has been fired or asked to resign (doesn't matter which, neither is claimed in the bio) as a result of this conviction. His desired career is likely over. His Wikipedia biography therefore, is misleading to the point of negligence. Like it or not, there are conceivable scenarios where this false Wikipedia biography could be used to either assist this man in further offending, or prevent an institution from properly protecting children. Especially if they, like you, contrary to all reason, and in all circumstances, choose not to believe a word they read in the tabloids. This is manifestly not a case of wanting to use Wikipedia to Right a Great Wrong, because as that very page says is acceptable, this would be a case of Wikipedia following, not leading, "mainstream media". What a child could understand, is why, even after being asked for specific examples of when the Mail and the Sun have EVER been caught fabricating reports of this nature, instead if addressing that with he inevitable negatory, you keep returning to your own circular logic, whereby Wikipedia is not in error, because it currently doesn't include any information from unreliable sources, and unreliable sources never make an error. Or worse, far worse, you recognise the error, but you would prefer to keep Wikipedia erroneous, than admit you have badly misjudged the media landscape of one of your choice source markets, where it would be absurd to the point of incredulous to hear that knowingly false reporting of this kind, namely court reporting of serious offences committed barely known individuals, would be considered profitable. Out of some warped prejudice regarding what you think you may have once read about honey, that was indeed perhaps misleading on a semi regular basis. And on a point of fact, those reports are of course never as inaccurate or misleading as is claimed. The unsurprising conclusion there, as ever, is that a newspaper is not an academic journal. But as any child knows, a newspaper does report on court proceedings. It is your choice to ignore that basic fact, or otherwise pretend these reports were written solely for some reason other than serving the public interest and without any due regard to the consequences of false reporting. It is your choice to potentially put children at risk, in addition to making Wikipedia just look ridiculous, rather than engage on the specifics of this case. You simply don't care, as you admitted. You think you have covered every case, even when shown a case you had apparently never considered. The drawbacks of dogma. This is why you should have been paying attention and properly read what was written, provided for your benefit, so that you could and should have given a useful reply, even if you still believed there was some logical reason not to assume these sources are reliable in context
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 22:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- To make it really easy: Daily Mail and the Sun are tabloids, not mainstream source (for the UK, that would be the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, or the BBC). --
Masem (
t) 22:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- "Right Great Wrongs" specifcially refers to "mainstream media" not "mainstream sources". The reason is obvious. By definition, if something has already been mentioned in the two most widely read newspapers in Britain, and someone then wants to add that to Wikipedia, accusing them of being on some kind of improper crusade to put Wikipedia ahead of the media, is obvious garbage. You can accuse them of not using reliable sources, sure, but that's where you would then be obligated to explain why, in context, they are not reliable. You have failed to do that. Indeed, by admitting you have never seen them producing false quotes in this context, you have all but admitted there is no real reason to assume they are false. The ongoing failure to explain why the tabloid business model would promote falsehoods in this specific type of reporting, as you continue to lazily fall back on the same assumption that the reason they are presumed false is because they are tabloids, is just the cherry on top. You have indeed made it easy. Too easy. This is tabloid level argumentation, ironically. I will repeat my request for specific reasons why these specific sources cannot be used in this specific context because there is allegedly a reasonable case to be made they could be unreliable. Any reason will do, as long as its factual. Mr Happy Shoes ( talk) 22:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- To make it really easy: Daily Mail and the Sun are tabloids, not mainstream source (for the UK, that would be the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, or the BBC). --
Masem (
t) 22:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Why use an analogy when it is this exact case that shows your stance for what it is? Absurd dogma. Thwt is what I mean when I say specifics. Wikipedia is currently hosting a biography which claims the subject is still in a public engagement role, and poses no risk to children. That is all that is known, according to supposedly reliable sources. It contradicts all observeable reality however, wherein the institution no longer has an employee page for him, he has stopped being quoted in the media as an expert, and there are two reports in the two most widely read UK newspapers, quoting lawyers, prosecutors and a judge, that are both byelined, don't disagree, and which both say he was convicted of a crime serious enough to have him fired from that role and never hired to a similar one for at least seven years, by law. There is no information out there anywhere, reliable or otherwise, that offers a contradictory account. Least of all the persons and institutions that would understandably be outraged at such a fabrication. The most plausible explanation for these observable facts, is that this man has been fired or asked to resign (doesn't matter which, neither is claimed in the bio) as a result of this conviction. His desired career is likely over. His Wikipedia biography therefore, is misleading to the point of negligence. Like it or not, there are conceivable scenarios where this false Wikipedia biography could be used to either assist this man in further offending, or prevent an institution from properly protecting children. Especially if they, like you, contrary to all reason, and in all circumstances, choose not to believe a word they read in the tabloids. This is manifestly not a case of wanting to use Wikipedia to Right a Great Wrong, because as that very page says is acceptable, this would be a case of Wikipedia following, not leading, "mainstream media". What a child could understand, is why, even after being asked for specific examples of when the Mail and the Sun have EVER been caught fabricating reports of this nature, instead if addressing that with he inevitable negatory, you keep returning to your own circular logic, whereby Wikipedia is not in error, because it currently doesn't include any information from unreliable sources, and unreliable sources never make an error. Or worse, far worse, you recognise the error, but you would prefer to keep Wikipedia erroneous, than admit you have badly misjudged the media landscape of one of your choice source markets, where it would be absurd to the point of incredulous to hear that knowingly false reporting of this kind, namely court reporting of serious offences committed barely known individuals, would be considered profitable. Out of some warped prejudice regarding what you think you may have once read about honey, that was indeed perhaps misleading on a semi regular basis. And on a point of fact, those reports are of course never as inaccurate or misleading as is claimed. The unsurprising conclusion there, as ever, is that a newspaper is not an academic journal. But as any child knows, a newspaper does report on court proceedings. It is your choice to ignore that basic fact, or otherwise pretend these reports were written solely for some reason other than serving the public interest and without any due regard to the consequences of false reporting. It is your choice to potentially put children at risk, in addition to making Wikipedia just look ridiculous, rather than engage on the specifics of this case. You simply don't care, as you admitted. You think you have covered every case, even when shown a case you had apparently never considered. The drawbacks of dogma. This is why you should have been paying attention and properly read what was written, provided for your benefit, so that you could and should have given a useful reply, even if you still believed there was some logical reason not to assume these sources are reliable in context
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 22:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'll take one more shot at explaining this, using an analogy. Let's say some tabloid reports that consumption of honey will cure COVID-19. (Why not? It supposedly cures everything else.) Should we report that as well. Maybe they have doctors to quote or centuries of folk-lore to fall back on. Does that make the specifics any more reliable? Of course not. Unless a medically-reliable source confirms it, we can't report it. This is how we keep medical quackery out of articles (where there is a very real danger that we, ourselves, may cause harm), fringe science, celebrity gossip, and at the top of that list, falsely accusing someone of a crime without extremely good evidence. (That's where BLP policy comes into play.) You simply need better proof. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. Even a child can understand that. Without it, any discussion of specifics is moot. The first step is providing reliable sources.
Zaereth (
talk) 21:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- There is no "reliable in context" when it comes to these sources. They are considered by Wikipedia policy to be unreliable. Period. And I use the honey example because 1.) I wanted something that wasn't real (although I suppose I could have used whatever it was Trump was pushing back when, but I like to avoid politics at all cost), and 2.) because I wrote nearly all the scientific parts of that article, except the medical. But I've seen how many people come there with their quackery, with the deep, inner, and urgent need to save the world out of some warped sense of morals. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Anyhow, I find when I am too passionate about a subject, it tends to cloud my senses, and it's at that time that I am never more wrong. It's only when I can step back and look at it neutrally and objectively that my reason overcomes my passion. I still suggest taking some time to figure out how this all works before ever getting involved in something you are so passionate about. No matter how many ways you find to say the same things, there are a multitude of others here giving you the same reply, and that should tell you something.
Zaereth (
talk) 22:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have yet to see a definitive policy statement to the effect the Sun and Mail are deemeed unreliable in all contexts. This is a specific issue about a specific usage. One that my reading of Verfiability and Reliable Sources seems to allow, given they talk at length about considering context and circumstances. That is perhaps why nobody here is doing that? Lest anyone imagine I am trying to argue they are misclassified by Wikipedia, I am not. For certain topics, they are less reliable than broadsheets, which themselves, are known to make mistakes. This is not one of them. People here have thrown up a lot of anti tabloid chaff, all in an apparent effort to deflect from the central point. These are two factual reports of a serious nature that are in total agreement, and they include quotes, and there are zero indications that they are incorrect reports. Zero. As much as it probably appeals to many here, to argue this is a realistic scenario for assuming the Sun and the Mail can't be trusted to do a simple thing like report on a court judgement, you might as well be saying they can't be trusted to print the date correctly. Absurd. Inane. Ridiculous. It is what it is, prejudicial garbage. Mr Happy Shoes ( talk) 09:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- There is no "reliable in context" when it comes to these sources. They are considered by Wikipedia policy to be unreliable. Period. And I use the honey example because 1.) I wanted something that wasn't real (although I suppose I could have used whatever it was Trump was pushing back when, but I like to avoid politics at all cost), and 2.) because I wrote nearly all the scientific parts of that article, except the medical. But I've seen how many people come there with their quackery, with the deep, inner, and urgent need to save the world out of some warped sense of morals. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Anyhow, I find when I am too passionate about a subject, it tends to cloud my senses, and it's at that time that I am never more wrong. It's only when I can step back and look at it neutrally and objectively that my reason overcomes my passion. I still suggest taking some time to figure out how this all works before ever getting involved in something you are so passionate about. No matter how many ways you find to say the same things, there are a multitude of others here giving you the same reply, and that should tell you something.
Zaereth (
talk) 22:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Most of that was deeply off-topic, and I hope you don't get any takers on the hypothetical. Do we need to add "Not a background check" to
WP:NOT? The fact is that you have opened discussions here and at
WP:RSN and have not built consensus for ignoring the unreliability of the Sun and Mail. Editors don't need to provide "credible reasons" not to assume that unreliable sources are unreliable. I second the recommendation that you drop the stick. You can hope other editors arrive who agree with your points and search for reliable sources.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk) 20:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Editors are required to prove they know the difference between a sensible position, and an absurd position. This is why I was able to show that Masem, contrary to these grand generalisms of claimed policy, doesn't actually have a single reason to think the Sun or Mail would have ever fabricated a report of this nature. Asking him that was a necessary part of the process. Hence presumably why he has departed stage left, rather than admit that, in the specific case here, he was wrong.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 21:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- On your first point, I disagree. No editors I've seen here are taking positions more absurd than just "These sources have proven to be unreliable, so we won't accept them." I am going to take Masem's lead and head backstage. Good luck with all your future editing.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk) 22:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- As you wish. Everyone can see the absurdity in claiming a source has been proven to be unreliable for a specific use, when nobody here is prepared to admit (bar one) that they have never actually seen that source be unreliable in that context, or have been prepared to acknowledge the very sound logical reasoning why they wouldn't. Mr Happy Shoes ( talk) 22:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- On your first point, I disagree. No editors I've seen here are taking positions more absurd than just "These sources have proven to be unreliable, so we won't accept them." I am going to take Masem's lead and head backstage. Good luck with all your future editing.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk) 22:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Editors are required to prove they know the difference between a sensible position, and an absurd position. This is why I was able to show that Masem, contrary to these grand generalisms of claimed policy, doesn't actually have a single reason to think the Sun or Mail would have ever fabricated a report of this nature. Asking him that was a necessary part of the process. Hence presumably why he has departed stage left, rather than admit that, in the specific case here, he was wrong.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 21:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'll note that my preferred version of the page would include this information, as I strongly believe that our bios should be just that, bios. In fact, it was Happy Shoes who found sources and made edits to the page that convinced me to change my !vote at the AfD from delete to keep.
- But my preference to maintain WP's standards is stronger than my preference to have a complete entry on this man. I do not support the inclusion of any material drawn from these two sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- You are being quite benign in how you describe this issue though. The goal here is not completeness in the sense you previously meant it. We still don't know, for example, what year he was born. I would support not using the Sun or Mail to prove when he was born, I would happy to just leave that out, on the very real risk they might have just made it up, or more accurately, not properly researched it. For uncontroversial information like that, nobody would be surprised to learn a reporter had just lazily copied that from an unreliable source when looking for filler, including of course, Wikipedia. People might not like to admit it, but even the broadsheets are guilty of that. Why? Because they're not in the business of writing biographies. The specific issue here is, on what basis are these specific reports being assumed to be unreliable? I don't want generalisms, it frankly isn't good enough to wave them away just because it's The Sun or The Mail. I want hard proof that there would be SERIOUS harm if Wikipedia was to incorporate this information, for all the very sound reasons given for why it can't just be blithely assumed to be wrong, after obviously removing the tabloidesque details. Because, and I am saddened nobody here seems to want to accept it, it is very easy to imagine a scenario where SERIOUS harm could result from Wikipedia presenting a false biography. Because, make no mistake, and I perhaps do now share some responsibility for this, this biography does now make a very seriously false claim, namely that this man is still the Public Astronomer. I did not find a single reliable source that says he isn't, presumably because that would involve explaining why too, so I would he interested to know how all those who seek to wed themselves irretrievably to policies and principles they claim make perfect sense to them, propose to square that circle. Or at least an actual admission that they don't plan to, and they don't give a damn what happens as a result of it.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 20:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- There is nothing false nor that will create serious harm about omitting a criminal charge about a person on their biographic page. It's missing information like his birth year, but its not "false" information. We should likely indicate he is no longer with the Royal Observatory (given that they no longer list him on his pages, knowing that he was listed before and reported that way before) but that's about the extent we can do. But to that end, all we can really say is that "he was ..." rather than "he is ...", we can't say why he no longer is. --
Masem (
t) 21:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- A lie by omission is rightly recognized as a pernicious form of false information, especially when done from a position of public trust. If it wasn't, President Trump was surely badly mistreated by the media. That is distinct from failing to mention a detail you already know is unimportant. On a point of fact, even stating this man "was" the Public Astronomer, a very important detail, would be an example of Wikipedia giving out false information under these alleged policies and principles. Why? Because you can't reliably source it! Hosted by your own petard. And more importantly, on what basis are you claiming that not mentioning this conviction won't harm anybody? Who are you to be so sure that this man, his life in apparent ruins, doesn't now want to progress his image based abuse, into real life abuse? He could easily convince a child, by showing them this page, that he is still an influential man with a cool job, someone worth conversing with online. And we already know at least, from reliable sources, that engaging with children was one of the favourite parts of his job. According to those allegedly unreliable sources, he is under a prevention Order for seven years, and that was done by someone professionally trained to asses risk. If you doubt it, there's his name, you can ask him if he has been falsely quoted. You won't, of course. And so who are you to say that being able to point to a trusted website that doesn't mention his conviction but does seemingly appear to be a sort of CV, doesn't pose a risk? I make no claim that any of these scenarios are realistic, but such is the nature of the offences, that even a small risk has to be taken seriously, and acted upon. It would be a low risk, high reward act, to set aside the utterly ridiculous prejudices against tabloids here, just for this specific case, and simply acknowledge how utterly unlikely it is that these reports are false.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 22:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- Lies by omission is only a valid argument when there is sufficient evidence that the info is probative and not prejudicial to the jury. This is not a courtroom, and there is no such thing as lying by omission in the context of a tertiary source (that's us). We give only what we can get within the bounds of policy. These tertiary writing conventions are not new to Wikipedia, but really go back as far as Pliny the Elder. "And therefore as a stranger give it welcome. There are more things in Wikipedia and policy, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Zaereth (
talk) 02:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Wikipedia routinely has to bat away accusations that it has failed to adequately serve its mission as an encyclopedia, by ommission. The precise area of failing to properly document notable academics is one such area. It was evidently a valid complaint, in recognition of the fact that there is necessarily a quite wide divergence between what your policy has previously allowed you to get, due to your heavy over reliance on broadhseet media, and what you can actually get if you simply apply a little common sense. How was that conflict resolved? Someone made the entirely sound argument that, while they could be prone to bias, it is unlikely a primary source like an employee profile on a man like Kukula, might contain false claims. As such, it was I who was able to save his biography from deletion, because it was I who rejected the utterly absurd notion that if The Guardian doesn't consider something worthy of note, then Wikipedia shouldn't either. You're never going to get around the central flaw of your argument here. You have got absolutely nothing to say regarding whether or not this information is accurate, other than your existing prejudice against these two newspapers. If it was prejudice based on relevant facts, an opinion that fitted these circumstances and the context, that would be one thing. But it isn't. You obviosuly desperately wish and hope that there is some convincing argument to be made that might convince people like me, who happily do not reside in the Wikipedia universe, but who do actually make their living out of knowing what is true and what is false, that these reports could conceivably be false. But you can't. If you could, you would have done it by now. I am confident that, contrary to what was claimed below, there is high public confidence that these specific reports, are true. It is up to Wikipedia to account for why they choose to believe otherwise. Can you? Or am I just going to be treated to more pointless generalisms? I have already dealt with one obviously false generalism on Wikipedia, and I now regret that it led to Wikipedia keeping the biography of this man. Because while others here might not care, I really do think that protecting children should be given a higher priority than maintaining a prejudice at any and all costs. Hopefully a child doesn't need to be harmed, for you to reconsider what lies behind yours and others efforts to hold some imaginary line here. What do people imagine are the consequences of acceeding that in this one specific case, these reports are likely true? Reading elsewhere, it appears these fears include having to report as fact that Amanda Knox is guilty, and copious images of breast appearing on Wikipedia for reasons of titillation (and I hate to break it to that person, but Wikipedia is already clearly in the business of hosting numerous images of breasts, and seems to have even less safeguards in that regard than the Sun!). Mr Happy Shoes ( talk) 09:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Lies by omission is only a valid argument when there is sufficient evidence that the info is probative and not prejudicial to the jury. This is not a courtroom, and there is no such thing as lying by omission in the context of a tertiary source (that's us). We give only what we can get within the bounds of policy. These tertiary writing conventions are not new to Wikipedia, but really go back as far as Pliny the Elder. "And therefore as a stranger give it welcome. There are more things in Wikipedia and policy, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Zaereth (
talk) 02:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- A lie by omission is rightly recognized as a pernicious form of false information, especially when done from a position of public trust. If it wasn't, President Trump was surely badly mistreated by the media. That is distinct from failing to mention a detail you already know is unimportant. On a point of fact, even stating this man "was" the Public Astronomer, a very important detail, would be an example of Wikipedia giving out false information under these alleged policies and principles. Why? Because you can't reliably source it! Hosted by your own petard. And more importantly, on what basis are you claiming that not mentioning this conviction won't harm anybody? Who are you to be so sure that this man, his life in apparent ruins, doesn't now want to progress his image based abuse, into real life abuse? He could easily convince a child, by showing them this page, that he is still an influential man with a cool job, someone worth conversing with online. And we already know at least, from reliable sources, that engaging with children was one of the favourite parts of his job. According to those allegedly unreliable sources, he is under a prevention Order for seven years, and that was done by someone professionally trained to asses risk. If you doubt it, there's his name, you can ask him if he has been falsely quoted. You won't, of course. And so who are you to say that being able to point to a trusted website that doesn't mention his conviction but does seemingly appear to be a sort of CV, doesn't pose a risk? I make no claim that any of these scenarios are realistic, but such is the nature of the offences, that even a small risk has to be taken seriously, and acted upon. It would be a low risk, high reward act, to set aside the utterly ridiculous prejudices against tabloids here, just for this specific case, and simply acknowledge how utterly unlikely it is that these reports are false.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 22:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- There is nothing false nor that will create serious harm about omitting a criminal charge about a person on their biographic page. It's missing information like his birth year, but its not "false" information. We should likely indicate he is no longer with the Royal Observatory (given that they no longer list him on his pages, knowing that he was listed before and reported that way before) but that's about the extent we can do. But to that end, all we can really say is that "he was ..." rather than "he is ...", we can't say why he no longer is. --
Masem (
t) 21:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- You are being quite benign in how you describe this issue though. The goal here is not completeness in the sense you previously meant it. We still don't know, for example, what year he was born. I would support not using the Sun or Mail to prove when he was born, I would happy to just leave that out, on the very real risk they might have just made it up, or more accurately, not properly researched it. For uncontroversial information like that, nobody would be surprised to learn a reporter had just lazily copied that from an unreliable source when looking for filler, including of course, Wikipedia. People might not like to admit it, but even the broadsheets are guilty of that. Why? Because they're not in the business of writing biographies. The specific issue here is, on what basis are these specific reports being assumed to be unreliable? I don't want generalisms, it frankly isn't good enough to wave them away just because it's The Sun or The Mail. I want hard proof that there would be SERIOUS harm if Wikipedia was to incorporate this information, for all the very sound reasons given for why it can't just be blithely assumed to be wrong, after obviously removing the tabloidesque details. Because, and I am saddened nobody here seems to want to accept it, it is very easy to imagine a scenario where SERIOUS harm could result from Wikipedia presenting a false biography. Because, make no mistake, and I perhaps do now share some responsibility for this, this biography does now make a very seriously false claim, namely that this man is still the Public Astronomer. I did not find a single reliable source that says he isn't, presumably because that would involve explaining why too, so I would he interested to know how all those who seek to wed themselves irretrievably to policies and principles they claim make perfect sense to them, propose to square that circle. Or at least an actual admission that they don't plan to, and they don't give a damn what happens as a result of it.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 20:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
-
Mr Happy Shoes,
You are being quite benign in how you describe this issue though.
Yes, I am remarkably not worked up over whether one little-trafficked article on Wikipedia on a relatively minor figure who no longer even works as a researcher (he's a writer now, according to his CV) has what might be either a scurrilous lie or (more likely) his most shameful secret laid out bare in a passive, encyclopedic tone. - Perhaps you should emulate my example, accept the answer you've gotten from literally everyone else in this thread, and go on about your life, untroubled by the state of this particular page.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 21:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)
- I cannot emulate your example, because to me, it does matter a lot that there are seemingly quite a few people here who do seriously want to live in a world where there is even a 1% chance that these reports might actually be a "scurrilous lie". To me, and no doubt to a lot of people who are not indoctrinated to Wikipedia's ways, such a viewpoint is absurd, to the point of offensive. To me, this is nothing but the product of some serious prejudice. A level of prejudice thet almost guarantees Wikipedia should never ever be trusted to be an encyclopedia, because such naked prejudice will always utterly destroy any goal of neutrality or sense of moral duty. It troubles me a lot that I have apparently had a hand in the current state of this particular page, because to me, it does matter if there is even a 1% chance that the subject could use this obviously false biography and Wikipedia's general reputation as a trusted reference work, to continue his offending. People here are genuinely acting as if their prejudice against tabloids should take precedence over the protection of children. It's abhorrent. It is irrelevant whether or not this article is little trafficked. It would only need to be viewed by two people, an offender and a victim, to enable a crime to be committed. As a mere platform, Wikipedia can rightly claim it played no part in that outcome, it would be entirely down to these absurd prejudices of the individuals involved, the people who are quite happy not to engage on the specifics or the context, in defence of this prejudice. But I would advise anyone who cares for Wikipedia deeply enough to spend time holding the line on these prejudices, especiallly if they genuinely see this as an inconsequential matter in the grand scheme of things, to think very carefully indeed about what a tabloid could really do to Wikipedia, if the worst happens. Even more so if it emerges, as has happened a lot recently, that there are far worse revelations to come, crimes that have been committed by a person with this sort of interest and who is in a position of trust and power, and could have potentially been prevented, if, for example, certain laws were in place. The sort of laws that the tabloid press tend to like run campaigns over, and which tend to offend the liberal instincts of Wikipedia people, who would, I imagine, be quite affronted at the idea it might be worthwhile to do a deep dive on a candidate's web history, before giving them a job like Public Astronomer. After all, something must have triggered a police search. Wikipedia might wish not to be seen as a background check resource, but if it doesn't, it might like to ponder how and why it has come to be the single most comprehensive resource on this man's life and career, and yet has deliberately chosen not to include information that has been published by the two most widely read newspapers in Britain, and where there is no realistic prospect of it being untrue. Sure, popularity is not reliability, but not for nothing does Wikipedia aim for ubiquity and broad acceptance as a trustworthy resource. Other than Wikipedia therefore, and the only next step for anyone who wants to know more, is to be proactive. Not really an option for those who don't have the money or the legal power to do anything but a Google search. It is a shame therefore, that the end product of Wikipedia's naked prejudice against tabloids, in this and no doubt other similar cases, which admittedly would be few and far between, is that to get the likely truth, to assess a simple thing like the risk posed to a child, without recourse to direct and perhaps illegal methods, one has to specifically search the internet for any pertinent tabloid stories that are probably true but which Wikipedia prejudices would have everyone believe is mere fake news, celebrity tittle tattle, next weeks fish and chip wrapping. Another win for the Murdochs of this world, who are indeed gleeful at any opportunity to show Wikipedia editors lack the ability to make serious judgements with regard to who is a serious journalist and who is merely a peddler of scurrilous rumour. Wikipedia better hope and pray that there is nothing more to this story, is all I can say. People are even acting like including this information would be automatically damaging to Kukula, as if they can't even conceive if a worked where Wikipedia is the place a person should be, if they want to know what specific terms relating to this man's crimes and sentences actually mean with regard to his future employment prospects or his overall risk level. How ironic, that they should show so little faith in Wikipedia, as a nominal public information resource. People here infact should frankly be quite ashamed that they have effectively ceded much of the future direction of this man's life over to the tabloids, who have indeed been quite happy to use terms like vile. Wikipedia is under no such obligation. Wikipedia is meant to be a factual encyclopedia. It's a shame is chooses not to see any pertinent facts here at all in these reports, regarding this man's biography. And only for reasons of obvious, absolute, immovable, prejudice. I happily judge anyone who doesn't seem to be as interested in these issues as I am, both in the child safety and the purpose of an encyclopedia angles, especially if they're claiming to have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. For shame, is my verdict. Nay, that is my professional opinion. I am no Judge, but according to Wikipedia, neither is the woman who convicted this man. Ooops! Damn those prejudices.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 10:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Two things:
- First, I'd recommend reading the Wikipedia general disclaimers (bottom of every page). Wikipedia does not vouch for the veracity of the information of every page. We strive for that but we know in our open editing model that actual mistakes and false information (by vandals) can leak in and not be caught. We try hard to stop that, but we realistically can't, so we do not present ourselves as the end-all of knowledge and caution all users that, if they are doing serious work, WP is only a first point of reference and not the last. If someone for some reason is doing a background check related to this person, and they only use Wikipedia for their source, they're doing a terrible job and ignored the warnings that WP gave them.
- As a hypothetical, what if neither the DM nor the Sun reported on this? We'd still know something was amiss due to the un-personing of him from the website and all the other factors we can see, and I would not be surprised that through the grapevine we'd learn about the pedophila conviction. But we have zero usable sources to work from. What then, what would you ask us to do? We absolutely will not violate WP:V and BLP to report on speculation that we can't source properly, so I think you'd agree we'd have to leave it out in that case. So here now we have a case where there exists two sources, and while there's very little chance those sources are making this up to a degree, we know they have a history of falsefying things in the past, so those sources are very circumspect - not necessarily for this specific case, but they've tainted all uses. So just as if we had no sourcing all together, we have to treat the situation as having no usable sources all together, and simply work from being aware behind the curtain that all this happened, that we absolutely want to try to document it, but that we have to have ironclad BLP-meeting sources to do that, otherwise we fail BLP's mission. -- Masem ( t) 13:55, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Two things:
- I cannot emulate your example, because to me, it does matter a lot that there are seemingly quite a few people here who do seriously want to live in a world where there is even a 1% chance that these reports might actually be a "scurrilous lie". To me, and no doubt to a lot of people who are not indoctrinated to Wikipedia's ways, such a viewpoint is absurd, to the point of offensive. To me, this is nothing but the product of some serious prejudice. A level of prejudice thet almost guarantees Wikipedia should never ever be trusted to be an encyclopedia, because such naked prejudice will always utterly destroy any goal of neutrality or sense of moral duty. It troubles me a lot that I have apparently had a hand in the current state of this particular page, because to me, it does matter if there is even a 1% chance that the subject could use this obviously false biography and Wikipedia's general reputation as a trusted reference work, to continue his offending. People here are genuinely acting as if their prejudice against tabloids should take precedence over the protection of children. It's abhorrent. It is irrelevant whether or not this article is little trafficked. It would only need to be viewed by two people, an offender and a victim, to enable a crime to be committed. As a mere platform, Wikipedia can rightly claim it played no part in that outcome, it would be entirely down to these absurd prejudices of the individuals involved, the people who are quite happy not to engage on the specifics or the context, in defence of this prejudice. But I would advise anyone who cares for Wikipedia deeply enough to spend time holding the line on these prejudices, especiallly if they genuinely see this as an inconsequential matter in the grand scheme of things, to think very carefully indeed about what a tabloid could really do to Wikipedia, if the worst happens. Even more so if it emerges, as has happened a lot recently, that there are far worse revelations to come, crimes that have been committed by a person with this sort of interest and who is in a position of trust and power, and could have potentially been prevented, if, for example, certain laws were in place. The sort of laws that the tabloid press tend to like run campaigns over, and which tend to offend the liberal instincts of Wikipedia people, who would, I imagine, be quite affronted at the idea it might be worthwhile to do a deep dive on a candidate's web history, before giving them a job like Public Astronomer. After all, something must have triggered a police search. Wikipedia might wish not to be seen as a background check resource, but if it doesn't, it might like to ponder how and why it has come to be the single most comprehensive resource on this man's life and career, and yet has deliberately chosen not to include information that has been published by the two most widely read newspapers in Britain, and where there is no realistic prospect of it being untrue. Sure, popularity is not reliability, but not for nothing does Wikipedia aim for ubiquity and broad acceptance as a trustworthy resource. Other than Wikipedia therefore, and the only next step for anyone who wants to know more, is to be proactive. Not really an option for those who don't have the money or the legal power to do anything but a Google search. It is a shame therefore, that the end product of Wikipedia's naked prejudice against tabloids, in this and no doubt other similar cases, which admittedly would be few and far between, is that to get the likely truth, to assess a simple thing like the risk posed to a child, without recourse to direct and perhaps illegal methods, one has to specifically search the internet for any pertinent tabloid stories that are probably true but which Wikipedia prejudices would have everyone believe is mere fake news, celebrity tittle tattle, next weeks fish and chip wrapping. Another win for the Murdochs of this world, who are indeed gleeful at any opportunity to show Wikipedia editors lack the ability to make serious judgements with regard to who is a serious journalist and who is merely a peddler of scurrilous rumour. Wikipedia better hope and pray that there is nothing more to this story, is all I can say. People are even acting like including this information would be automatically damaging to Kukula, as if they can't even conceive if a worked where Wikipedia is the place a person should be, if they want to know what specific terms relating to this man's crimes and sentences actually mean with regard to his future employment prospects or his overall risk level. How ironic, that they should show so little faith in Wikipedia, as a nominal public information resource. People here infact should frankly be quite ashamed that they have effectively ceded much of the future direction of this man's life over to the tabloids, who have indeed been quite happy to use terms like vile. Wikipedia is under no such obligation. Wikipedia is meant to be a factual encyclopedia. It's a shame is chooses not to see any pertinent facts here at all in these reports, regarding this man's biography. And only for reasons of obvious, absolute, immovable, prejudice. I happily judge anyone who doesn't seem to be as interested in these issues as I am, both in the child safety and the purpose of an encyclopedia angles, especially if they're claiming to have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. For shame, is my verdict. Nay, that is my professional opinion. I am no Judge, but according to Wikipedia, neither is the woman who convicted this man. Ooops! Damn those prejudices.
Mr Happy Shoes (
talk) 10:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
-
Mr Happy Shoes,
Adam Beniquez
Article, including categories, contains numerous egregious violations of WP:BLPCRIME since he only appears to have been convicted of one murder. Notability would be questionable once cleaned up. He also has an entry at the following article;
- List of nicknames of serial killers ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
That article is significantly lacking in inline citations, and contains many names who don't even have a Wikipedia article. 195.89.72.16 ( talk) 08:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- The article subject is not a public figure, and so I removed the accusations that did not result in convictions per WP:BLPCRIME. Based on a brief review of the article, I tend to agree that the subject's notability seems primarily tied to the additional accusations (that it does not appear he was ever even charged with), and that he would probably not be notable simply on the basis of his one murder conviction.
- For the list of serial killers, I think all of the names that are not bluelinked need to be removed. Those types of lists are only for notable individuals, and if a person is notable, then they should have that type of information explained in an article before including them in a list article. I'll try to clean it up at some point if no one else gets to it. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 16:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I just deleted the names that were not sourced or bluelinked on the list of serial killers article. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 17:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
Howard Milstein
Howard Milstein was written by and is updated by a relative and employee of the subject. Information that she thinks would reflect poorly on the subject is not allowed to appear.
I was an employee of Milstein's company for several years and worked with the writer. However, I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor and I'm not sure if this is a proper subject for this noticeboard. I apologize in advance if that's the case.
These are some of the news stories that I'd expect to be deleted by the person who monitors the page:
The acres of vacant land in Niagara Falls, undeveloped for decades [1] (2000) [2] (2013) [3] (still undeveloped in 2019)
The family disagreement that led to lawsuits in 2000 [4]
Milstein was one of five bankers picketed by Occupy Wall Street [5]
A bill introduced by Michael Grimm would have benefited only Milstein's privately held bank, Emigrant Bank [6]
Emigrant Bank found guilty of promoting subprime loans in 2016. Milstein was deposed in the suit, as was reported in The New York Times. [7]
Would you suggest I add them and see what happens?
Addison0372 ( talk) 15:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Addison0372
References
- ^ https://www.forbes.com/forbes/2000/0124/6502054a.html
- ^ http://niagaracounty.wgrz.com/news/news/113871-nyc-billionaire-absentee-landlord-140-acres-niagara-falls
- ^ https://www.wkbw.com/news/i-team/i-team-five-years-later-150-million-wonder-falls-project-is-just-a-dream
- ^ https://observer.com/2000/05/battle-of-milsteins-old-brothers-clash-as-do-grownup-boys/
- ^ https://www.huffpost.com/entry/millionaires-march-occupy-wall-street_n_1006020
- ^ https://www.politico.com/story/2012/05/bill-would-give-single-bank-a-300m-benefit-076893
- ^ https://greerjournal.com/howard-milstein-forced-to-testify-in-federal-court-over-predatory-loans/
- There looks like a decent amount of promotional material in the article that could be removed, and Addison0372, regarding the sources you cite, there is definitely useful information there that could be added. Most of the articles look reliable, although you would need to be careful with some of the speculation in them, and any of the information that was included would also need to be neutral per the WP:NPOV policy. I don't think the HuffPost source for the Occupy Wall Street protests is useful since it only mentions Milstein once, and so I don't think the information would be WP:DUE. The "The Greer Journal" website looks like a personal blog, and so that would not be reliable, but the relevant information looks like it could be cited to the New York Times article mentioned there anyway. I'm not sure how the WP:COI policy works for someone who was a former employee like you, but you could also propose revisions on the article's talk page. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 00:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Removal of section on arrest of 20-year old protester
By this edit, I removed a section on a 20-year-old individual who was accused of actions in a protest in connection with the George Floyd matter. The article was a stand-alone, then merged into the linked article. I did so under the policies stated in my edit summary; I don't believe this arrest and charge of an individual in this event qualifies for a compliant BLP. Kablammo ( talk) 17:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree with the removal as it does not appear the individual is a public figure and I don't think there is enough to say she is notable for the arrest. The whole article seems a lot like WP:NOTNEWS. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 17:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)
- Agree this was a proper removal for reasons stated. The removal begs if we even need said article but that's not a BLP question -- Masem ( t) 00:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Article was highly promotional and very poorly sourced, with many additions from IP users. I tried to trim down the most egregious content, and highlight where better sourcing (or just sourcing at all) was needed. Edits were reverted several times by an IP user (who geolocates to the subject's area, so potential COI), so requested semi-protected. Then, an editor who had been dormant for several years appears to revert the edits again. Would be helpful to have more eyes on the article. Not at all clear that the subject meets notability standards, but, if he does, still quite a bit of work to be done. BubbaJoe123456 ( talk) 20:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)
Tomer Eiges
Could someone look at Tomer Eiges? I saw this in the NPP queue. The topic is probably notable, in that this is a publicized controversial death. However, the name of the person is not (yet?) widely published. Are joods.nl and pensiontimes.co.uk reliable sources?-- Eostrix ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 12:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)
sahle-work zewde
/info/en/?search=Sahle-Work_Zewde At the end of the first paragraph of sahle-work zewde's biographical page, it says, "She is old and has more than a thousand bodies"- I assume that this is a joke? Because I've never contributed before, I didn't feel confident enough to remove it myself. Thank you all most sincerely for the work you do; it is very, very much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DE:E718:500:40AC:CEA5:2D91:C9C2 ( talk) 11:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)
What's the appropriateness of saying Brendan Eich is "known for" "opposition to same-sex marriage"? It seems that this was covered in media during his appointment as Mozilla CEO. The documentation of Template:Infobox person says that parameter should briefly provide the claim to notability of the person. Despite controversy, it's difficult to claim that the co-founder of Mozilla and creator of JavaScript's claim to notability is opposing same sex marriage. It's equivalent to saying Jeff Bezos is known for tax avoidance, Elon Musk for promoting Bitcoin, or Donald Trump for building a wall. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 18:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well. That is what he's most known for if one looks outside of the group of programmers and crypto-nerds. Your comparison to Musk and Bezos doesn't hold water because Eich isn't in their class of publicity or social impact, so that's a straw man.
- I'm curious as to why you came here, rather than opening a discussion on the talk page, which you were asked to do. I'm curious why other people don't! But I guess that's too much work, so we open discussions elsewhere, and try to lawyer out of it, or accuse editors of having conflicts of interest? Bah.
Jorm (
talk) 19:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Because I preferred outside eyes on the issue? Given on the talk page you've pretty much ignored everyone arguing otherwise,
edit warred the content in, and
accused of vandalism anyone who disagrees with you on the content?
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 19:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think the controversy is appropriate for the infobox unless it is central to the person's notability, especially when it only became a controversy because the individual was otherwise notable. I don't think the cited sources are not adequate for the content either, as they are news stories from when the event happened that are not discussing what the article subject is known for generally. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 21:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
- Because I preferred outside eyes on the issue? Given on the talk page you've pretty much ignored everyone arguing otherwise,
edit warred the content in, and
accused of vandalism anyone who disagrees with you on the content?
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 19:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)
This article about a federal judge contains what seems to me a disproportionate amount of text about a single case. I've tried to maintain it via paring, but a typical outcome is this, restoration. That material has sources, but this level of detail can be covered at Sholom Rubashkin, it's not needed here. Consider: there is currently a paragraph that starts "On December 20, 2017, after serving eight years of his 27-year sentence, U.S. President Donald Trump commuted Rubashkin's sentence" and mentions Reade only once. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 05:53, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Pierre Kory
Pierre Kory There seems to be an ongoing defamation campaign against Pierre Kory related to his involvement in researching medication against covid-19. The Wikipedia page claims his views to be unproven and erronous solely based on a single source from the associated press which seems rather opinionated in nature. Attempts at moving the article from an authoritative style to an objective factual style are frequently revoked with claims that doing so would be less neutral and from a biased point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColourScreen ( talk • contribs) 16:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- No comment on the specifics of article content here, but a few general points. Firstly, describing disputed content as 'defamation' and other contributors as 'biased' is inadvisable, to say the least, if one wants a disagreement to be settled amicably. Secondly, since this dispute seems to concern Kory's controversial opinions regarding the the treatment of COVID-19, this dispute is almost certainly subject to
Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19, making the need for proper conduct in any dispute even more necessary. And finally, I'd suggest that new contributors, if the wish to get involved in discussions over controversial subjects, might do well to first familiarise themselves with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In particular, after looking at the talk page for the disputed article, I'd recommend that ColourScreen read
WP:NOTFORUM.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 16:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- It is alarming that ColourScreen, in addition to their WP:RGW-style tirades, [1] is promoting quackery in Wikipedia, linking to Youtube videos boosting Ivermectin as a COVID treatment, and which have an antivaxx theme, that have nothing to do with Kory. [2] Also links to content which has been banned from Youtube, and has taken refuge on advoacy sites. [3] With the sanctions in mind this is probably worthy of some admin scrutiny. Alexbrn ( talk) 17:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Having looked into the biography in question, it seems that there is indeed an issue with the content. Or rather, with the way a couple of new contributors, including ColourScreen above, have been editing it. A it currently stands [4] the article is clearly misusing sources to imply things they don't in fact state. Specifically, it cites a source [5] as supposedly 'vindicating' Kory's views on the efficacy of Ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 while said source actually makes it clear that Ivermectin is not recommended for such treatment. Put simply, the disputed content, as added by the two new contributors, looks like partisan spin.
- Having said that, I'm not sure this is really a matter for WP:BLPN. Nothing I've seen in any version of the article looks much like 'defamation'. If the newcomers can be persuaded to tone down their invective, it might be possible to make some progress towards settling the matter.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 18:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Probably this results from some widely-spread twitter calls to arms [6] a few days ago. This has been a cause of problem editing on COVID-19 topics for a while now - not sure how Wikipedia can respond effectively, as each time it is causing a huge waste of editors' time. Alexbrn ( talk) 18:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Having said that, I'm not sure this is really a matter for WP:BLPN. Nothing I've seen in any version of the article looks much like 'defamation'. If the newcomers can be persuaded to tone down their invective, it might be possible to make some progress towards settling the matter.
AndyTheGrump (
talk) 18:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
Can we not at least agree it is only fair that a video in which Pierre Kory expresses his opinions on the topic is referenced, when the main sources of the article are heavily against him. I don't see what it changes that it was banned on youtube, at some point you should stop cherry picking what researchers are legitimate based solely on their agreeableness with government agencies. I do not believe that Pierre Kory or anyone associated with him are telling things that they know to be false. It is only fair to the public interest that these view points aren't heavily censored. I am not familiar with that tweet, but it is the case there has been a recent surge in physicians discussing treatments online, calling them fraudulent only due to a lack of formality is insane. All counter claims to the effectiveness of the drug say nothing more than that research so far is lacking. Wikipedia seems completely in tune with the narrative pushed by Merck https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/ even though they hardly discuss at all the trade offs between side effects and potential boons, I hope in a couple of years when the narrative has settled that you will honor an official apology. ColourScreen ( talk) 18:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Why would we need a video of Kory stating his views? I don't think any version of the article is claimed to be misinterpreting his views. You two have been arguing that his views have medical validity which is a different thing entirely. Insinuating that we are all in the pocket of Merck isn't a good way to illustrate that you desire neutrality. Notfrompedro ( talk) 18:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- I suspect that most people's hopes regarding the effective treatment of COVID-19 are likely to be more based on their effectiveness than on securing hypothetical 'official apologies' from Wikipedia. This isn't (or isn't supposed to be) a forum, or an inline game. It is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, and whether individual contributors are right about disputed content doesn't really matter that much. If people find that difficult to deal with, they should probably ask themselves whether they should be contributing at all. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
You are decrying his person by describing his ideas as unproven and false, I have nothing more to add. ColourScreen ( talk) 19:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Unproven isn't an insult. Everything is unproven until evidence shows one way or the other. You are implying that unproven=false but that is not what the article is saying. Notfrompedro ( talk) 19:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- The creator of the article, Magnovvig, made it these 10,630 bytes on 15 February. The article was factual and sourced with chapters: Education, Career, Covid-19 steroid controversy, MATH+ protocol, I-MASK+ protocol, Books, with reference to the FLCCC Alliance he co-founded, and to 4 articles Kory wrote. Then Alexbrn started to contribute, well, mostly revert previous contributions to make the article thinned to 5,919 bytes on 1 March 2021. Paul E. Marik, other cofounder of FLCC, was erased with the comment “what's this got to do with Kory?”. He dumped the link to the simple and detailed article, containing references to 3 articles signed by Kory, explaining those MATH+ and I-MASK+ protocols, under the pretext “trim non-WP:MEDRS”. He dumped Kory's founding co-signed article giving Clinical and Scientific Rationale for the “MATH+” Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19 under the pretext “trim original research from primary source”.
- I see no rationale for an article about Pierre Kory to be trimmed of any publication he made. The last version left by Alexbrn has a link to Kevin J. Tracey whose article cites 46 publications by Tracey! Alexbrn dumped links to 4 publications by Kory just to leave such judgements like his “advocacy of unproven treatments” or to “promote fringe theories”,or to be the one who “erroneously described ivermectin”. As a minimum must be put back in the article what Kory has written! Ceveris ( talk) 20:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- You think because a person has written stuff that (in Wikipedia terms) constitute unreliable medical sources, it's okay to present that material in Wikipedia in what is meant to be a biographical article. That's ... interesting. All my edits were good and fully in line with established policy and the special sanctions in effect: Wikipedia is not going to become a conduit for medical misinformation, and especially not a refuge for conspiracy theory and quackery videos that other platforms have blocked.
Alexbrn (
talk) 20:32, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- You misrepresent what I have written. Living person
Kevin J. Tracey: 46 publications cited. Living person
Pierre Kory: 0 publication cited because you erased them. Because Wikipedia has an article about a person known for the “stuff” it has written, a least that ”stuff” has to be cited.
Ceveris (
talk) 20:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- Wrong. Using a BLP as a
WP:COATRACK for
WP:PROFRINGE medical misinformation is not acceptable, and editors doing it should expect to get sanctioned. If you are really pointing at
this revert of mine as problematic, then frankly you need to get a
WP:CLUE.
Alexbrn (
talk) 04:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- In your intimidating technique to WP:OWN Pierre Kory you just do a psycho manipulation “inversion accusatoire”:
- WP:COATRACK in this BLD: “ coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects.”
- The nominal subject of the article is Pierre Kory, author of 43 Pubmed referenced medical publications who happens to have a positive view about ivermectin as a treatment for Covid-19, among other characteristics.
- In your obsession about ivermectin:
- no later than today you dumped in the lede the phrase “Kory gained reputation when his work made corticosteroid treatment standard of care for COVID-19 patients.” that is not about ivermectin.
- You inserted the link to making beleive that the FLCCC Aliance or the Covid-19 controversies Pierre Kory is part of are all about ivermectin.
- You just left the article with no info about his may 2020 testimony to the Congress that was not about ivermetin.
- All this tells about your own WP:COATRACK on this article. This article is Pierre Kory. It is not Ivermectin.
- This
revert of yours dumped the name
Paul E. Marik who is a close associate to
Pierre Kory especially about the MATH+ protocol that doesn't include ivermectin. You just dumped the lines because Marik was quoted saying a positive appreciation about ivermectin. I just note that doing this you dumped the association of
Pierre Kory with
Paul E. Marik. That's all.
Ceveris (
talk) 09:43, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- You prove the point. Content about another person puffing up ivermectin has nothing to do with the biography of Pierre Kory. This is a coatrack to get that other guy's specious comments ("what is truly remarkable — this was a gift to us — ivermectin has high activity against COVID-19") into Wikipedia. I'll ignore the rest of your contribution as it's personalized moaning, except to note a tiny proportion of my editing to Wikipedia has been about ivermectin, and it is all excellent. For you, on the other hand, ivermectin is what you have posted most about in your Wiki career. If you have any concerns about my behaviour take them to WP:AIN; this is not a noticeboard for general whining. Alexbrn ( talk) 11:20, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Wrong. Using a BLP as a
WP:COATRACK for
WP:PROFRINGE medical misinformation is not acceptable, and editors doing it should expect to get sanctioned. If you are really pointing at
this revert of mine as problematic, then frankly you need to get a
WP:CLUE.
Alexbrn (
talk) 04:57, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- You misrepresent what I have written. Living person
Kevin J. Tracey: 46 publications cited. Living person
Pierre Kory: 0 publication cited because you erased them. Because Wikipedia has an article about a person known for the “stuff” it has written, a least that ”stuff” has to be cited.
Ceveris (
talk) 20:58, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at
Talk:Ivy Latimer § Claims of transgenderism and SELFSOURCE.
Elizium23 (
talk) 15:22, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Vonny Sweetland
Vonny Sweetland ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This page is continually being slandered. I've had to remove slander towards the subject multiple times and have cleaned it up to include citations. Even still, it is continually being falsely flagged for non existent issues (despite citations obviously) and seems to be going through a bit of an editing war. I suggest this page be locked to dissuade from future behaviors. It has now been accurately cited and updated and needs to be protected from future attacks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Speckle11b ( talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- I just removed a lot of promotional information from that article. Most of it was sourced directly to the article subject or blog/opinion articles, but a lot of it was also simply unsourced or cited to sources that did not support the content. Going through the article's history, I do not see any editors inserting "slander" or even potentially slanderous material. You should provide diffs (links to the changes) for those claims. If you are instead talking about the tags that were put onto the article, those seemed entirely appropriate given the previous state of the article. You should not be adding in (and now restoring) content sourced to opinion articles or blogs, as those are not reliable sources for that type of information, especially on a WP:BLP. Finally, given that you have made no edits to any articles outside this one, if you have a conflict of interest, then you need to disclose that and probably should not be editing the article at all, and instead using the article's talk page to discuss your concerns, as explained in the links recently provided by another editor on your user talk page. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 19:18, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- Per [7] it seems you do have a confict of interest. Stop editing the article, please, or an admin will probably block you. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 19:23, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
Rich Fellers
Hi. Do the recent additions to the biography for Rich Fellers violate WP:BLPCRIME? Looking for some guidance on this issue. Thanks. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 09:07, 14 June 2021 (UTC)
- And the same for
Jean-Luc Cairon. Possibly added by the same person.
Lugnuts
Fire Walk with Me 07:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Those are serious accusations of crimes, and I am not sure whether these individuals are public figures. There articles do not discuss any significant media appearances or similar activities, and I do not think that their participation in the Olympics would be enough to make them into public figures. I think those are probably violations of WP:BLPCRIME and should be removed until there is a conviction in the case. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 16:25, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for your help with this. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 16:53, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
Joey Hood
There are two Americans by this name, no differentiating middle initial that I can find. The Joey Hood who is a Mississippi politician already has a page. The other is a longtime foreign service member of considerable achievement, especially in Middle East affairs. Please see this TALK page for the information and references /info/en/?search=Talk:Joey_Hood (as stated there, I don't have the skills to start a new page for the latter person, far less to do a disambiguation page). Thank you! Qassander ( talk) 07:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Viktor Fedotov et al
Viktor Fedotov ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I brought this up at ANI, where it was suggested I crosspost here as well. This article and these others all were written in quite an attack-y tone, and included a lot of detail about the subjects' business interests, political connections, etc. They've been largely cleaned up now, but ProcrastinatingReader felt, and FWIW I agree, they could be looked at in more detail. Any advice welcome! Thanks, -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 06:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)
- The entire "UK business activities" is sourced to primary, government sources. Unless you can find adequate, secondary sources, you should probably remove it. Also for the "Political payments" section, those two quotes seem kinda clunky. Try to re-write them in your own words. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 20:22, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well, I won't be re-writing anything, as I've no knowledge of (not to mention, interest in) this subject matter. I may do what I already did with one of these articles, though, namely AfD them. One of the reasons being, at least in the Lubov Chernukhin article, after ProcrastinatingReader deleted a lot of the OR, much of it seems to have been added back, and I've no wish to get bogged down in edit wars over these. -- DoubleGrazing ( talk) 10:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Discussion at WT:BLP
There's a discussion about using tweets to source dob that may be of interest. —valereee ( talk) 18:27, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
Romanie Schotte
I need help figuring out how WP:BLPCRIME and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE pertain to a beauty pageant winner, Romanie Schotte. Most of the bio covers an alleged race-related infraction (or crime?) investigated by an agency in the person's home country, Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism. The investigation went nowhere; no charges were levied as far as I can tell. Have no idea what to do with this, my inclination is to remove the section (which I did) but it was restored [8] by another editor. My feeling is this is a non-notable person and not a public figure per Wikipedia's standards; there exactly one citation in the article about the subject prior to the race incident, and only two after (regarding a marriage and birth of a child). ☆ Bri ( talk) 02:02, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- If she was Miss Belgium 2017, then she is almost certainly a public figure from the media attention and her activities. Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual explains more about this. I still don't know how WP:DUE the content is though. The sourcing does not look particularly strong, although it is hard to evaluate the sources well since they are not in English. It doesn't seem like it should have more than a sentence or two if it is included, and not a paragraph in a "controversy" section. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 02:33, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well, unfortunately this is not a BLPCRIME issue, because it's not a crime in Belgium anymore than it is in Britain or the US. While being a winner of any Miss-country pageant can be defined as a public figure by the mere status of the position, the same cannot be said for "public figure" for the purposes of BLP policy. But then again, since this isn't a crime, so WP:PUBLICFIGURE really doesn't come into play either.
- But that's not the end; it's just a little more complicated than a CRIME issue. What this really comes down to is first and foremost right there in the preamble of BLP. We're not a tabloid and nor are we a vehicle for reporting titillating claims. You more have to look at this in terms of WP:BLPBALANCE, WP:BLPRS, WP:BLPGOSSIP (and feedback loops), and WP:NOTPUBLICFIGURE.
- Most of the sources are tabloids, and most of them are just repeating the info from other tabloids. There are a few good news sources there, but this is really a matter of chasing the stories down to their original source. We have to balance the information, and such a "scandal" should probably be reported, but only in as much as it relates to the subject's primary notability, and it most certainly can't outweigh that primary notability. She would never have been singled out for any of this attention were it not for her status as Miss Belgium, so that has to be first and most predominant. I don't see how we can avoid some small mention of this, but I wouldn't give it more than a sentence (given the size of the article in proportion), and just the part that relates to the effect it had on her career.
- I'd also keep in mind WP:BLPNAME, and not mention the names of her family unless they themselves are notable enough to have an article of their own right. I would also seriously avoid walling it off in its own section under the misused heading "controversy". Number one, that's not what a controversy is, and two, it creates its own imbalance. Zaereth ( talk) 02:50, 15 June 2021 (UTC)
- There was no crime, so not at all sure why BLPCRIME should apply. The emoji story was massive in Belgium and was covered internationally in reputable media sources (in the Netherlands, France, and the pan-African
Jeune Afrique, published in Paris). Contrary to the claim that "most of the sources are tabloids", most of those relating to this are in fact quality press and the national public broadcaster (the sources about her marriage and pregnancy are closer to tabloids). You might not think it's worth the coverage, but that's not our call: the coverage happened, in multiple reliable sources in at least 2 languages in at least 3 countries. Surely better to cover the business in a clear and balanced way than with vague hints or embarrassed silence? --
Andreas Philopater (
talk) 18:59, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- This was apparently an accusation of a crime, as she was investigated by a government agency for potentially having violated the country's anti-discrimination laws. I'm not sure how the rest of your comments about "vague hints" or neutrality apply to the current content in the article:
"After winning the title, Schotte was criticized for her response to a racist comment on Instagram. The Centre for Equal Opportunities and Opposition to Racism opened an investigation but found there was no wrongdoing on her part."
I think the details you added were excessive [9], especially given the low quality of the cited sources, which are all short tabloid-style articles with no author bylines. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 19:25, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- This was apparently an accusation of a crime, as she was investigated by a government agency for potentially having violated the country's anti-discrimination laws. I'm not sure how the rest of your comments about "vague hints" or neutrality apply to the current content in the article:
- That wording leaves a lot to the imagination, where simply stating the facts would be clearer (and, given the concerns about her reputation, fairer). Just for starters, a reader couldn't even begin to guess that her part in it was an emoji rather than a word or words (which itself probably partly explains why it was such a big story, it being relatively novel for journalists, government agencies or lawyers to have to interpret emojis, but none of the sources say this explicitly so we can't either). It really was a weirdly massive fuss, at the intersection of celebrity culture, digital culture, politics and the law. There were even political ramifications that the article rightly omits because they don't directly concern the subject. Giving a full picture of just how reliable sources talked about this at the time, and the angles they took, would easily more than quadruple the article's length. It certainly got a lot more coverage than her title win did, making her a sight more notable than most pageant winners, and the article should surely reflect that? -- Andreas Philopater ( talk) 20:22, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
Jagmeet Singh
Jagmeet Singh ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have been reverting an IP's edits on Jagmeet Singh because of the WP:POV WP:CONTROVERSYSECTION. This is related to Sikh conflicts. I would appreciate more eyes on it. – Muboshgu ( talk) 03:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Oscar love curse
The article Oscar love curse, currently the subject of an AfD discussion, consists, beyond a short lede, entirely of a list of winners of the Academy Award for Best Actress, and the related Best Supporting Actress awards along with their partners/past partners, listed either as 'Occurrences' of a supposed 'curse' or 'Exceptions' to said curse - claimed to lead to the breakup of relationships as a consequence of winning the award. No sources are provided providing any evidence that any external source has linked any of the named individuals in any way with said 'curse'. Would I be correct in assuming that per current WP:BLP policy, it would be a reasonable action to remove the entire list (or at least, all of it relating to living individuals) right now, per the instruction "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately"? Whether there is anything salvageable in the article beyond this would be a matter for the AfD discussion, but meanwhile, I have to ask whether the article should be making unsourced assertions regarding 'curses' on living persons while the Afd discussion continues? I suspect many will surmise that the 'curse' is nonsense, but to my mind, that doesn't mean that it can't also be 'contentious'. And if it is contentious and unsourced, regardless of the outcome of any AfD, I would suggest that the list cannot be hosted on Wikipedia, since it violates WP:BLP policy. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 06:33, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- I removed the list. I cannot imagine there is any justification for that sort of thing being hosted at this website. jps ( talk) 12:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Dyab Abou Jahjah
The article on Dyab Abou Jahjah is manipulative and biased against him. I will give two examples:
1- Negative attitudes towards homosexuals
In his own column in the Belgian daily De Standaard, [better source needed] he stated "We (Belgians with Arab roots) are predominantly negatively disposed towards homosexuals. This isn't because we're immigrants, but rather because we're men. The idea that another man could desire us sexually, is for most heterosexual men a nightmare that can render them aggressive."
This is a manipulation of facts which is libelous. The column being reffered to is written to defend the rights of homosexuals and is critical to this attitude that he describes in this quote. Abou Jahjah was making a plea to break with such attitudes. He was testifying as to how he looked at the matter as a younger man, in contrast to how he sees it today. Taking such a quote out of contest and asserting that it reflects his homophobia is pure manipulation. The full column can be consulted here: https://www.standaard.be/cnt/dmf20160303_02163402
2- Means to an end
Abou Jahjah considers democracy a strong means to an end. Sharia would be instated after a democratic process. Indeed, his messages are altogether mixed Jahjah suggested in a televised debate that a similar attack was likely in the Netherlands. "It's logical," he said. "You make war with us, we make war with you."
Claiming that Abou Jahjah is a Sharia supporter/deffender cannot be upheld even for the period 2000-2006 when he was President of the Arab European League. Back then Islam played an important role in the ideology of Abou Jahjah; But even then Sharia was not an aim, and he was rather secular ( see his book "Tussen Tweer Werelden, Manteau, 2003). Regardless of this, to assert that this is his position today is absurd and a lie. The man has written several books outlining his societal vision (De stad is van Ons , Pelckmans 2014), (Pleidooi Voor Radicalisering, bezige Bij 2016) Where his polilitical ideas are outlinded to the smallest details. These idea are fully secular, non-religious, and left leaning. When I tried to establish that in the wikipedia article my update was reverted.
Apart of these two problematic issues, the article is outdated and focussed on Abouu Jahjah of 10 to 20 years ago. My attempts to update the article were reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jacobson1977 ( talk • contribs) 09:38, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- @ Jacobson1977:, it looks like your update was reverted because you removed sourced content. However, much of that content does appear to be poorly sourced, especially for claims about living persons. I also see that you've since (again) removed some of the worst of it. I would suggest starting a discussion about the specifics at Talk:Dyab Abou Jahjah. Woodroar ( talk) 12:47, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
Minouche Shafik, Baroness Shafik
This article is biased. It is backed up by a medium post by an angry student. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:A88:3400:1C83:1939:47C7:2FED ( talk) 11:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
John Heard (actor)
Although he died in 2017, I could use a second pair of eyes at John Heard. The article states that he was a 9/11 truth movement follower and uses this YouTube video as the source. Based off that video, he's also included in 9/11 conspiracy theorists & American conspiracy theorists. And, his lead image is also from that YouTube video with the caption "Heard speaking at a 9/11 Truth event at Los Angeles City Hall in 2010." I have found no reliable, secondary sources to confirm his views on 9/11 or that he's a 9/11 truther. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 07:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's not a reliable source for the claim and if no secondary sources mentioned it, it lacks weight for inclusion. Also, categories are a navigational device, not a badge of shame. In this case, they would help readers find biographies of the leading 9/11 truth activists and theorists, rather than every truther. So I would just remove it all.
TFD (
talk) 08:42, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- It has been removed. The American conspiracy theorists category has been spammed across numerous BLPs by Jaydoggmarco, based on no sources or weak sources. Dr. Swag Lord ( talk) 09:09, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- He was part of the Actors and Artists for 9/11 Truth group (that's where the video was from) and was part of a documentary that questioned 911. [10] I'm not surprised that RS didn't want to give legitimacy to the group with coverage but that also makes it UNDUE. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 19:43, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
If you're interested
Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#WP_and_Youtube_stats_cited_to_Youtube Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:01, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
Oksana Grishuk
Oksana Grishuk ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I was never expelled from Dubova group. Dubova and her husband brutally beat me up because my skating partner Evgeny told her that my intentions to leave her and go to another coach Linitchouk who I end up going .— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8802:310c:3700:8d04:cead:cf36:d399 ( talk) 12:36, June 19, 2021 (UTC)
- I believe that this concerns
this set of changes. The problem with this type of change is that you are making them anonymously and we have no way of verifying from the information you've given that you are Ms. Grishuk. If you are, I'm sorry for any distress the description of those events caused, as well as the trauma of the events themselves. It is not our intention to cause that distress. We usually depend on verifiable reliable sources to support claims made in
biographies of living people, which personal recollections obviously do not have. If there have been any interviews you've given on those events then we could use that to support your requested changes. If you can recall such a thing, you can post whatever information you have here or at the article talk page and an editor may be able to track it down for you. You can also try emailing info-en-q@wikimedia.org to contact the
Volunteer Response Team and they may be able to help you. I hope that helps.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib) 20:48, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have reverted those changes since they are possible BLP violations against the other people mentioned.
Morbidthoughts (
talk) 00:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- They were added back by a similar IP so I've removed them again. Given the fact that the allegations she was expelled is causing distress to the BLP subject, I have changed it to simply "she left the group". Hemiauchenia ( talk) 03:09, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have reverted those changes since they are possible BLP violations against the other people mentioned.
Morbidthoughts (
talk) 00:49, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
biography of Joseph Couture
Joseph Couture ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am the subject of this page. I request this entry be deleted in its entirety. The editing has consistently been arbitrary and capricious, lacks anything other than the thinest veneer of editorial standards that are, in reality, self-serving and function primarily to censor whatever content this or that individual happens to personally dislike. This entry is in no way an accurate representation of either my career or my personal life.
Like many people, I lack any respect for the process here. The so-called higher level "editors" are without any real or reasonable qualifications, aside from perhaps an abundance of time without purpose. I do not wish to continue to be subject to their malicious and punitive whims. I would rather see this entry removed than distorted by their twisted and petty personal agenda any longer. Like pretty much every troll on the Internet, had they any accomplishments of their own worthy of note, they would not busy themselves trying to erase the history of those who have.
Let me be very clear about this: I have no respect for these tiny people and I have no need to seek approval or validation from them - or anyone else- for my accomplishments. Since honesty and integrity play no part in determining what appears on any Wiki entry, I find being listed here to be a personal embarrassment where I am guilty by association to persons so clearly of both questionable character and skill.
If history is any indication, and it is, you don't actually need proof I am who I say I am. You do what you want anyway. But in the unlikely event someone wants to make of show of verifying that I am indeed the subject of this page, you may contact me via my personal website www.whitephantom.ca, which clearly belongs to me- and I will provide whatever flimsy amount of proof you claim to need to make this page disappear.
Yours truly,
Joseph Couture — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:8D80:445:EE71:F0DA:2446:954A:7AFF ( talk) 18:10, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- Hmm. You lack any respect for the people whose help you are asking for and yet expect a distributed group of volunteers to provide that help at your beck and call. I speak for no-one but myself but I certainly don't feel motivated to address such a vague passive-aggressive rant with no particulars. On the off chance you actually want to accomplish your stated goal and not just whine like a "tiny person", then try
this link
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib) 20:27, 19 June 2021 (UTC)
- I mean, the guy has a point. Jesus Christ, the whole "personal life" section (I just removed it) was the most egregious gossip, 20 miles out of line for a BLP. It is sourced -- to a book that the subject apparently regretted and withdrew from publication -- so I expect I'll have to fight with the heathens about that, and probably lose. "The sources check out, and since I'm an amoral little robot and/or bully, why should I care if we're invading the persons privacy and gossiping about their inner life and sexual preferences?"
- It depresses me that almost no editors understand (or worse, don't care) -- even on this board or maybe particularly on this board -- how big and powerful a steamroller we are. We can crush people like bugs and mess up people's lives and have done. We are a huge organization and one of the biggest websites in the world, and people like the subject are helpless private individuals. Their Wikipedia article is typically the first google result for people who aren't highly notable and thus we create their public face for the world. And forever. Talk about punching down.
- We are better than this, people. Well actually we're not. But we should be.
- The person is marginally Wikinotable. We don't need the article particularly since it's apparently being used to annoy and harass the subject by publishing info about him that he doesn't want published. I'd nominate the article for deletion, but I doubt that'd go anywhere. But hopefully the subject will follow the link provided and get it taken down.
Herostratus (
talk) 03:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
First in the event the subject/OP does follow up, I think we should emphasise WP:BLPREQDEL. While we can remove any information which lacks sufficient sourcing and try to deal with other problems, in most cases the fact you want the article on you deleted doesn't matter. In a small number of cases it does. I think this may be either one of those cases where it does, or where it doesn't matter in the 'deletion' camp, but I'm mostly going by a very quick look at the article and search for your name. A notable point here is that some editors feel that if you're sought out publicity, and it sounds like maybe you have, this makes you a public figure and therefore BLPREQDEL doesn't come into play. I don't agree with this view, but it may be a factor.
About the article itself, this is the sort of problematic article we have way too many of IMO where most or all of the content of the article is based directly on the subject's own writings. While I know some editors prefer that, I find it troubling especially for BLPs. It's way to easy to cherry-pick what someone wrote for any number of reasons. These may not even make the subject look bad, but baring perhaps some basic biographical information, there's a big question of why we include whatever we include over something else. We really should be using secondary sources to provide some guidance of things the subject wrote that are significant. If there are no secondary sources, then probably we shouldn't be writing much about what the subject wrote.
I do think Eggishorn has a good point that as we're all volunteers, most of us who have never touched the article, if you approach ask for help poorly you're much less likely to help. Regulars at BLPN deal with a lot of complaints. Many subjects are understandably distressed or angry and we're used to dealing with it. However even in most cases, even despite the distress and anger, subjects don't feel the need to belittle those who may want to help. Perhaps they will attack Wikipedia and it's processes, but they often do so without the need to attack the people involved unnecessarily. They may attack those who they've actually dealt with before, sometimes unfairly, but that's more understandable, even if it too often doesn't help. It's not like the subject here is powerless. They seem to semi regularly write columns for newspapers so I'm sure they could get one published about the "little people" here if they wanted to. This isn't something the vast majority of editors here can do. Or for that matter, many subjects who complain.
I do find it interesting that this article originated as something akin to a puff piece [11] written by an SPA who's sole undeleted contributions seem to have been blue linking their user page [12] followed about 2 weeks later with the creation of this article Special:Contributions/Kevintreid. Said editor also uploaded an "own work" portrait File:Joseph Couture 2013.jpg which includes alleged camera metadata.
I partly agree that way too many editors don't seem to appreciate how significant a source for information Wikipedia likely is especially for relatively unknown subjects. Way too often I see editors suggesting that because the information is out there on the internet then it being on Wikipedia is of little consequence to the spread and knowledge of this information. Even when the info is in relatively high profile sources this is probably often not true. I mean obviously it's true in some cases we make little or no difference, but I think there is good reason to imagine we actually often do make a big difference.
I find it particular distressing when editors express this to subjects e.g. suggesting to them when they're distressed over the content that it's silly to worry about we have when the info is out there elsewhere when the subject's concerns are probably justified.
Note that while related I consider this a separate issue from the issue of whether we should publish such content. It's fine to acknowledge the impact we have and the concerns of a subject while saying since the information is in a number of good sources, we should include it. It's also probably fine to tell a subject something like "I don't think we can exclude this info just because you say it is untrue. Unless we have sources saying it isn't or the sources publish a correction the info is likely to stay. I understand you may think it silly to try and get a source published several years ago which few are going to come across to correct the information, but for various reasons it's probably your best bet."
But one thing I will say is I disagree the problem is worse at BLPN. While it does happen way too often on BLPN for my liking, the problem tends to be much worse with editors less familiar with BLP. Also the impact thing goes both ways hence why I think way too many subjects realise Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing too late. While we should never punish such subjects, I can perhaps understand editors being less willing to dedicate their volunteer time to clean up a mess that partly arose from the subject's ill-judged actions.
Nil Einne ( talk) 05:57, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe not. I don't come here often. Last time I came I didn't get much support. I'm a believer in "if it's not kind or necessary, why say it". It's a good rule to live by, and good rules to live by don't stop being good rules when clock into work (or hobby).
- The person is marginally Wikinotable. We don't need the article particularly since it's apparently being used to annoy and harass the subject by publishing info about him that he doesn't want published. I'd nominate the article for deletion, but I doubt that'd go anywhere. But hopefully the subject will follow the link provided and get it taken down.
Herostratus (
talk) 03:42, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- If a person is a baseball star and also likes to fuck cats, we don't really need to go into to the cat thing do we. Even if we do have plenty of good sources. He's notable and has an article because of the baseball stuff, how much do we really need to go off into his personal life. It's OK if it's anodyne ("Smith likes to do bonsai"), not so fine if it isn't ("Smith has been banned for life from Sandy's Bar"). There's a difference. Most editors don't seem to get that there's a difference, or care.
- Right, in my mind I always translate "but the information is already on the internet" as "but the other kids were already setting fire to that hobo anyway". -- Herostratus ( talk) 08:17, 20 June 2021 (UTC)
- Now at AfD, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Joseph Couture. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 03:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Joel Fuhrman [diet and health]
The information below is inaccurate information as many more sources do not describe the nutritarian diet as a "parlor trick" or fad diet. For some reason only one-sided, poor information is being used on Joel Fuhrman's wikipedia page.
[diet and health] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.199.181.160 ( talk) 21:38, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- The categorization of a brand of diet, or the veracity of an "equation" are not biographical questions. The source used for categorizing the "equation", Science-Based Medicine, is a good one for fringe science - and indeed Wikipedia policy is that fringe/pseudoscientific ideas need to be identified as such. Alexbrn ( talk) 06:47, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
This page has edits that are expressing personal views, rather than a neutral view. The addition of a section about aldi level comments contains potentially libelous comments. [13]
It also cites a tweet from an individual to back up an ascertion that the remark was regarded as problematic - this is Self-published or a questionable source.
The edits relate to part of an ongoing dispute between a department and a University. They are part of a coordinated campaign that goes against the principles of content for wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeeConjuror ( talk • contribs) 09:32, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- @ DeeConjuror: The part cited to a tweet has rightfully been removed by another editor. As for the rest, it seems to be supported by the Sheffield Star ref. There may be questions of WP:DUE weight and tone, but calling it libellous seems a step too far. Nil Einne ( talk) 12:39, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Martha G. Welch
There is Request Edit for a biography regarding highly inaccurate, intentionally inflammatory and much of it based on invented sourcing or very unreliable sources. Talk:Martha G. Welch#Proposal to Revise Contentious Statements in Career section. I have a COI as an employee of ClarBright, LLC which represents Martha G. Welch. KnollLane55901 ( talk) 18:25, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
- After reading the prose that was in the article and checking the sources I agree with the COI editor. The whole paragraph was OR/Synth, most sources not mentioning the Welch or her book, and also at least one source was a self published blog. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 13:31, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
Jubin Nautiyal
Frequent attempts by a unregistered user(s) to add unreliable / likely vandalism to the Early life and career section of the article. See Prev.
Textualism ( talk) 08:34, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Benjamin Lemaire
A little bit ago an IP editor added a lot of information to the Benjamin Lemaire article. It was tagged as "possible BLP issue or vandalism" and I have to log off for the time being but at a glance this looks like a lot of information that much of which is referenced to French periodicals. I cannot read french so I thought I should drop a note here so other eyes could look this information over. Notfrompedro ( talk) 20:08, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- The sexual assault indictment and conviction look like they are covered by some reliable sources, but the content as written was not appropriate. I removed it for now since I also do not understand French well enough to add an appropriate summary. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 20:44, 22 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Notfrompedro ( talk) 12:59, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
Nicholas Wade
Nicholas Wade ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Editors have been consistently reverting to include a link to COVID-19 misinformation#Wuhan lab origin in the sentence addressing Wade's May 2021 article about the origins of COVID-19 [14]. Editors' assertions that Wade's article promotes misinformation are WP:OR, as they have failed to provide any secondary sources that support this characterization [15]. This is clearly a contentious claim, and therefore should not be made without support from reliable secondary sources. The relevant discussion on the article's talk page can be found here: [16]. I propose changing the link to Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#Laboratory incident, which avoids the implication of characterizing Wade's argument as misinformation, or simply removing the link altogether. Stonkaments ( talk) 14:31, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Sorry, where are the "assertions that Wade's article promotes misinformation"? A "further information" link is hardly that. From this
[17] piece it certainly seems that appropriate RS considers him to have published misinformation about SARS-CoV-2 in any case, so surely this is apt?
Alexbrn (
talk) 14:37, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Alex, that link (and two others) were provided by
RandomCanadian in a comment Stonkaments directly replied to. The claim that no secondary sources were provided is categorically false, and I honestly don't see how it could be defended as a mistake or disagreement.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 14:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, okay - I've not been following that article. Presumably some admins here will have antennae starting to twitch ...
Alexbrn (
talk) 14:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Assertions include
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]. That source disagrees with many of Wade's claims but I don't see how it supports the claim that he has published misinformation?
Stonkaments (
talk) 14:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Then maybe the issue is
WP:CIR?
Alexbrn (
talk) 14:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- misinformation (noun): "false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive." The claim that Wade deliberately intended to deceive shouldn't be thrown around lightly. Can you point to where in the source this accusation is supported? Stonkaments ( talk) 15:00, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Alex, The reply above mine would seem to confirm your diagnosis, as it presumes that any of our policies actually require us to prove an unprovable claim (the mindset of an author).
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 15:05, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's not about "proving" anything; it's about reliable sourcing. If none of the sources call Wade's article misinformation, then we shouldn't either.
Stonkaments (
talk) 15:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Misinformation is not disinformation, try a decent dictionary. [22] [23] Alexbrn ( talk) 15:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, that really isn't the distinction you think it is. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's not about "proving" anything; it's about reliable sourcing. If none of the sources call Wade's article misinformation, then we shouldn't either.
Stonkaments (
talk) 15:09, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Then maybe the issue is
WP:CIR?
Alexbrn (
talk) 14:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Assertions include
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]. That source disagrees with many of Wade's claims but I don't see how it supports the claim that he has published misinformation?
Stonkaments (
talk) 14:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, okay - I've not been following that article. Presumably some admins here will have antennae starting to twitch ...
Alexbrn (
talk) 14:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Alex, that link (and two others) were provided by
RandomCanadian in a comment Stonkaments directly replied to. The claim that no secondary sources were provided is categorically false, and I honestly don't see how it could be defended as a mistake or disagreement.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 14:42, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I was first going to ask if there were any secondary sources that mentioned Wade's article (especially one published through Medium) - as simple inclusion of the article without a secondary or third-party source would equate to unduly self-serving purposes. But there's clearly at least one source
[24] (I don't know how reliable that is), which claims that "Soon after it was published, Wade’s article was seized upon by both political commentators and conspiracy theorists; it also drew comments from some scientists that the virus’s origins warrant further investigation. At the same time, the people whose research Wade criticised in the article, including Anthony Fauci, have hit back at the article and said Wade has got many of his facts wrong." If this statement from this source is true, our article is woefully missing these details, which would likely back up the assertions related to Wade's article pushing the misinformation theory. Given that "Nicholas Wade covid" gives 55,000 gnews hits, the first few pages with several high quality RSes that mention Wade's article that fueled this, I will say that there absolutely needs to be more expanded upon in Wade's article to explain the fallout from the article and how it was seen as to properly justify the misinformation assertions, which appear to be valid based on those gnews hits I'm seeing. (Also, this means that that thewire.in story, a sketchy one, can be replaced with a high-quality source) --
Masem (
t) 14:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- There's also
a Politifact piece that discusses Wade's article (debunking many of his claims) and
an article published in
Infection, Genetics and Evolution which addresses Wade's arguments directly.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 14:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sure, given what I saw on gnews, there's a good handful of RSes that point-for-point break down Wade's article. Key is: to make this BLP compliant - not necessarily the way Stonkaments probably wanted but in line with sourcing - we need to spell out that effectively Wade's article created a wave in the news that some latched on to and required others to debunk as misinformation, or something like that. The sourcing fully appears to support that strongly. --
Masem (
t) 14:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I fully agree with this.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 15:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think the core problem here, at least as far as im concerned, is that editors are way to eager to use words like "misinformation". Sources contest some of Wade's claims, and it good and proper to note that. To go further and declare that Wade's article is 'debunked' or contains 'misinformation' is too far barring really good sourcing saying that specifically.
Bonewah (
talk) 15:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- If he's made wrong claims (which he has), that's misinformation. There are other words that could be used but this is an apt one for these circumstances. (What amuses me about this is how editors at
COVID-19 misinformation by China have been arguing for maximal inclusion of everything even slightly erroneous out of China because the concept is inclusive of everything wrong without imputing intent!)
Alexbrn (
talk) 15:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- WP editors cannot called out Wade's article as "misinformation" or as a "conspiracy theory" or other related term directly, that is OR on a BLP which is a violation of policy, no matter how well the conclusion follows from reading the information. That does require other sourcing to be able to state. I think that does exist from scanning the sources I mention above, but that should be confirmed. --
Masem (
t) 16:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I dont think 'misinformation' in this context is consistent with
WP:NPOV's call to 'Prefer nonjudgmental language.' If there are other words that would do, why not use them? And if you object to the use of 'misinformation' as a description of everything slightly erroneous irrespective of intent at
COVID-19 misinformation by China, then you should object to the same thing here.
Bonewah (
talk) 16:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- "Misinformation" is non-judgemental. "Lies", "propaganda" etc would not be. Any fringe scientific proposition made does not get the protection of
WP:BLP, but - on the contrary - is required to be called out by core NPOV policy. That Wade has published misinformation is a plain fact, per RS, and if his views are floated on Wikipedia they must be qualified by this mainstream scientific context.
Alexbrn (
talk) 16:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Then perhaps i misunderstood your parenthetical statement. I read that to mean that you object to expansively using the term misinformation in regards to the Chinese government. I object to the expansive use of the term misinformation in regards to Nicholas Wade. Whats the difference?
Bonewah (
talk) 16:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't object to the China article. "Misinformation" just means wrong stuff. It just amuses me how on different articles editors seems to be arguing exactly opposite points apparently to advance a common political narrative.
Alexbrn (
talk) 16:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Well, i dont edit that article so i cant really say. I only edit this article because it is a BLP, and, in my opinion, 'misinformation' is too loaded a term to use in a BLP barring really good sourcing saying exactly that. Bonewah ( talk) 16:34, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Without a source, the line of logic that is "A claims X is true", "Medical RSes state X is very likely not true", and concluding "A is presenting misinformation" is synthesis and inappropriate against A under BLP terms. Again, I am pretty sure this should not be hard to back with the sources that discuss Wade's article in question, but it needs to be sourced. --
Masem (
t) 16:43, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- The article doesn't ever make the claim that Wade is disseminating misinformation, though I'll note that this is a demonstrable fact, as Wade's claims have been debunked by multiple sources. The article links Wade's claim to a page that has "misinformation" in the title, because that is the most appropriate page for the claims Wade is making wrt the conspiracy to silence anyone who advocates for the lab leak theory, a claim that has nothing at all to do with the actual investigations into the origin.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 17:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- And as I say, I am pretty sure that the articles that step-by-step articles that debunk Wade's article are sufficient to satisfy the NOR issue. The hypothetical, if no sources existed that called Wade's claims in his Medium article as misinformation or a related term, then it would be OR for us to link to the misinformation COVID page on our reading of his article - eg it may be a "demonstrable fact" but still synthesis and original research for a BLP in absence of a source. Just that that's the hypothetical situation that is not the case here; there is clearly sourcing to support it, but as I said before, there has to be expansion around what his Medium stirred up and had resulted in the point-by-point debunking to make it all BLP tidy. --
Masem (
t) 17:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Note that I'm collecting sources now on this. In some cases, Wade's article is directly referred to as "misinformation".
- However, I don't agree with your interpretation of OR in this case. "Misinformation" literally means " incorrect or misleading information". It is verifiable that Wade published this info. It is verifiable that the info is misinformation. Can you construct a logical statement which does not deny those two well-sourced facts, yet somehow denies "Wade published misinformation"? I'm genuinely asking, here. I cannot formulate such a statement, but if you can, that would invalidate this argument of mine.
- See WP:SYNTHNOT, specifically "Synth is not summary".
- For the record, I still agree with your proposed route forward.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 17:39, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Staying on that this is all hypothetical and a non-issue given sources exist: the issue in the absence of sources is that by a WP editor making the jump from an article like Wade's to claiming that it is misinformation is that 1) "misinformation" is a contentious term and thus subjective and 2) we as editors can't ascribe motive/intent to Wade's article whether the purpose was misinformation or not under BLP, even if it is seemingly obvious from the writing style. To simplify the idea, if Wade wrote "The sky is obviously green", that could be purposely wrong with intent to deceive, or he could have written that mistakenly. We rely on RSes to make the assessment for us to avoid the possible OR-on-BLP issue. This case may seem black and white, but it becomes more obvious when we move away from black-and-white issues to more complex issues, such as climate change (where you have the deniers and you have skeptics), abortion, gun rights, etc. where there's a spectrum of positions, and it definitely should not be up to WP editors to try to classify a writer's position or how their work should be taken without the use of sources. --
Masem (
t) 18:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Regarding your point 1, I strongly disagree that being contentious makes something subjective. Vaccines are contentious, but they are objectively effective and safe to any reasonable standard. The fact that the earth is an oblate spheroid is objectively true, yet flat earthers find it contentious.
- Regarding point 2) we're talking across each other. As Alexbrn pointed out above: misinformation and disinformation are not the same thing.
- I wholeheartedly agree that we cannot refer to what Wade wrote as disinformation, at least not without conclusive evidence that he knew he was wrong, and said it anyways for some gain.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 18:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Because "misinformation" is a contentious term, we should avoid it in a BLP. This applies to links as well as text. Merely finding sources which refute some of Wade's points doesnt really change this for the reason stated by Masem: "we as editors can't ascribe motive/intent to Wade's article whether the purpose was misinformation or not under BLP, even if it is seemingly obvious from the writing style."
Bonewah (
talk) 18:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
-
dictionary.cambridge.org defines misinformation as 'information intended to deceive'. The problem here is we are linking to an article which has misinformation in the title, which it probably shoudnt.
Bonewah (
talk) 18:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Here we go, with you misrepresenting your own links again... That's the second definition. The first definition (the only one we should be operating on) has an example which looks particularly appropriate, here.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 19:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, right, the second definition should be totally ignored and the first one is 'the only one we should be operating on'. Yea i forgot that rule. This is what i mean when i say that editors are too eager to use loaded terms. Doesnt matter what the dictionary says, doesnt matter what other editors say doesnt matter that if i type the phrase misinformation definition into
google i get 'false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive."
Bonewah (
talk) 19:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Give your propensity for misrepresenting what the pages you link to say, and your propensity for hurling bad faith accusations around this whole discussion, are you really surprised that no-one's bothered to point out to you yet that the word "especially" is not part of that sentence for it aesthetic value? ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:11, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Oh, right, the second definition should be totally ignored and the first one is 'the only one we should be operating on'. Yea i forgot that rule. This is what i mean when i say that editors are too eager to use loaded terms. Doesnt matter what the dictionary says, doesnt matter what other editors say doesnt matter that if i type the phrase misinformation definition into
google i get 'false or inaccurate information, especially that which is deliberately intended to deceive."
Bonewah (
talk) 19:49, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Here we go, with you misrepresenting your own links again... That's the second definition. The first definition (the only one we should be operating on) has an example which looks particularly appropriate, here.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 19:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
-
dictionary.cambridge.org defines misinformation as 'information intended to deceive'. The problem here is we are linking to an article which has misinformation in the title, which it probably shoudnt.
Bonewah (
talk) 18:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Because "misinformation" is a contentious term, we should avoid it in a BLP. This applies to links as well as text. Merely finding sources which refute some of Wade's points doesnt really change this for the reason stated by Masem: "we as editors can't ascribe motive/intent to Wade's article whether the purpose was misinformation or not under BLP, even if it is seemingly obvious from the writing style."
Bonewah (
talk) 18:54, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Staying on that this is all hypothetical and a non-issue given sources exist: the issue in the absence of sources is that by a WP editor making the jump from an article like Wade's to claiming that it is misinformation is that 1) "misinformation" is a contentious term and thus subjective and 2) we as editors can't ascribe motive/intent to Wade's article whether the purpose was misinformation or not under BLP, even if it is seemingly obvious from the writing style. To simplify the idea, if Wade wrote "The sky is obviously green", that could be purposely wrong with intent to deceive, or he could have written that mistakenly. We rely on RSes to make the assessment for us to avoid the possible OR-on-BLP issue. This case may seem black and white, but it becomes more obvious when we move away from black-and-white issues to more complex issues, such as climate change (where you have the deniers and you have skeptics), abortion, gun rights, etc. where there's a spectrum of positions, and it definitely should not be up to WP editors to try to classify a writer's position or how their work should be taken without the use of sources. --
Masem (
t) 18:16, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- And as I say, I am pretty sure that the articles that step-by-step articles that debunk Wade's article are sufficient to satisfy the NOR issue. The hypothetical, if no sources existed that called Wade's claims in his Medium article as misinformation or a related term, then it would be OR for us to link to the misinformation COVID page on our reading of his article - eg it may be a "demonstrable fact" but still synthesis and original research for a BLP in absence of a source. Just that that's the hypothetical situation that is not the case here; there is clearly sourcing to support it, but as I said before, there has to be expansion around what his Medium stirred up and had resulted in the point-by-point debunking to make it all BLP tidy. --
Masem (
t) 17:28, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- The article doesn't ever make the claim that Wade is disseminating misinformation, though I'll note that this is a demonstrable fact, as Wade's claims have been debunked by multiple sources. The article links Wade's claim to a page that has "misinformation" in the title, because that is the most appropriate page for the claims Wade is making wrt the conspiracy to silence anyone who advocates for the lab leak theory, a claim that has nothing at all to do with the actual investigations into the origin.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 17:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't object to the China article. "Misinformation" just means wrong stuff. It just amuses me how on different articles editors seems to be arguing exactly opposite points apparently to advance a common political narrative.
Alexbrn (
talk) 16:29, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Then perhaps i misunderstood your parenthetical statement. I read that to mean that you object to expansively using the term misinformation in regards to the Chinese government. I object to the expansive use of the term misinformation in regards to Nicholas Wade. Whats the difference?
Bonewah (
talk) 16:25, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- "Misinformation" is non-judgemental. "Lies", "propaganda" etc would not be. Any fringe scientific proposition made does not get the protection of
WP:BLP, but - on the contrary - is required to be called out by core NPOV policy. That Wade has published misinformation is a plain fact, per RS, and if his views are floated on Wikipedia they must be qualified by this mainstream scientific context.
Alexbrn (
talk) 16:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- (edit conflict)I dont think 'misinformation' in this context is consistent with
WP:NPOV's call to 'Prefer nonjudgmental language.' If there are other words that would do, why not use them? And if you object to the use of 'misinformation' as a description of everything slightly erroneous irrespective of intent at
COVID-19 misinformation by China, then you should object to the same thing here.
Bonewah (
talk) 16:08, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- WP editors cannot called out Wade's article as "misinformation" or as a "conspiracy theory" or other related term directly, that is OR on a BLP which is a violation of policy, no matter how well the conclusion follows from reading the information. That does require other sourcing to be able to state. I think that does exist from scanning the sources I mention above, but that should be confirmed. --
Masem (
t) 16:06, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- If he's made wrong claims (which he has), that's misinformation. There are other words that could be used but this is an apt one for these circumstances. (What amuses me about this is how editors at
COVID-19 misinformation by China have been arguing for maximal inclusion of everything even slightly erroneous out of China because the concept is inclusive of everything wrong without imputing intent!)
Alexbrn (
talk) 15:58, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think the core problem here, at least as far as im concerned, is that editors are way to eager to use words like "misinformation". Sources contest some of Wade's claims, and it good and proper to note that. To go further and declare that Wade's article is 'debunked' or contains 'misinformation' is too far barring really good sourcing saying that specifically.
Bonewah (
talk) 15:52, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- It would be one thing if the COVID misinformation was framed around the first, neutral definition of "misinformation" (which incorporates both inadvertent mistakes and purposeful lies), but the misinformation article, as written, is framed around the second definition which is the deceptive practice aspect. ("The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in misinformation and conspiracy theories about the scale of the pandemic and the origin, prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of the disease." as the leading sentence sets that tone immediately. The misinformation article does cover both unintentional and intentional misinformation (eg the section on misreporting is on unintentional issues) but the overall tone of the article is ascribed to purposely misinformation reporting, which is a contentious aspect. This is why, in absence of sources that place Wade's piece in that same type of work, it is a problem to link the work to that article. Now, that article itself can be fixed (as to be clear at the lede it is covering the neutral definition of misinformation and includes both unintentional and intentional cases), and in which case, now it becomes a case that linking Wade's article to that would be less an issue, though I would still argue that there's an OR factor of Wikipedia editors judging any work without sourcing that doesn't involve a 100% universally-agreed on scientific basis (eg the earth being spherical).
- But again, we have a clear solution outlined that is available via quality RSes - explain what happened after Wade's article was published, and include the sources that refute Wade's article point-for-point as to clearly make the connection to the COVID-19 misinformation article unquestionable. Everything else is hypotheticals for another day. --
Masem (
t) 18:05, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- Masem, I do not at all agree that a lack of clarity on one page creates a BLP violation on another by dint of there being a wikilink between them. I don't think the wider community would, either. As for the word or the article title implying some negativity: that's not really our problem, is it? Wilikinks are to be to the article that covers the topic, and in this case, the misinformation articles covers the topic of Wade's claims. If that reflects poorly upon Wade, that's his fault for writing what he did, not our fault for accurately describing it.
- We both seem to agree that Wade's article is misinformation (IMO, it is most likely disinformation, as I doubt Wade really believes there is a global conspiracy about this), and I agree that we should expand the sourcing and content to reflect his debunked claims and show this. Bonewah and Stonkaments oppose this (Stonk is currently blocked for edit warring over it), and Peter Gulutzan has been cheering them on, though without really adding anything to the discussion. Otherwise, it would be done already.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 14:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- It is probably hard to talk about Wade's case given that we know there are now sources that exist that can be used to appropriately expand and spell out why linking his article to the COVID misinformation one is completely appropriate and free of any BLP/NPOV issues. That expansion just has to be added to Wade's article. I'm just trying to talk in a broader term (and thus why I'm suggesting this may be beyond this board), keeping in mind that BLP's default position is to do no harm and to avoid any type of characterization in Wikivoice. In the absences of any sources about Wade's article (again the hypothetical), we'd first even question if it was worth adding to Wade's page (unduly self-serving given as a self-published Medium source). If it was picked up by RSes but without any comment related to its claims/misinformation, then the question would be: would it be valid for WP editors to link that article to the COVID misinformation page? You are correct that we can read it and yes it is talking about many of the points on the misinformation page, so it seems like the right link. But, because of how the COVID misinformation article is framed at the start around deceitful misinformation rather than neutral, we would give the impression on Wade's page by simply linkage that Wade was being deceitful in Wikivoice without a source. That would be a problem in this hypothetical - we can't ascribe any motive as editors and require sourcing to give that. If the COVID misinformation article was more neutral in approach, being clear it covered both widely-mistaken reporting along with disinformation, it would be less an issue since we're now just pointing out his article repeats many things on that page, which I agree would not violate OR/SYNTH. But in the real case, we have plenty of sources that do express the likelihood that Wade was likely trying to provide disinformation, so we don't have to worry about the COVID misinformation page is framed, as long as we get expansion with attribution and sourcing. --
Masem (
t) 14:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Couple of points. The article also appeared in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, so not just self published. The Covid misinformation page contains no reference to Wade's work, linking to it because some editors think that Wades article contains disinformation would be OR. Likewise finding sources that refute some of Wade's claims, merely finding a source which contests Wade's claims does not make his article 'misinformation'. Again, this would be OR, in my opinion.
Bonewah (
talk) 14:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Given the sources that MPants has pointed out that refuse Wade's claims appear to be MEDRS-complaint sources - or at least far closer than Wade meeting MEDRS - means that we should absolutely take the more expert sources over Wade here to classify the work as misinformaion here. I would agree if we had another self-published source making the refuting points, that would be back to OR like you state. But these are RSes doing the job. --
Masem (
t) 18:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Some papers in this list's "Scientific papers on the origins of SARS-CoV-2" section take lab-leaks / gain-of-function / furin-cleavage / etc. seriously. The articles in Politifact and Infection, Genetics and Evolution (not subject to editorial review because the oncologist author is the editor) didn't make the cut. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 23:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Given the sources that MPants has pointed out that refuse Wade's claims appear to be MEDRS-complaint sources - or at least far closer than Wade meeting MEDRS - means that we should absolutely take the more expert sources over Wade here to classify the work as misinformaion here. I would agree if we had another self-published source making the refuting points, that would be back to OR like you state. But these are RSes doing the job. --
Masem (
t) 18:07, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Couple of points. The article also appeared in the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, so not just self published. The Covid misinformation page contains no reference to Wade's work, linking to it because some editors think that Wades article contains disinformation would be OR. Likewise finding sources that refute some of Wade's claims, merely finding a source which contests Wade's claims does not make his article 'misinformation'. Again, this would be OR, in my opinion.
Bonewah (
talk) 14:37, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- It is probably hard to talk about Wade's case given that we know there are now sources that exist that can be used to appropriately expand and spell out why linking his article to the COVID misinformation one is completely appropriate and free of any BLP/NPOV issues. That expansion just has to be added to Wade's article. I'm just trying to talk in a broader term (and thus why I'm suggesting this may be beyond this board), keeping in mind that BLP's default position is to do no harm and to avoid any type of characterization in Wikivoice. In the absences of any sources about Wade's article (again the hypothetical), we'd first even question if it was worth adding to Wade's page (unduly self-serving given as a self-published Medium source). If it was picked up by RSes but without any comment related to its claims/misinformation, then the question would be: would it be valid for WP editors to link that article to the COVID misinformation page? You are correct that we can read it and yes it is talking about many of the points on the misinformation page, so it seems like the right link. But, because of how the COVID misinformation article is framed at the start around deceitful misinformation rather than neutral, we would give the impression on Wade's page by simply linkage that Wade was being deceitful in Wikivoice without a source. That would be a problem in this hypothetical - we can't ascribe any motive as editors and require sourcing to give that. If the COVID misinformation article was more neutral in approach, being clear it covered both widely-mistaken reporting along with disinformation, it would be less an issue since we're now just pointing out his article repeats many things on that page, which I agree would not violate OR/SYNTH. But in the real case, we have plenty of sources that do express the likelihood that Wade was likely trying to provide disinformation, so we don't have to worry about the COVID misinformation page is framed, as long as we get expansion with attribution and sourcing. --
Masem (
t) 14:22, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- I fully agree with this.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 15:04, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I'm sure, given what I saw on gnews, there's a good handful of RSes that point-for-point break down Wade's article. Key is: to make this BLP compliant - not necessarily the way Stonkaments probably wanted but in line with sourcing - we need to spell out that effectively Wade's article created a wave in the news that some latched on to and required others to debunk as misinformation, or something like that. The sourcing fully appears to support that strongly. --
Masem (
t) 14:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- There's also
a Politifact piece that discusses Wade's article (debunking many of his claims) and
an article published in
Infection, Genetics and Evolution which addresses Wade's arguments directly.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 14:47, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- Stonkaments did right per WP:BLPREMOVE and the link should not have been re-inserted without sourcing and consensus. Also poorly sourced is the article's following sentence ("This claim is at odds with the prevailing view among scientists that the virus most likely has a zoonotic origin.") -- the cites for that aren't by scientists responding to Mr Wade's article. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 22:41, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- The problem is that there's no direct mention of "misinformation" or "conspiracy theory" in the article text itself. An informative link (to the most relevant page - Wade did allege that the virus was engineered and that scientists are unethical) is perfectly acceptable, especially when care is taken to avoid using words which some might find objectionable. As to the "poorly sourced" sentence, that's adequately described at
WP:FLAT. There are multiple, independent sources which rebut Wade's claims, and the claims that there are no sources specifically about him are non-sensical: such sources have been listed on the talk page, and maybe the only reason why they're not yet on the main page is because of edit-warring and because of wishes to avoid
WP:CITEBOMB.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs) 00:37, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
-
MPants at work
no, I did not.
Bonewah (
talk) 13:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- You did not what? Pay attention to the link you provided? Read any definition that didn't suit your purpose? Read the numerous comments from numerous editors refuting your repeated assertions? Ever read and internalize WP:CRYBLP? There's a lot of things you haven't done, you need to be more specific, especially when I hadn't asked any questions of the "have you X?" form. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:45, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
-
RandomCanadian, It doesnt matter that there is no 'direct mention'. Neutraltiy and BLP still apply to wikilinks. Also, i dont see how that link is informative. The section linked to doesnt even mention Wade or his theory. Its only purpose seems to be to associate Wade's article to a bunch of other theories for the purpose of making Wade's work look less serious, in my opinion.
Bonewah (
talk) 13:23, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- How does it not mention Wade's theory? Wade is literally arguing that the virus was, deliberately, engineered in a lab, and that epidemiologists and the scientific establishment are conspiring to hide this. And there have been some sources given which explicitly mention Wade in the context of such conspiracies, notably the piece from Science-Based Medicine. In addition, wikilinks should go to the most comprehensive article on the most relevant subject. That's the misinformation article, whether you like it or not.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs) 16:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
-
MPants at work No, i do not think the word 'especially' was part of the sentence for aesthetic value. Since, 'especially' means 'very much' or 'this specifically' the definition of 'misinformation' should be read as 'false or inaccurate information, very much or specifically that which is deliberately intended to deceive.". Not sure what you were trying to prove, but it only underscores my point, that misinformation has a strongly negative connotation.
Bonewah (
talk) 13:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Who said the word had no negative connotations? I certainly didn't. I agree that it does. That's Wades' problem, though. Not ours.
- I pointed out that the most common definitions of the word (and I'll note I'm merely the second person to point this out in this thread) do not make any reference to intent. Your argument since has been that, because the word sometimes refers to intent, that means we have to prove Wade's intent, which is hilariously ridiculous.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 14:08, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Um, no. Connotations on words is our problem. We have a responsibility to write with an impartial tone, so words loaded with connotations have to be used very carefully. While this isn't an explicitly a WP: Say issue, the principle espoused in
MOS:WTW applies. --
Kyohyi (
talk) 14:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- If editors judge there's a possibility of undue connotation, why not just have a {{further|COVID-19 misinformation}} template at the top of the section, rather than an inline wikilink. Then everybody will be happy. Alexbrn ( talk) 15:32, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- You have it exactly backwards. Unless there's an argument that Wades article does not contain misinformation (and there are no such arguments here, and no defenses of Wade's article that I can find in the sources), then the only OR is us pretending that the article isn't misinformation. If the specific word used in the title of the most appropriate article to link to has connotations you don't like for this article, then that is categorically not a problem with the contents of this article.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 17:54, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Nope, that's antithetical to BLP Policy. The onus in BLP per BLPSTYLE is for you to demonstrate that the label is commonly used for the subject, not based on your opinion that the piped link fits. --
Kyohyi (
talk) 18:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- We're talking about an article, not a person. We do need to be a bit careful here since it is the person's work and "misinformation" does imply deceitfulness on the part of the author, so there are BLP aspects here, but we're focusing on the characterization of Wade's article, and given we're in the realm of biomedical information, how that is characterized by MEDRS-compliant sources. Which seems from my read are calling it misinformation. -- Masem ( t) 18:10, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- The linked article is shot through with references showing that it's disinformation. I don't have to do anything of the sort, as it's already done. And this is not about Wade, but about Wade's article.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 18:16, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- If it's not about Wade then it shouldn't be on the Wikipedia article about Wade. That's a fundamental tenet of Original Research. To go back to BLPSTYLE, if we cannot use clear direct language in the article, we should not be using an indirect method like a wikilink. --
Kyohyi (
talk) 18:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- I totally agree, a biography is not the place to litigate such claims. Same applies to the other contentious Wade work, 'a Troublesome inheritance'. Additionally, it wont do to find some source refuting Wade's claims, you would need high quality sourcing that specifically names Wade's article as misinformation to avoid performing OR. Bonewah ( talk) 18:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- You don't think the article that got him his new round of press coverage belongs in his article?
- Jesus surfs jello waves on a taxidermied deer. There; a response every bit as fact-based, logical and helpful as what you just said.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 18:35, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- I was rejecting your statement that this is not about wade, but about an article which Wade wrote. You can't separate the two on a BLP article about Wade. So the statement that this is about his article and not him is absolutely wrong. The issues are the requirements you need to get past to make the piped link's inclusion valid. -- Kyohyi ( talk) 19:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- I dont think his biography is the place to determine the truth of falsity of the claims he made in his article. Spouting gibberish and having a tantrum any time another editor disagrees with you isnt helpful.
Bonewah (
talk) 18:39, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- You're right. COVID-19 misinformation is the right place. And what do you know? We have a link to that article in Wade's already! Problem solved! ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:44, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Let's speculate that we could create a standalone WP article on Wade's COVID article as to try to distance Wade BLP from Wade's COVID article. There's certainly enough sourcing to have a possible standalone WP about it (I don't suggest this however), and it doesn't sound like those having an issue about the "misinformation" label would see a problem being used on this theorhetical WP article about Wade's article, because we're not talking about Wade. But given all that, it would be inappropriate per UNDUE to not briefly summarize Wade's article on Wade's WP page - it has drawn a lot of attention to him (it is not like one article out of hundreds that got minimal notice). And to summarize it with respect to UNDUE, "misinformation" is absolutely going to come up, I am pretty sure based on my judging of the sources. It is unavoidable and would be a violation to not connect it to the COVID misinformation article given the weight of sources that consider Wade's article to be misinformation. So even if we did have a separate page for Wade's COVID article, we'd still be talking about it being misinformation on Wade's BLP page on WP, all within policy, because that is backed by RSes. --
Masem (
t) 18:50, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Accurate and relevant summary isn't the issue. The issues stem from the vagueness of a piped link. It's got the same problems as categorizations, where details specific to the article subject are not expounded upon, and just applies a broad brush label. --
Kyohyi (
talk) 19:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- That's why we have a full article on Wade, and why Masem is advocating for expanding the coverage of the article (which I'm working on ATM). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:24, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Accurate and relevant summary isn't the issue. The issues stem from the vagueness of a piped link. It's got the same problems as categorizations, where details specific to the article subject are not expounded upon, and just applies a broad brush label. --
Kyohyi (
talk) 19:15, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- If it's not about Wade then it shouldn't be on the Wikipedia article about Wade. That's a fundamental tenet of Original Research. To go back to BLPSTYLE, if we cannot use clear direct language in the article, we should not be using an indirect method like a wikilink. --
Kyohyi (
talk) 18:27, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Nope, that's antithetical to BLP Policy. The onus in BLP per BLPSTYLE is for you to demonstrate that the label is commonly used for the subject, not based on your opinion that the piped link fits. --
Kyohyi (
talk) 18:02, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Um, no. Connotations on words is our problem. We have a responsibility to write with an impartial tone, so words loaded with connotations have to be used very carefully. While this isn't an explicitly a WP: Say issue, the principle espoused in
MOS:WTW applies. --
Kyohyi (
talk) 14:17, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
-
MPants at work No, i do not think the word 'especially' was part of the sentence for aesthetic value. Since, 'especially' means 'very much' or 'this specifically' the definition of 'misinformation' should be read as 'false or inaccurate information, very much or specifically that which is deliberately intended to deceive.". Not sure what you were trying to prove, but it only underscores my point, that misinformation has a strongly negative connotation.
Bonewah (
talk) 13:45, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- How does it not mention Wade's theory? Wade is literally arguing that the virus was, deliberately, engineered in a lab, and that epidemiologists and the scientific establishment are conspiring to hide this. And there have been some sources given which explicitly mention Wade in the context of such conspiracies, notably the piece from Science-Based Medicine. In addition, wikilinks should go to the most comprehensive article on the most relevant subject. That's the misinformation article, whether you like it or not.
RandomCanadian (
talk /
contribs) 16:58, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
-
MPants at work
no, I did not.
Bonewah (
talk) 13:19, 17 June 2021 (UTC)
- We can avoid making the potentially contentious link from "a leak at the Wuhan Institute of Virology" to COVID-19 misinformation#Wuhan lab origin. Instead, we can just wlink to Wuhan Institute of Virology which has a section with a discussion of the leak controversy. Terjen ( talk) 18:44, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
John McAfee's death
Can some regulars keep an eye on this article given the subject's recent death and cult-following? At the moment the drive-by vandalism and BLP vios seems to be under control, despite the rapid editing, but that may change. Thanks. Abecedare ( talk) 20:08, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory
HAU: Journal of Ethnographic Theory ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Over the past couple months or so, any mention of #HAUTalk, a MeToo-analog within the anthropology community, has been removed from the HAU article as violating WP:BLP. The allegations of abuse against the journal's former editor-in-chief have not been confirmed by official investigations, but they have been discussed in reliable sources, including academic, peer-reviewed articles. What is the appropriate way to mention this in the journal's article, if at all?
(This issue has been brought up on the article talk page, but it's mostly me and one other editor, so I thought I would raise the issue here.) — Wingedserif ( talk) 14:39, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- I would appreciate it greatly if some other editors could take a look into this. I checked the article after this request and it looks like two SPAs are fighting to keep a well sourced and neutral section out of the article. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish ( talk) 22:37, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
I've been following this story and you are obviously ignoring a number of BLP sensitive issues which two editors (studentspirit and Aquillon) have raised when they deleted the whole paragraph.
1) you are directly targeting a living person and naming a paragraph of a journal entry after him, proof of that is that you are not attempting to provide any neutral language but one where the editor, who has been acquitted from all allegations (twice -- January 2018 and November 2018) comes out as a horrible human being. 2) your paragraph (and title) implies that the editor was exclusively responsible for all the management of the journal while there were different boards, including one with an executive function (see constitution). If there were problems at the journal, they cannot be attributed to a single individual. 2) last but not least, your edits are defamatory and Wiki encourage immediate removal. It is irrelevant if the association between hautalk and metoo has been made by a peer-reviewed journals. Journal authors and articles may be libellous, too, even if they are peer-reviewed. You seem to be missing the point raised by the other editor (studentspirit):"(self-published or anonymous blog posts, even if these end up cited in another publication that can be cited)" they do not become reliable sources. See Wiki BLP policies: "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.[1] Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing." And the following: "it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages.[b] The burden of evidence rests with the editor who adds or restores the material." ---This should be enough to disprove your sensationalist claim that studentspirit is “aggressively reverting” your edits. The user is following Wiki policy on BLP sensitive issues, which you are notalso see the sensitive issue re the policy for" people notable for one event", given that you named a whole sub-section after the editor" See also BLP policy re: Privacy of names: "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event. When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context. When deciding whether to include a name, its publication in secondary sources other than news media, such as scholarly journals or the work of recognized experts, should be afforded greater weight than the brief appearance of names in news stories. Consider whether the inclusion of names of living private individuals who are not directly involved in an article's topic adds significant value." --- Actually da Col's name should be removed and only reference to the “the editor" should be used in the talk page and here. Finally, see the paragraph "People accused of crime. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. For individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by § Public figures, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. If different judicial proceedings result in seemingly contradictory outcomes that do not overrule each other,[d] include sufficient explanatory information." Was the editor convicted or even subjected to a police investigation? I don't think so. Associating him with metoo is also associating him with a movement emerged out criminal activities like sexual harassment and assault. I am not aware of any evidence of a single case of sexual harassment towards the editor emerging in the last three years. You are even repeating the sensationalist false claim in this notice board by calling hautalk "a metoo analog". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morph1989 ( talk • contribs) — Morph1989 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Tom Devine
I note there are repeated edits of questionable merit, neutrality and relevance on this article by a number of unregisters users (may be the same user). I recommend protecting this article until such time that the article can be cleaned up to a neutral point of view.
During my recent clean up of this article, I noted several things:
Career The 'prose' in paragraphs, includes such text which looks to sell or advertise, for example, within the section regarding the Research Institute of Irish and Scottish Studies it is written; "It became one of only two designated centres in the UK to be recognized in the phase two awards." Such text should belong within a new article on the Research Institute of Irish and Scottish Studies, without further expansion, the correlation between the Subject's involvement in the "recognition" is unclear, which may make similar text unsuitable. 'Public Appointments...' - I ask, is this list relevant? If so, perhaps it should be in its own section?
Awards and honours This section tends towards reading like a personal advertisement, for example, it is currently written; "Devine has won all three national prizes for research and writing on Scottish history: Senior Hume Brown Prize for the best first book in Scottish history (1976); the Saltire Society Prize for best book on Scottish History (1988); and the Henry Duncan Prize and Lectureship of the Royal Society of Edinburgh in Scottish Studies (1993).". It may be more appropriate, as an example, to re-write such paragraphs "Devine has been awarded the Senior Hume Brown Prize for 'Best First Book' in Scottish history (1976); the Saltire Society Prize for 'Best Book on Scottish History' (1988); and the Henry Duncan Prize and Lectureship of the Royal Society of Edinburgh in Scottish Studies (1993)."
There are other issues with the article, such as 'Alphabet soup' and a tendency to switch between styles.
Textualism ( talk) 08:07, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- I removed a lot of the promotional material, and tried to fix some of the inline sourcing and add citation tags where needed. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 20:32, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, it was quite a daunting task! Textualism ( talk) 07:36, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
Bebo Kobo
Since 2016 there has been on and off edit-warring about whether or not to include the details of an 18-month prison sentence in the article for Bebo Kobo. Whilst the articles are all from reliable sources, namely Globes, Haaretz, and Calcalist, they are all in Hebrew, and the nuances may not be obvious from Google Translate. More at Talk:Bebo Kobo. Edwardx ( talk) 18:30, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- The article subject does not appear to be a low-profile individual under WP:LOWPROFILE, and I think it is likely they would be a public figure for the purposes of WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Also, WP:BLPCRIME does not really apply since there was a conviction and prison sentence reported in several reliable sources. However, there appears to be a dispute about whether the original publication that reported on the conviction later retracted that statement in legal proceedings. I think for the content to be included there would need to be an argument made that there are enough sources who have independently reported on the conviction beyond just the original publication or repeating claims from the legal proceedings. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 19:48, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- These sources are entirely sufficient for including the factual information that Kobo was convicted of rape. The new editor deleting this information is misbehaving here. It's disappointing to see that the article has been protected, preventing restoration of this information. (Hebrew-speaking editor here) Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 07:52, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
DRASTIC has an RFC on whether to include the term "conspiracy theorists" in our depiction of the group. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. -- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 19:23, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
I don't 100% know that this is the proper place for this notice, since this is a group of people, not a single person. But I figured it would be better to err on the side of posting. Let me know if you think it's improper! Thanks. -- Shibbolethink ( ♔ ♕) 19:03, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
There's an ongoing dispute on the page for Rana Ayyub regarding the addition of (i)her having posted 'fake news' on her social media, certain instances of which have been picked up on some WP:RS (see the actual edit for info) (ii) her recent legal troubles because of an allegation of sharing fake news (again, well-cited with RS). The dispute can be read on talk page, and the edit in disputed diff revert is here. LΞVIXIUS 💬 15:13, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Some mention is probably fine based on the sources, but the content that was removed was excessive and did not appear to be neutrally written. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 17:53, 18 June 2021 (UTC)
- Before anything none of the RSes call any of that "fake news", it certainly doesn't merit a section called "fake news incidents". The edit also cherrypicks bits and pieces from sources and omits contextual information. It contains a "fact check" from The Times of India ( RSP entry) of a one line tweet by her. That is neither an RS nor does it have due weight for inclusion.
- The "legal troubles" goes as far as an First Information Report, she hasn't been charged. The addition itself omits the fact that in her tweet she quoted a claim from the victim, which the police is denying. It also omits the fact that, she is one among a group of people including a number of other journalists, Twitter and opposition leaders against whom the police has filed FIRs for reproducing the claims of the victim and that this has received backlash and condemnation. The framing of the section as well as the wording suggests that she has committed a crime which is a very obvious BLP violation.
- Regardlessly, I'd argue that a non partisan inclusion of any of this is giving undue weight to begin with, tweets which receive momentary attention in the media don't belong on Wikipedia articles. At best, if the police case goes forward or if she becomes more involved in the controversy then the last bit might merit inclusion but certainly not before that. Tayi Arajakate Talk 11:09, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
M. C. Josephine
M. C. Josephine, Indian politician, may need some BLP-watchers. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 12:21, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- At the moment this article gives an almost entirely negative view of the subject. It consists only of a brief factual introduction of her and the posts she holds, followed by a Controversy section which accounts for most of the content. It needs to present a more neutral view. Neiltonks ( talk) 12:33, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
La La Anthony
La La Anthony ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
My boss, "Alani Nicole "La La" Anthony? has a wrong date of birth on her info box and "Early life" section. There, it is written June 25, 1979. But her true date of birth is 25 June 1982. Each time she tries to correct it, some enemies will revert it. Many of such editors have been banned from editing wikipedia. My Boss, has her Drivers License which contains the correct date of birth. She asked me to upload it to the admins. I uploaded it to wiki commons just for this purpose. I don't know where I else I can upload.
Here's the link https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:D_license_Nicole.jpg
Please, We need the wiki admin to help us correct the right date as this is causing problems for La La Anthody. Her correct date of birth is 25 June 1982 as seen in the uploaded Driver's License. Pls help us correct this and stop enemies from changing it.
Thanks a lot
La La Anthony PA (
talk) 13:46, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- That has been discussed at Talk:La La Anthony/Archive 1#Age back in 2019, it appears that there is a gradual shift as time moves forward.-- Eostrix ( 🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 13:50, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- I have no comment on the birth date issue, but please don't post ID documents here, it's a privacy issue and we can't use those as sources anyway. The image has now been deleted from Commons. Spicy ( talk) 13:59, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- All information must be
verifiable to a
reliable sources, especially
those involving living people. As a general practice, if I see a dispute between something that is sourced but believed to be incorrect, against something not sourced but believed to be true, I will remove the claim entirely, which is what I have done here.
Ritchie333
(talk)
(cont) 14:12, 16 June 2021 (UTC)
- User:Ritchie333, Your final decision as an admin is accepted. We agree not to keep pressing to add the correct date of birth. However, it seems the enemy has returned again today with the wrong date of birth which you removed completely. This time around, they came with an IP account User contributions for 2603:6011:C206:7A00:55F3:DBF5:313F:4ECC. Please look into this and revert back to the earlier stand. I am also requesting for page protecting since these enemies keep coming back to add the wrong date of birth which is adversely affect the career of my Boss lady, La La Anthony. Thanks La La Anthony PA ( talk) 18:31, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Katie Ewer
Hi. I am the subject of this page and it contains quite a few inaccuracies that I would really like to be corrected. I know I can't edit the page myself, but would really like to understand how to get it amended. Thanks. Katie — Preceding unsigned comment added by Katie Ewer ( talk • contribs) 15:10, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- You can make
edit requests on the
article's talk page using the {{
Request edit}} template. Make sure you provide a
reliable sources for every claim.
Kleinpecan (
talk) 15:21, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
- A review of her article shows too much reliance on her university and institute bios which seem to be WP:BLPSELFPUB and analysis of articles that she's written. This analysis may be where the inaccuracies stem from. Further, it's not clear if an Esquire profile itself is sufficient to establish notability under the GNG or whether she falls under WP:NPROF. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 23:36, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello. There is unsourced, negative information in this article. I identified this information on the talk page, but was told to "establish a consensus for this alteration" by User:ScottishFinnishRadish. WP:BLP already has consensus. Can Somebody assist? 92.24.242.202 ( talk) 08:25, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- I responded at that talk page. I edited that section to cite the existing language to a source used earlier in the paragraph.
Firefangledfeathers (
talk) 08:38, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- @ Firefangledfeathers: Awesome, thank you! 92.24.242.202 ( talk) 17:13, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
There was a "Controversy" section that I have removed because it was sourced to three blogs, which should not be used for biographies per WP:BLPSPS. AntiFaAssociated reverted me without explanation, and I reverted them again.
This slow edit war about whether this section should stay in the article has been going on since at least March 2020 ( Special:Diff/947007696, Special:Diff/947496130). Kleinpecan ( talk) 12:29, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
-
El C semiprotected the article, but it still hasn't helped—the user made a bunch of useless edits to random articles in order to become autoconfirmed. Seems to me they are only here to edit war on that article.
Kleinpecan (
talk) 12:41, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
-
Indef p-blocked.
El_C 15:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you. Kleinpecan ( talk) 20:04, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
-
Indef p-blocked.
El_C 15:54, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Malicious Information - Boniface Mwangi Page
The page Boniface Mwangi contains malicious allegations cited from a blog, that borders on "defamation" and the user keeps reverting all my edits to amend the issue on the category "Controversy". Blogposts and tabloids are not reliable sources -- Ms Kabintie ( talk) 11:10, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- I removed some of the information
[25] because it was
WP:SYNTH (the references were being used by the IP to draw his own conclusions not explicitly stated in the references) and it appears that another editor removed the bulk of the rest
[26] as using unreliable sources.
Notfrompedro (
talk) 13:02, 23 June 2021 (UTC)
- Material added passes WP:GNG based on reference to WP:NEWSBLOG, where material was added with caution and specific description (with evidence) included. Çnyakundi.com has a page on its own to qualify as notable, independent,reliable reference for matters that are controversial such as this, hence it was accurate and reliable for this kind of stuff.
- Ms Kabintie has an edit history of editorial bias on the page e.g. she attempted to remove other verified unrelated material on the page even went ahead to tout promotional information on boniface mwangi see this that have been disputed by this entry. Which is a clearly lame assertion of neutrality about these edits.
- If mwangi has an issue with these edits, he should sue cnyakundi like anyone else, without attempting to fight WP:NEUTRAL points of view that seek to promote free speech on these matters about his individual actions.
- The specific issue based on these reference is that Mwangi is routinely involved in activities that are more promotional for himself to get publicity for himself, rather than activism. Anything that seems to be able to get headlines, mwangi just crosses the line for publicity.
- At this rate, mwangi's promotional activities will start becoming a basis for legitimate issues that are not verifiable anywhere and contravene basic WP:NEUTRAL on wikipedia.
-- 154.152.186.71 ( talk)
- No your edit are
WP:SYNTH and
WP:OR. You are using multiple references to support a conclusion not explicitly stated in any of them.
Lopifalko's edit summary was also clear that "Çnyakundi.com does not appear to be a reliable source + it does not support the claim here." Please read and understand the guidelines about referencing articles especially when it is a
WP:BLP.
Notfrompedro (
talk) 13:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't see how WP:NEWSBLOG applies to Cynakundi. This isn't the blog of a some reputable Kenyan media organisation. It's a blog founded by one person who it's named after. It appears to have multiple writers, but it's unclear to me what sort of independent editorial control there is. Notably, the article in question seems to be written by the person the blog is named after strongly suggesting it's a WP:SPS. There's also button on the main page to contact the person the page is named after again supporting the idea that this blog is ultimately centred around one individual. Nil Einne ( talk) 13:42, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- No your edit are
WP:SYNTH and
WP:OR. You are using multiple references to support a conclusion not explicitly stated in any of them.
Lopifalko's edit summary was also clear that "Çnyakundi.com does not appear to be a reliable source + it does not support the claim here." Please read and understand the guidelines about referencing articles especially when it is a
WP:BLP.
Notfrompedro (
talk) 13:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
A question on MANDY and sourcing
Chris Avellone is a video game writer who got caught up in #MeToo-releated sexual misconduct allegations last year and as a result was removed from several projects. (These are well documented). Yesterday, Avellone posted to Medium an apology post, which seems the type of thing that falls under WP:MANDY in general that we wouldn't include without it be noted by sources in general. (In fact, one editor did try to add it but I did remove it on this basis). But I have been tracking sources to see if any RSes have noted this and given this is the weekend it may be too early for these to appear yet. I have seen appear in a weak RS, a Forbes contributor piece [27]. (As a note, this specific contributor is generally okay in the area of video games, but just falls under the general problem of Forbes contribs). This led me to wonder that in the context of MANDY and where we should look for sourcing to use for when it appropriate to include an accused's rebuttal/reaction/etc to accusations if it is noted by sources but these are not necessarily the highest quality sources we'd use in the article's context (in this case for video game-related content, sources like IGN, Polygon, or the Verge). If only weak/poor but not deprecated RSes noted this, as to avoid the issue of a unduly self-serving situation, would that become appropriate? -- Masem ( t) 17:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- I wouldn't put much stock in that user essay as a general rule. It seems fairly recent and the Forbes link would probably be enough given our public figure policy.
PackMecEng (
talk) 17:29, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that the essay itself arguably passes BLPSPS about themselves, just that it generally states the expected "I'm sorry I did those things"-type language that I'd think nominally falls under MANDY. Hence wanting RSes to see if it merits inclusion. --
Masem (
t) 17:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's a user essay that loosen what we are required to do in BLP situations. It is not useable for anything.
PackMecEng (
talk) 17:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Agree. It's bad enough that some people think it's worth mentioning on a noticeboard where we're supposed to be discussing WP:BLP seriously, but worse to use it as the basis for reverting other people's edits. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 18:08, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- It's a user essay that loosen what we are required to do in BLP situations. It is not useable for anything.
PackMecEng (
talk) 17:33, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Ah, I misread (as I see now), you're talking to MANDY as a user essay, rather than the BLP's essay themselves. But I've seen experience editors stand by MANDY as policy/guidance to BLP (given that "unduly self-serving material" is a part of BLPSPS) hence that there is a fair question here related to sourcing.
- To add, I have seen further that Avellone here has alluded to filing lawsuits against his accusers in the Medium, a fact picked up in the Forbes piece. This is a bit more than just the simple rebuttal and even ignoring MANDY and keeping to the scope of BLPSPS + related RS policy, is this at a sufficient point to include with only Avellone's own Medium piece and the Forbes contributor piece, or should we wait for better RS source on this to come along? -- Masem ( t) 18:20, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- Keep in mind that the essay itself arguably passes BLPSPS about themselves, just that it generally states the expected "I'm sorry I did those things"-type language that I'd think nominally falls under MANDY. Hence wanting RSes to see if it merits inclusion. --
Masem (
t) 17:32, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- To speak to the essay of MANDY itself, I find it to be an extremely flawed position. It's basically using the very tactics it's arguing against. Of course a subject is going to deny allegations, but coming back with a loaded question like, "Well he would, wouldn't he?" is the equivalent of saying that denying the allegations is in itself proof of guilt. You might as well ask, "Do you still beat your wife?" It's the same thing. In my opinion, everybody has a right to respond to allegations, and denying them the right is creating the very false balance we wish to avoid. Whether we believe them or not is not for us to decide. That's up to the reader. But you can't give one side of the story and pat yourself on the back and call yourself neutral. As far as I can tell, the essay is an excellent demonstration of the dangers of loaded questions.
Zaereth (
talk) 20:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- We note denials by public figures under
WP:BLPPUBLIC. I don't see how less public figures should not be afforded the same.
Morbidthoughts (
talk) 00:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I agree that we should generally include denials when someone has merely been accused of something. I also think that if someone is not a public figure enough for a self-published denial to be included in response to allegations of serious criminal conduct against the person, then those criminal allegations should probably not be included in the first place, given the considerations at WP:BLPCRIME. – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 03:29, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- We note denials by public figures under
WP:BLPPUBLIC. I don't see how less public figures should not be afforded the same.
Morbidthoughts (
talk) 00:00, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- To speak to the essay of MANDY itself, I find it to be an extremely flawed position. It's basically using the very tactics it's arguing against. Of course a subject is going to deny allegations, but coming back with a loaded question like, "Well he would, wouldn't he?" is the equivalent of saying that denying the allegations is in itself proof of guilt. You might as well ask, "Do you still beat your wife?" It's the same thing. In my opinion, everybody has a right to respond to allegations, and denying them the right is creating the very false balance we wish to avoid. Whether we believe them or not is not for us to decide. That's up to the reader. But you can't give one side of the story and pat yourself on the back and call yourself neutral. As far as I can tell, the essay is an excellent demonstration of the dangers of loaded questions.
Zaereth (
talk) 20:03, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
- To add, an article from at least one reliable source has come up to report on this, so the initial point is moot but the general issue is still a issue of debate. -- Masem ( t) 00:06, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Given
The accusation of both women, made even more intense by subsequent testimony from other people, originated on Twitter and never reached a court or the police.
I think the mention of the statement by the subject, ie his response, should be included in his BLP. (Especially since he wants to now take it to court as libel.) I think that would fairly follow fromNow, is it possible to characterize disputes fairly? This is an empirical issue, not a philosophical one: can we edit articles so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, and agree that their views are presented accurately and as completely as the context permits?
( WP:NPOVFAQ). ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 00:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)- Also arguably follows from
WP:BLPCRIME:
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction.
It doesn't seem valid, to me, to include mention of an accusation of a possible crime and then exclude the subject's defence per MANDY. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 00:16, 28 June 2021 (UTC)- I do want to note that the companies he was working with at the time of the accusations basically fired him. I believe we have carefully worded the language to avoid any intonation in Wikivoice he is guilty, but only factually to state what happened then. That he is looking to file suit because these accusations led to his firing seems reasonable to include, but there's that sourcing issue (that is now resolved in the specific case). --
Masem (
t) 00:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't say the mention needs to be removed, but in any case where an accusation with criminal implications without conviction is inserted into an article, the existence and form of the subject's substantive response (an apology, a rebuttal, a lawsuit, etc) should be too. It's then up to readers to make of the information what they wish, but its existence shouldn't be suppressed.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 00:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think that independent sources are necessary to include a denial of an accusation made against a living person, depending on the circumstances. Whether independent sources report on it should be relevant, but not the deciding factor. Similarly, it may not be appropriate to include a denial even when it is reported in reliable sources. However, I do not see how the arguments made in the
WP:MANDY essay would apply in this situation to someone who has only been accused of a crime or similar wrongdoing but no additional reporting or investigations directly claims that. For example, if the article subject here had been fired for misconduct after an investigation at the companies he left, then I think it would be more relevant to consider whether or not to include his denial. But no source articles appear to claim that Avellone committed sexual assault, and instead they only report on the accusations. I also wonder whether this article subject is a public figure (has he had a significant impact on the gaming industry or sought out media attention for himself?), and if he is, he would seem to barely be one, and so more consideration should be taken regarding criminal allegations included in the article. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 03:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- He's absolutely a "public figure" in the context of the video game industry if we consider anything prior to 2020; he was a designer and writer for many significant games, and I can attest that ignoring any cover of him from 2020, it's certainly not "him seeking media attention for himself". (Few VG people are "public" personalities like celebrities but they are still frequently talked about and interviewed and don't escape the media spotlight here). His article could probably be expanded more on the significance of his work. (Here's a google news search of 2019 + early coverage of him
[28] and just scanning down the first 5-6 pages of results gives me about 75% hits that are from VG's reliable sources) --
Masem (
t) 04:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Being well-known in an industry does not necessarily mean a person is a public figure, and normally that would also require something like having a significant role or impact, such as the lead designer of a major game as opposed to merely being one designer or writer alongside many others. Giving interviews would be voluntarily seeking media attention though, and so that would more likely indicate a person is a public figure or high-profile individual. It's really not about whether a person is a celebrity, but what level of involvement they have in the public sphere, either implicitly through their significance or impact, or explicitly through their public promotion or voluntary engagement with the media. It's also important to remember that a person can be notable without being a public figure. I think the explanatory supplement at Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual is very helpful. In this specific case, I agree that the article's prose should probably be updated to make his significance and impact clearer (e.g., the prose only discusses him being the lead designer on one bluelinked game, although it appears he has been the lead designer on several other notable games according to the "Works" credits listings). – wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 05:11, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- He's absolutely a "public figure" in the context of the video game industry if we consider anything prior to 2020; he was a designer and writer for many significant games, and I can attest that ignoring any cover of him from 2020, it's certainly not "him seeking media attention for himself". (Few VG people are "public" personalities like celebrities but they are still frequently talked about and interviewed and don't escape the media spotlight here). His article could probably be expanded more on the significance of his work. (Here's a google news search of 2019 + early coverage of him
[28] and just scanning down the first 5-6 pages of results gives me about 75% hits that are from VG's reliable sources) --
Masem (
t) 04:18, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I don't think that independent sources are necessary to include a denial of an accusation made against a living person, depending on the circumstances. Whether independent sources report on it should be relevant, but not the deciding factor. Similarly, it may not be appropriate to include a denial even when it is reported in reliable sources. However, I do not see how the arguments made in the
WP:MANDY essay would apply in this situation to someone who has only been accused of a crime or similar wrongdoing but no additional reporting or investigations directly claims that. For example, if the article subject here had been fired for misconduct after an investigation at the companies he left, then I think it would be more relevant to consider whether or not to include his denial. But no source articles appear to claim that Avellone committed sexual assault, and instead they only report on the accusations. I also wonder whether this article subject is a public figure (has he had a significant impact on the gaming industry or sought out media attention for himself?), and if he is, he would seem to barely be one, and so more consideration should be taken regarding criminal allegations included in the article. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 03:23, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I didn't say the mention needs to be removed, but in any case where an accusation with criminal implications without conviction is inserted into an article, the existence and form of the subject's substantive response (an apology, a rebuttal, a lawsuit, etc) should be too. It's then up to readers to make of the information what they wish, but its existence shouldn't be suppressed.
ProcrastinatingReader (
talk) 00:26, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I do want to note that the companies he was working with at the time of the accusations basically fired him. I believe we have carefully worded the language to avoid any intonation in Wikivoice he is guilty, but only factually to state what happened then. That he is looking to file suit because these accusations led to his firing seems reasonable to include, but there's that sourcing issue (that is now resolved in the specific case). --
Masem (
t) 00:22, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Also arguably follows from
WP:BLPCRIME:
Per WP:BLPSPS and WP:FORBESCON the Forbes contributor piece is useless. We can sometimes use self published material people publish about themselves. We cannot use self published material in relation to living persons written by someone else. And the Forbes contributor piece is treated as self published. It doesn't matter if the author is a subject matter expert, there is no subject matter expert exception for BLPs. Likewise User:PackMecEng is mistaken. We cannot use SPS about living persons even if the living person is a public figure. Public figure issues for WP:BLPCRIME only comes into play is the material is published in reliable secondary sources. It does not apply to material self published like Forbes contributor columns.
Also while handling the case where a subject has denied some claim but their denial isn't mentioned in reliable secondary sources is tricky, I don't think we can use WP:BLPSELFPUB for the denial in a case like this. I don't see how a denial could be said to not make claims about third parties.
(There is actually a similar issue for the public figure issue. Even if the subject of the article is a public figure and even if we did allow self published material written by someone else to be used for public figures which as I said we don't, it's unlikely the other people affected by the denial are public figures.)
IMO we need to just hope it's covered in a reliable secondary source, if the allegations were covered especially in a case like this where it's not that long after, the denials generally are eventually. It sounds like this might have happened now?
- I find the arguments against WP:MANDY above to be hollow, emotive and unpersuasive.
- With that being said, I don't think the essay applies to the question of whether we should mention his denial. There are a couple reasons why:
- These are unproven, unevidenced allegation. They might very well be true (and I generally assume they are true enough that the accusers aren't lying about them in cases like this), but we don't have any evidence on which to judge. That's a balancing factor between the accused and the accusers, and we all know the term for it: "He said/She said." I hate to be dismissive of allegations like this, but the simple fact is that we can believe the accusers and the accused, and we currently don't have any reason to favor either.
- These are allegations that don't involve any expertise to understand (contrast with allegations like these, where expertise is inarguably relevant), this is an additional balancing factor.
- we could apply the "Well, they would, wouldn't they?" standard to Techland for firing him, as well, which would leave the article in a funny state, to say the least.
- Finally, there's the question of timing: Avellone has been mum on the matter for a year, from what I can gather. If he had issued his response right away, it would be a very legitimate question to ask if it's worth mentioning. For a response that was a year in the making, well, that's a different beast.
- I think the only question here is whether his denial is WP:DUE by our regular standard. As this is a BLP, the Forbes piece by Erik Kain is probably less than useful. So there's only the weight of the Medium piece by Avellone himself to judge this by. It seems germane, as he's announcing a lawsuit against two of his accusers. It's still questionable, though.
- I, personally, would not yet include the denial. Not until an undeniable RS covers it. If and when a clearly reliable source covers it, we can add it in, but in order to comply with NPOV and nod to the underlying issue of MANDY, I'd keep mention short and sweet. Something like "In June 2021, a year after the allegations were made, Avellone published an article on
Medium denying the allegations and announcing a libel suit against two of his accusers."
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 14:01, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
-
MPants at work, given your response to my concerns on your talk page
[29], I will instead post my concerns here. I don't think anyone has made "emotive arguments", and if you think there has been, then you should be providing diffs rather than those types of aspersions. Especially considering you already removed part of your comment for similar concerns by another editor about you making accusations against others without evidence
[30]. I hope you will take the time to read
WP:NPA, which explicitly says that personal attacks include "accusations about personal behavior
that lack evidence". Civility is a fundamental pillar on Wikipedia, and making unsupported aspersions that other editors are not acting neutrally makes respectful discussions about contentious issues a lot more difficult. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 21:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 21:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
-
MjolnirPants/
MPants at work, considering you have been blocked more than once for personal attacks, and have had other editors bring up concerns about casting aspersions just in the past few months after you were unblocked earlier this year (after appealing an indefinite block from early 2019 that was placed due to comments that had to be oversighted), I think you should probably take some time to reevaluate your attitude towards others when working on a collaborative project. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 22:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- Stop pinging me, for fuck's sake. I don't know where you got the notion that I owe you any explanation beyond "you're wrong", but I sure as hell don't. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 03:03, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
-
MjolnirPants/
MPants at work, considering you have been blocked more than once for personal attacks, and have had other editors bring up concerns about casting aspersions just in the past few months after you were unblocked earlier this year (after appealing an indefinite block from early 2019 that was placed due to comments that had to be oversighted), I think you should probably take some time to reevaluate your attitude towards others when working on a collaborative project. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 22:15, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- I refer you to the response given in Arkell v Pressdram.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 21:43, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
-
MPants at work, given your response to my concerns on your talk page
[29], I will instead post my concerns here. I don't think anyone has made "emotive arguments", and if you think there has been, then you should be providing diffs rather than those types of aspersions. Especially considering you already removed part of your comment for similar concerns by another editor about you making accusations against others without evidence
[30]. I hope you will take the time to read
WP:NPA, which explicitly says that personal attacks include "accusations about personal behavior
that lack evidence". Civility is a fundamental pillar on Wikipedia, and making unsupported aspersions that other editors are not acting neutrally makes respectful discussions about contentious issues a lot more difficult. –
wallyfromdilbert (
talk) 21:38, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
- And just to further add we now have (ETA at least 2) English-language VG/S-meeting RSes [31] reporting on it, so all immediate case concerns are dealt with. No need to incorporate the Medium or Forbes pieces. -- Masem ( t) 18:12, 28 June 2021 (UTC)
Question for administrator (re: Lauren Southern)
<It seems like some of the contributor(s) to this page have some personal issue/bias against Mrs. Southern. People are entitled to their opinions, but it should be made clear that it is someone's opinion. You don't have to be a rocket surgeon to be able to craft sentences in a way that shows what is a fact and what is an opinion. People can word things in a way that communicates their message without being petty or outright aggressive. Yet, the article literally opens with libelous statements, and they do continue through the entirety of the page. Honestly, by the end of the article, it felt more like the wording being used went from being distasteful, to aggressive, and evolving in to the entire article being used as a weapon meant to hurl ad hominem attacks and misinformation as the subject.. Stating that Lauren is, in fact, a "white supremacist", and then using some vague quote completely out of context, or with false context, as evidence to express this subjective opinion as an objective fact is not only illegal, but it's also despicable. If the contributors cannot maintain some semblance or journalistic integrity and/or professionalism, then I believe it's time for Wikipedia to step up and do so. A failure to address issues like this will have long-lasting, maybe even permanent consequences that could well expand beyond the small border of a single URL, or person, or country, and actually influence or push a narrative. Let's all do our part and have some integrity, here... Not liking someone is perfectly fine, but that doesn't mean you can/have to do away with all professionalism or objectivity that should be the golden standard for contributors.>
-- 72.190.176.115 ( talk) 22:25, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
- Not done Your opinions are very interesting, but not actionable. You have not described any of these statements as being unsourced or poorly-sourced.
- Moreover, the article explicitly does not describe Southern as a "white supremacist." It does state, accurately and with multiple reliable sources, that Southern is a white nationalist, and that her promotion of the Great Replacement conspiracy theory has been used to promote white nationalism. That you do not like this fact is not something we can fix. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 22:29, 29 June 2021 (UTC)
Angela Rasmussen
This article should be tagged for deletion. There is no notability per BLP rules. RutiWinkler ( talk) 01:53, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Links for the lazy:
Angela Rasmussen (
|
talk |
history |
protect |
delete |
links |
watch |
logs |
views).
Firefangledfeathers (
talk) 01:58, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- She seems to meet WP:Noteworthy standards given the RS references and leadership in vaccine and immunology research, which an important topic today. There does not appear to be a formal AfD process initiated for the article, but I would vote to keep if there were. Go4thProsper ( talk) 09:28, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Hello, the developer of this emulator apparently has committed suicide, and there have been attempts at including personal information that this person has disclosed about themself on message boards. [32]
I would expect that BLP here beats Verifiability, but am unsure how you work.
Would appreciate 2cts by someone in the loop.-- ze un fo un 18:15, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Aware of the situation around Higan's death, I have revdel'd the inclusion because it was sourcd to Kiwifarms which 100% fails BLPSPS (among other things). --
Masem (
t) 18:19, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you very much.--
ze un fo un 18:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- As a note, one of the RSes on Higan's death (Vice's article) does confirm the change of gender preference, so that's fine. The other factor that's coming from Kiwi Farms, (ties to the furry fandom) which is sorta obvious from Higan's profiles, I just can't find a RS for, nor essential for this. --
Masem (
t) 18:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Though the article only tells what pronouns they went with prior, fwiw.-- ze un fo un 18:32, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- As a note, one of the RSes on Higan's death (Vice's article) does confirm the change of gender preference, so that's fine. The other factor that's coming from Kiwi Farms, (ties to the furry fandom) which is sorta obvious from Higan's profiles, I just can't find a RS for, nor essential for this. --
Masem (
t) 18:26, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you very much.--
ze un fo un 18:20, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
"... he received a straight red card after lunging at Artem Besyedin, forcing the latter to retire injured." The wording concerning the contentious collision between Danielson and Besyedin is far from neutral and also mistakable.
- Agreed. I've edited it for more neutral wording, and because the original seemed rather long. Players get sent off from time to time, it's not career-defining. Neiltonks ( talk) 12:19, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Diethard Tautz
I am the person who is described in this artticle. I refer to the emglish version of it: Diethard Tautz
The article has a warning flag that says it needs to be checked. I can confirm that the contents are correct. The text is derived from a laudation for an award for which I was suggested. It should actually also be updated, based on the German version that is more up to date.
I would appreciate if the flag would be removed
Diethard Tautz
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.5.9.188 ( talk) 08:17, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- Diethard Tautz, I appreciate you consider the contents are correct, but unfortunately that is part of the problem. It is believed that the content was written by someone who was paid to write it, and they did not disclose this as they are required to do according to the terms of use of Wikipedia. This is a major violation here. Content written by people with a conflict of interest, especially people who know the subject of the article or have received information from then is nearly always a problem since it's not written neutrally, and the information may also lack reliable sources which we require here on Wikipedia. Content written by people who were paid to edit tends to be worst of the lot. The fact the information is true is irrelevant to us if we lack reliable sources, the information needs to stay out of the article in the absence of such sources no matter that it may be true. I also have great concerns about your statement "The text is derived from a laudation for an award". How closely was it "derived"? Can you provide a link to this text so we can check it? It seems to be there is a strong risk the article may be a WP:copyright violation. Unless these concerns are addressed, it might be better if just delete the whole thing. Nil Einne ( talk) 13:33, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Audrey Mullender
- Audrey Mullender ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
- Fellow3 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
A user who appears to be the subject (based on the pronouns used in edit summaries) is removing allegations that she destroyed the archives of Ruskin College, Oxford (where she was principal), which are sourced to an article by Hilda Kean, former dean of Ruskin College in an article on History Workshop. History Workshop describes itself as a "digital magazine that seeks to continue the spirit of the History Workshop movement by publishing accessible and engaging articles that deepen understanding of the past for historians and the public, and which reflect upon present day issues and agitate for change in the world we live in now" and appears to have a dedicated editoral team. This has already been posted on COIN but I also think this is a BLP issue. Audrey/Fellow3 has stated the allegations as "malicious untruth", "untrue and potentially libellous" as well as "something I did not say and a complete fabrication of my motivation; also ignoring the legal position at the time". Hemiauchenia ( talk) 14:29, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
- There are three sources for the article's statement about the record destruction. The BBC article mentions that both the College and Mullender claim that they were legally required to dispose of the records because they contained personally identifying information, which I'm sure is what Fellow3 meant by "ignoring the legal position". I think we should definitely include something about that for the sake of balance. The current wording is quite one-sided. -- Fyrael ( talk) 19:24, 1 July 2021 (UTC)
Not having read the sources, I hvee no opinion on whether the extremely negative editorializing detail , some involving named staff members, is appropriate. (I came across it by accident--dealing with this is fortunately not my field.) DGG ( talk ) 06:26, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
RE: Daniella Levine Cava and Jew-Tagging
So Daniella Levine Cava has come into the national American news cycle recently, and as such there have been much more edits to her page. Among these edits are the inclusion of her being Jewish. At first, they were unsourced so easy reverts, but now there are reliable sources so it's a lot more hazy now. Jew-tagging is an area of where I wish we had a formal policy/criterion regarding, or even at least an essay; I'm surprised we don't have anything considering how often Jew-tagging is used as an argument at WP:AN and WP:ANI. The only even semi-formal thing that exists regarding Jew-tagging is this signpost from April 2020. I'm just seeking clarity as to where the border is regarding Jew-tagging being included vs unincluded. Curbon7 ( talk) 01:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Clarity is not easy to come by here, it can be a difficult subject: See
Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive306#Edward_Kosner and
Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive316#Coffee_removing_Categories_and_Lists_Inappropriately.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (
talk) 10:16, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Have not looked at this particular case, but in general even if people are adding someone's Jewish ethnicity to an article (with a reliable source), no one should be wikilinking Jew or Jewish, per
WP:OVERLINK.
Edwardx (
talk) 10:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- The most common and obvious tagging is the mixing or substitution of religion or ethnicity for nationality in the lead sentence - changing "Xxxx Xxxx is a German physician" to "Xxxx Xxxx is a Jewish physician." This is explicitly deprecated in the MoS - see MOS:ETHNICITY. In most, but not all cases, it's being done as a subtler alternative to placing an echo to highlight that the politician, journalist, banker or whomever is Jewish. We have an edit filter to catch that, and other tagging elsewhere in the article. Occasionally we see someone who wishes to highlight Jewish pride, who does the same thing. A limited exception would be a rabbi or Talmudic scholar, but those are obvious and few, and even then we would not mix or substitute nationality. Farther into the article, it becomes a matter of whether it's something central to their biography. For a politician in Miami? It could be a matter of some significance, but I'm not familiar enough with Levine Cava's background to feel confident. I'll give an essay some thought, since I've been dealing with malicious Jew-tagging for a long time. Acroterion (talk) 12:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Have not looked at this particular case, but in general even if people are adding someone's Jewish ethnicity to an article (with a reliable source), no one should be wikilinking Jew or Jewish, per
WP:OVERLINK.
Edwardx (
talk) 10:55, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I note that as currently written, She is the first woman and the first person of Jewish descent to serve as mayor of Miami-Dade County.[3] is
WP:LEAD-only, that argues for this being Jew-Tagging.
Gråbergs Gråa Sång (
talk) 12:27, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- If there's no substantial content in the body of the article to explain why that's important, then I agree.
Acroterion
(talk) 12:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I had a sharp intake of breath when I read that she had overcome the difficulty of actually being a socialist to get the position of Mayor. Gosh. A socialist!! who would have thought it. - Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- If there's no substantial content in the body of the article to explain why that's important, then I agree.
Acroterion
(talk) 12:29, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
We don't have a WP:JEWTAGGING, in case someone wants to write an essay or something. No Jewtagging either. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 17:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Andy Ngo - an admin or team of admins need to step in
I thought this would be a fairly straightforward case of one highly partisan and Edit-Warring-Oriented editor being swiftly reprimanded, and allowing folk to get on with improving the NPOV and encyclopedic tone of the article... How wrong I was to assume that the majority of interested-editors would be concerned with Wikipedia Policy! [33]
A wise man once said...
"I never challenged the sources in the two sections ("Credibility" and "Doxxing"), not a once. It doesn't matter if what the sources say are 100% accurate, it is not encyclopedic. Are you trying to create an encyclopedia or a tabloid? This whole article, like so many recentist (not a word) BLPs, is an absolute disgrace. Wikipedia loses so much credibility by maintaining these high-traffic articles on relatively insignificant individuals, which become nothing more than a repository of "all-the-junk-we-can-find-on-the-internet-about-this-person-who-barely-deserves-an-article-in-the-first-place-but-is-current-and-in-the-online-news-and-US-culture-wars-so-now- they're-more-notable-according-to-Wikipedia-than-real-influential-journalists/writers/academics/intellectuals." I mean Daily Dot as a reliable source? FFS."
TomReagan90 ( talk) 03:04, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- This noticeboard is for discussing edits to BLP articles. Please don't post whimsical comments about other editors or wise men or Wikipedia's credibility. Just identify an article (a link), and text in the article that might be a problem, and why. Johnuniq ( talk) 03:37, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I apologize if I was unclear. It wasn't my intention to appear "whimsical", it was sarcasm I was aiming for, my bad. The article in question is /info/en/?search=Andy_Ngo . And the edits? Well, virtually every sentence is problematic, but, just starting with the very first one. The editor SPECIFICO removed the term "journalist" from the opening sentence. [34] Despite the fact that I provided him with no less of a source than the NY Times as referring to him as in independent journalist (not to mention his 300+ by-lines listed at MuckRack for everything from Newsweek to the Wall Street Journal to Fox News), yet SPECIFICO has pointedly decided not to self-revert.
- Likewise, the editor NorthBySouthBaranof, in one single revert [35] deleted six (seven?) of my edits, with a deliberately misleading edit-summary which only referred to the two "Criticism" sections (which still exist in clear breach of WP:BLP). At any rate, by doing so NorthBySouthBaranof managed to remove all reference to the best-selling book this gentleman has just published from the lede also.
- So we're now at the point where the opening sentence reads "Andy Cuong Ngô (/noʊ/ n-oh; born c. 1986) is an American conservative social media personality [sic, emphasis mine] known for covering and video-recording demonstrators." And it's all downhill from there.
TomReagan90 (
talk) 15:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Sarcasm of that kind is equally inappropriate in this venue. Please present your concerns clearly and concisely. From what I can tell this should be addressed on the article talk page or on an editor’s talk page if you believe that there is a behavioral issue here. If no result comes of the talk page discussion then this would be a good place to turn. What I can address is the contention that the existence of a criticism section is a “clear breach" of BLP: you are mistaken, it is not.
Horse Eye's Back (
talk) 15:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I do apologize for the sarcasm. From WP:BLPBALANCE: "Care must be taken with article structure to ensure the overall presentation and section headings are broadly neutral." And from WP:BLPUNDEL: "To ensure that material about living people is written neutrally to a high standard, and based on high-quality reliable sources, the burden of proof is on those who wish to retain, restore, or undelete the disputed material. When material about living persons has been deleted on good-faith BLP objections, any editor wishing to add, restore, or undelete it must ensure it complies with Wikipedia's content policies. If it is to be restored without significant change, consensus must be obtained first. Material that has been repaired to address concerns should be judged on a case-by-case basis." TomReagan90 ( talk) 16:08, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Sarcasm of that kind is equally inappropriate in this venue. Please present your concerns clearly and concisely. From what I can tell this should be addressed on the article talk page or on an editor’s talk page if you believe that there is a behavioral issue here. If no result comes of the talk page discussion then this would be a good place to turn. What I can address is the contention that the existence of a criticism section is a “clear breach" of BLP: you are mistaken, it is not.
Horse Eye's Back (
talk) 15:50, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- So we're now at the point where the opening sentence reads "Andy Cuong Ngô (/noʊ/ n-oh; born c. 1986) is an American conservative social media personality [sic, emphasis mine] known for covering and video-recording demonstrators." And it's all downhill from there.
TomReagan90 (
talk) 15:43, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm curious how you explain
this edit summary, given the fact that the source is quoted referring to Ngo in the very citation you removed. I find this especially concerning in light of your demonstrably false claim above that
NorthBySouthBaranof used a deceptive edit summary.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 15:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- The source doesn't even mention Ngo. It's either an old link, or it never existed. Click on the URL. That's why I deleted it.
TomReagan90 (
talk) 16:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you're mistaken. When I open
https://www.cjr.org/special_report/newsweek.php, I get an article that includes the quote
"discredited provocateur Andy Ngo"
. Is the article not coming up for you for some reason? – dlthewave ☎ 16:23, 2 July 2021 (UTC)- Wow, that's wild! I get an article about someone called "Nancy Cooper". It reads: "In March 20, Nancy Cooper, the editor in chief of Newsweek, sent an email to her editorial staff. The subject was “What is a Newsweek story?” Crazy! It must be tailored to different international audiences. Where can I upload the screenshots?
TomReagan90 (
talk) 16:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- That's the opening sentence of the article that mentions Ngo. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:31, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thats the right article, now actually read it. Horse Eye's Back ( talk) 16:33, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Wow, that's wild! I get an article about someone called "Nancy Cooper". It reads: "In March 20, Nancy Cooper, the editor in chief of Newsweek, sent an email to her editorial staff. The subject was “What is a Newsweek story?” Crazy! It must be tailored to different international audiences. Where can I upload the screenshots?
TomReagan90 (
talk) 16:28, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm afraid you're mistaken. When I open
https://www.cjr.org/special_report/newsweek.php, I get an article that includes the quote
- Excuse me? My "demonstrably false claim above that NorthBySouthBaranof used a deceptive edit summary"? Please substantiate this claim. How was NorthBySouthBaranof's edit summary not deceptive? He referred only to the two "sections" I removed. Yet he deleted the entirety of my contributions, with justification - until now (except for the mistake I admitted to regarding the linking of the book in the bibliography). By reverting all my contributions (which is surely a breach of 1RR) he undid, what I regard as, the improvements I made to the lede. So, please explain your charge MjolnirPants
TomReagan90 (
talk) 16:14, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- You already substantiated it for me by linking to the diff. It's right there for everyone but you to see that NBSB's edit summary is a fair description of the edit. And no, my revert is not a breach of 1RR. And I explained that revert in the edit summary: you're very clearly attempting to whitewash the article of a disreputable individual. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:21, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- The source doesn't even mention Ngo. It's either an old link, or it never existed. Click on the URL. That's why I deleted it.
TomReagan90 (
talk) 16:07, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm curious how you explain
this edit summary, given the fact that the source is quoted referring to Ngo in the very citation you removed. I find this especially concerning in light of your demonstrably false claim above that
NorthBySouthBaranof used a deceptive edit summary.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 15:56, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I'd like to point out that before NorthBySouthBaranof mass reversion of all my edits, my version of the lede read like so:
Andy Cuong Ngô (/noʊ/ n-oh; born c. 1986) is an American conservative journalist known for covering and video-recording demonstrators and for his 2021 book "Unmasked: Inside Antifa's Radical Plan to Destroy Democracy". He is the editor-at-large of The Post Millennial, and a frequent contributor to the Conservative Review, Newsweek, RealClearPolitics, the New York Post and Fox News. He has also has published columns in outlets such as the Wall Street Journal and The Spectator.
Ngô first gained national notoriety for his controversial coverage of left-wing "Antifa" protestors, including a physical assault against himself that was shared widely on social media and attracted comments from US Congressmen. However, Ngô's journalistic objectivity and credibility has been the subject of criticism, as he has been accused of sharing misleading or selective material, and described by some as a provocateur.
Which I regard as significantly more neutral, informative and encyclopedic when compared with what stands now. But I am of course happy to be shown to be wrong. TomReagan90 ( talk) 15:59, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
I thought this would be a fairly straightforward case of one highly partisan and Edit-Warring-Oriented editor being swiftly reprimanded
may turn out to be true, but not in the manner you expected. Ngo is not notable for being a (sort-of) journalist, his notoriety is for being an agent provocateur who misrepresents the facts to suit his narrative. This is well-established and supported by the sourcing present in the article. ValarianB ( talk) 16:17, 2 July 2021 (UTC)- That may very well all be true, I don't particularly care, I have no dog in the fight (not American, not Rightist, not interested!) - it's just the encyclopedic tone I'm fighting for. It's the credibility of the Wiki Project that troubles me - not Andy Ngo whose videos and articles I've still never seen, and never will. I object to the Tabloidization and Twitterization of Wikipedia, not to Ngo's character or lack thereof. I hate the fact that I have to keep stating this over and over. NorthBySouthBaranof has already accused me 3 times of somehow being in cahoots with Ngo for personal or financial gain! TomReagan90 ( talk) 16:24, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Isaac_Butterfield_(comedian)
The page reads like a self-promotional spiel with little to ground it and mostly contains self-published, self-promoting references.
- Of the fifteen linked references: 8 Youtube videos are linked, none with any special reason, and they're all on his own channel;
- one link is to the general home page of his website (i.e. no specific reference);
- one link uses Web Archive to disguise that it links to his merch shop;
- one link is to his general podcast home page (i.e. no specific reference);
- one is his IMDB;
- only three are outside articles about controversy caused by his white nationalist views; and
- the article proudly brags of these views in the first paragraph, this is dogwhistling;
- the article contains trolling e.g. "resembles a Greek God".
The page has been semi-protected yet the self-promoting references and 'greek god' description have been left standing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Similarbite ( talk • contribs) 09:19, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- Okay, I have made Isaac Butterfield (comedian) a bit more neutral, and removed most of the YouTune references. Edwardx ( talk) 22:41, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
Max Kolonko
Max Kolonko ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Max Kolonko is a journalist with low online following, who has attempted to go into Polish politics. His run was mostly unsucessful, however he still has a small number of loyal followers. I have reason to believe Rafalwlo is one of them. He cites poorly sourced and dubious claims, such as "threatened to otherwise issue a national call to boycott the election. [14] On April 30 2020 the call was picked up by three former Polish presidents and six prime ministers"" - this is an overreach. It is true that those figures have made such a call, but Max Kolonko had little do with it, and the source (now offline) says no such thing.
He has self-proclaimed himself a president of Poland (or to be exact, a completely unrecognized country of "The United States of Poland". The page currently states it as if it was an encyclopedic fact, and not merely his own words. Since Kolonko was a fairly well known recognized journalist a couple of years ago, media picked it up and mentioned it, however it is clear it isn't an endoresment or anything of the sort. Additionally, some of the sources cited link to his own political movements website - r-us.com.
I strongly believe an impartial opinion of an experienced editor (preferably some proficient with Polish language and politics) is needed.
77.65.1.253 ( talk) 18:06, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- Looking at this article, most of the claims are cited to unreliable or primary sources, and it's been that way for years. It's essentially a
hagiography at this point. I chimed in at the Talk page that we might need to identify which sources are reliable and
start over.
Woodroar (
talk) 18:32, 24 June 2021 (UTC)
- I think more BLPN regulars might want to look at this, especially any Polish speakers. I've outlined some of the problems at Talk:Max Kolonko#Rewrite based on reliable sources but I'm just not seeing much we can do with this article. One source mentions the subject as having a popular YouTube channel in Poland. Another is an opinion piece. The remaining sources are unreliable or are connected in some way to the subject, or are mostly unremarkable awards with no third-party coverage of the subject winning them. There might be more coverage at Google News, but I'm not sure which sources are reliable and which are not. Woodroar ( talk) 15:14, 27 June 2021 (UTC)
Eric Clapton
Eric Clapton ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I have questioned the use of a quote attributed to Eric Clapton regarding a controversial incident at a Birmingham concert in 1976, cutting down what was not provided in the sources given (I would have deleted the whole thing, but was afraid someone would restore it and accuse me of being protective of the subject, rather than give a fair assessment). Another user brought back the longer quote (or at least something very similar), introducing more citations (all secondary): 1, 2, and 3. I then got into an argument on the talk page over whether or not the current sources were reliable, in that none of them verified the quote verbatim.
The user in question, JG66, has insisted the sources were reliable despite the lack of verification (for all we know, the respective authors got the alleged quote from Wikipedia), and that inclusion of the quote was fine if Clapton didn't object to it (even though that doesn't prove he said it exactly). JG66 also accused me of being "overzealous" after mere hours of discussion.
Sorry, this leaves me flabbergasted. I thought a BLP would be cautious about unproven quotes, yet someone claims this is okay just because it links to websites and an author considered reliable (appeal to authority?). I'm confused here. GarfieldHelper0 ( talk) 05:05, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- GarfieldHelper0, my apologies, but I think your interlocutor has the better part of the argument here. On Wikipedia, we base our content on verifiability, not truth -- see WP:VNT. And that means it IS okay if it links to reliable sources. Now granted, for the stuff in question, you would want high quality sources, but I think the three you link us to make for pretty solid sourcing. We're not a courtroom here -- we don't insist on first-hand accounts. All that said, reasonable minds may differ and others may disagree. Cheers. Dumuzid ( talk) 06:08, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for that response. I am rather disheartened by the verdict (and with VNT, at least in some cases), but I can accept it for the time being. While I remain skeptical of the verbatim quote, I don't think there are much, if any, sources to the contrary. My main caveat aside, I think most of the links provided are likely okay (The Baffler notwithstanding, but I digress). I also figure the (mostly online) arguments over the incident won't cool down even if the Wikipedia article for Eric Clapton has nothing from that alleged quote. Thanks again, nevertheless.
GarfieldHelper0 (
talk) 06:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- GarfieldHelper0, I appreciate that it's not always the easiest pill to swallow, so thank you for taking my thoughts in the spirit in which they were offered. I agree, this will do nothing to calm the tsuris over Clapton, and as an old-guy guitarist myself, I feel I have a dog in this fight. At any rate, cheers and happy editing. Dumuzid ( talk) 06:56, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you very much for that response. I am rather disheartened by the verdict (and with VNT, at least in some cases), but I can accept it for the time being. While I remain skeptical of the verbatim quote, I don't think there are much, if any, sources to the contrary. My main caveat aside, I think most of the links provided are likely okay (The Baffler notwithstanding, but I digress). I also figure the (mostly online) arguments over the incident won't cool down even if the Wikipedia article for Eric Clapton has nothing from that alleged quote. Thanks again, nevertheless.
GarfieldHelper0 (
talk) 06:44, 3 July 2021 (UTC)
Libelous information in lines 20 and 62. See diff below
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bret_Weinstein&diff=next&oldid=1031657044— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:197:4480:F0:51D7:7286:4AD5:7D16 ( talk • contribs)
- Courtesy ping for Justiyaya Who reverted the eits by now-blocked Cs1327 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) at said article. Victor Schmidt ( talk) 07:04, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- This is the fourth noticeboard this is now at. Is this really necessary? (see FTN RSN NPOVN). Alexbrn ( talk) 07:33, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thanks for the ping Victor Schmidt. Hi anon, I reverted the edits because the editor isn't really in good standing, the edits have been reverted before, the removed section seemed to have enough citations to support the claims and my first revert also fixed bad formatting. After looking through the article again, I believe that the section that was removed (but reintroduced or reverted by me) was fine, but I will also support a rewording (rewording "Weinstein and his wife Heather Heying have spread misinformation about the COVID-19 pandemic on numerous occasions" to a more conservative, less blunt version) of the section if it is suggested by any editors. Just i yaya 08:56, 4 July 2021 (UTC)
Arkebe Oqubay
The article on Arkebe Oqubay reads like a hagiography, with nice sentences praising the person. Text of earlier versions, that is not "politically correct" anymore, has been removed. Needs a warning header, and call for clean up, and retrieval of older texts. Rastakwere ( talk) 17:22, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
- @ Rastakwere: Although I agree the article doesn't seem particularly neutrally written, what "older texts" that are not "politically correct" any more have been removed? I had a quick look at the history and don't see any such content. If anything removed content has been worse e.g. [36] Nil Einne ( talk) 22:05, 2 July 2021 (UTC)
The article Philip_N._Howard may be targeted for trolling and malinformation because of the nature of his work. One anon user generates long "criticism" sections, using twitter, blogs, tabloid, and ultra conservative outlets as sources or turning points of academic debate into personal criticism. Attempts to reconcile rebuffed and simply restored without new sourcing. Can someone help artibrate?— Preceding unsigned comment added by EJackIpuppy ( talk • contribs)
- I am starting to clean the article up as it seemed more like a resume/cv. Disputes about the article's content should be discussed on its talk page. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 00:35, 5 July 2021 (UTC)
Iskra Velinova
The birthdate for Iskra is incorrect. It should be 8 Aug, not 18 Aug. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nutsf15c ( talk • contribs) 16:45, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- @ Nutsf15c, I've removed the full date of birth as a privacy issue. —valereee ( talk) 22:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Category:COVID-19 conspiracy theorists
There is an ongoing deletion discussion of this category, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_July_3#Category:COVID-19_conspiracy_theorists. Participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:56, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This article is objected to constant unsincere and unsubstantiated changes. There is a lot of activity on different internet sites which appears aimed at furthering the impact of Sedat Pekers YouTube videos. The changes on wikipedia are highly political and usually doesn't adhere to the guidelines.
There might be a case for setting the article in locked mode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.216.129.74 ( talk • contribs)
Himanta_Biswa_Sarma Official Portrait of the Chief Minister of Assam is being changed unnecessarily.
Do not add random pictures of the chief minister of Assam. The current picture is released by the Chief Minister's Office as the official portrait. https://assam.gov.in/honble-dignitaries/211 @Goswami21- Do not change the image without explaining yourself. If you think there are valid reasons behind your actions, then explain yourself.
Claude Joseph
The Article on Haitian politician Claude Joseph was updated today and that update if factually incorrect and gives total misleading information and further leaves out other important information, such as the fact that the President of Haiti and the governing council replaced Claude Joseph as acting Prime Minister and named Dr. Ariel Henry as Prime Minister two days ago.
The article has been written today with the following lines: "He ascended to the Presidency as a result of President Jovenel Moïse's assassination in the early hours of Wednesday 7 July 2021." "Claude Joseph is a Haitian politician serving as Acting President of Haiti since 7 July 2021, additionally he also serves as Interim Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs and Worship."
Apparently the contributor that wrote this either has jumped the gun or wants Mr. Joseph to become President of Haiti. Numerous articles have been written specifically stating the line of succession in the Haitian Constitution, and the "interim prime minister' who was just replaced is not on the list!
This article needs change to reflect reality and the law of Haiti. If Mr. Claude Joseph continues to act as Interim Prime Minister and does not resign and allow Dr. Henry to take over from him, or, claims to be the new president at some point in time without cabinet or council approval then the article can be re-written to clearly state those events in clear language as to what Mr. Joseph has done or claimed to do, legally or otherwise.
Larry Erickson 47.136.208.220 ( talk) 20:26, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
References
Twelve Forever
A new user added information about the creator of the television show Twelve Forever in this diff. I reverted the edit here, with an edit summary stating, "When discussing living people, high quality sources are needed. See WP:BLP." My reasoning was that the sources used were from an internet forum and thus did not meet WP:BLP. I then had a lengthy discussion with the user who wanted to add the information at User talk:FairyKingCorn and tried to explain our BLP policy.
I then examined the existing text of the section and found that two of the sources used to discuss the controversy around the creator of the show are probably BLP violations since the sources used to back up the contentions are not reliable. Specifically, one source ( Odyssey (publication)) is user-generated and the other ( Big League Politics) was the subject of a previous RSN discussion which seemed to indicate the source was unreliable. I have looked for reliable sources online to substitute, but I have not been able to find high quality sources appropriate for a BLP.
I removed the content but would appreciate some second opinions to make sure what I'm doing is appropriate since this is a sensitive topic and I would not describe BLPs to be my specialty area. I'm sure the user I discussed this issue with will object as well. (Also, the last time I edited this same section of this article, I seem to have really annoyed another user.) I appreciate any feedback and I am happy to defer to whatever consensus develops. Aoi (青い) ( talk) 07:27, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- The user has an internet archival website containing screenshots of any deleted messages from the subject, which would back-up the unreliable sources, however the screenshots are from the subject's Twitter and Tumblr pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FairyKingCorn ( talk • contribs)
- This looks like a good removal.
- I just did a google news search for
"Julia Vickerman" pedophileand"Julia Vickerman" stalking"and got nothing, which means whatever it is that started whatever kerfuffle these edits refer to was not juicy enough bait for any of the tabloids to bite, which in turn means there's nothing for the best news sources to write about. - Even the most professional looking source cited (Odyssey) claims to be UGC on its about page and doesn't even hint at any editorial staff or fact-checkers. Big League Politics indicates some efforts towards fact-checking in their first principle, but then the second principle takes a rather ill-informed view of the press' relationship with politicians by confusing journalists and lobbyists. That's a misconception that I see echoed by a whole lot of unreliable sources, and which I've never seen made by a reliable source. On top of that, a couple of conspiracy theories pushed by the site were highlighted in that linked RSN discussion.
- Additionally, reading the original post as cited in the reverted edit, and the tweets cited on the forum indicates little more than a weirdo being weird, so it's not surprising that nobody's picked up on it. Yes, it's creepy. But is it evidence of actually her being a pedophile (hebephile, if you want to be pedantic)? No, not even close. It's in the same ballpark, but up in the nosebleeds playing on it's phone and ignoring the game.
- This is, curiously enough, one of the rare clear-cut BLP vios I've seen on this noticeboard. You're correct to revert, and this content should not be added back in without high quality sourcing. If an edit war ensues, or you experience too much pushback, I'd notify an admin. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 12:23, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- This is actually funny that this is coming up again, because I'm 100% sure the comment "the last time I edited this same section of this article, I seem to have really annoyed another user" is referring to me, and specifically to this discussion last fall. I originally added those sources (probably some time in September 2020) with my thought process as "oh, these sources seem fine, and they talk about the controversy, yay!" but looking at them now, I admit, they aren't good sources. And I can't say I agree with anything I said back then. I'd say here that I am totally ok with removing those sources. I guess its just Twitter lore about the show based on a Tumblr post Vickerman published where she tagged "pedophila" or something. That's my memory of what I've seen on Twitter. But, even a general google search for "Julia Vickerman controversy" doesn't seem to come up with any reliable sources, just stuff like this. All EW says about Vickerman's departure from the show is: "EW has learned the producers on Twelve Forever parted ways with series creator Julia Vickerman. While a reason wasn’t given, various claims shared over Twitter allege a hostile work environment. A rep for Netflix declined to comment." That's it. So, I added that into that section (summarized of course), and improved it a little. So, I have to say I agree with ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants and FairyKingCorn. Historyday01 ( talk) 18:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- @
MPants at work and
Historyday01: Thank you for taking time to review the situation and the sources, and for trying to identify if there were any secondary sources that I missed. I greatly appreciate your perspectives and analysis and now feel better about the edits I made.
Aoi (青い) (
talk) 20:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Sure, its my pleasure! I think I've gotten a lot better at editing since I had that discussion with you back in October of last year, so it makes more sense now than it did then. Historyday01 ( talk) 20:47, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- No problem. I calls em like I sees em, and your revert looks mighty fine to me.
- That should be read in Foghorn Leghorn's voice, for full effect. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- @
MPants at work and
Historyday01: Thank you for taking time to review the situation and the sources, and for trying to identify if there were any secondary sources that I missed. I greatly appreciate your perspectives and analysis and now feel better about the edits I made.
Aoi (青い) (
talk) 20:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Birth date disagreement
On Sky Brown, there is a disagreement about her birth date. Multiple newspaper sources give her birth date (implicitly) as 12 July 2008 e.g. [38] says she would be 12 years and 12 days at the original Olympic date (24 July 2020), and [39] says that she will be 13 years and 11 days on the day the Olympics now starts (23 July 2021)- this 13 years 11 days is also published in many other news sources. Both of these collaborate a dob of 12 July 2008. However, many new users including Lean1015 saying that her birth date is 7 July 2008, the source for this being her talent agency. 7 July 2008 also appears in some other self published, non reliable websites too. What should we do with regards to this disputed birth date? Joseph 2302 ( talk) 23:16, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
-
Joseph2302, do we need to include a date of birth at all?
WP:BLPPRIVACY says
Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public.
If we're having to calculate their birthday, that suggests to me that the date of birth is not widely published in reliable sources. And we should be even more cautious on articles about children, per WP:MINORS. Woodroar ( talk) 18:29, 7 July 2021 (UTC)- I agree, let's stop posting the personal details of children, there's no need for a under-16 person's details to be in an encyclopedia.
ValarianB (
talk) 19:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Fine by me, as long as we're this stringent when IP users try and readd a dob. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 20:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've added a record of this discussion at Talk:Sky Brown#No birth date. Hopefully that'll stop the influx of requests relating to adding/changing the dob. Joseph 2302 ( talk) 08:56, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree, let's stop posting the personal details of children, there's no need for a under-16 person's details to be in an encyclopedia.
ValarianB (
talk) 19:19, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Scott Stapp
Found some very weird edits inserting images of Stapp in various articles. [40], [41]. My guess is that there is someone who is trying to do this for Googlehacking purposes. If someone could go through and look at the uses of various images of this person to see if there may be other places I missed, that would be good. Also, it looks like these images keep getting reinserted into the articles over extended periods of time even after reverts. jps ( talk) 13:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Kavita Radheshyam
Kavita Radheshyam ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Would someone have a look at the lead section of this article and do whatever they feel is right. I have taken administrative action on the page so I’m recusing myself from content editing there. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 01:23, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
-
Malcolmxl5 I've removed the whole of the second paragraph, since the lede is supposed to summarise the article not add stuff that's not mentioned elsewhere. If someone wants to add the bits that have sources somewhere further down in the article, I wouldn't object.
Neiltonks (
talk) 08:10, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Thank you, Neiltonks. -- Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 13:32, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Jon Hammes
Hello, I am looking for help with the article for Milwaukee businessman, Jon Hammes. For a while now, I've observed that his Wikipedia article is very atypical/not in line with biographies you see for other business people on Wikipedia. Much of the information in the article is not about Mr. Hammes himself nor is there information about his personal history and family. It feels (from my perspective, at least) like the page may have been created to push a particular viewpoint. I am looking for editors to give this an unbiased review because I have a COI as an employee of Hammes Company. I started my Wikipedia account to ask for edits to his page. I recognize it is a lot of work to address a Wikipedia article like this in its entirety, so I have worked on a draft and started with a suggestion to add some biographical details. My request is here: /info/en/?search=Talk:Jon_Hammes#Biographical_details_to_add
This noticeboard seemed like a good place for this request since editors here see a lot of biographical articles. Could anyone here help me?
Thank you. Brad KM ( talk) 18:12, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
The article describes Alan Dershowitz as an alleged sexual predator matter of factly in the controversies section. 132.147.45.65 ( talk) 04:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Meanwhile, Gerken handled another case very differently. In January 2020, when Trump attorney and alleged sexual predator Alan Dershowitz, with ties to convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein, made a complaint to Gerken regarding medical faculty Bandy X. Lee about her public speech,[23] the Law School immediately ceased referring student cases to Lee,[24] which led to her termination from Yale for having no "formal teaching role."[25] Lee had been a popular professor[26] who taught at the Law School since 2003[27] through a partnership with Yale School of Medicine, covering mental health aspects of asylum law, criminal justice, and veterans’ legal services.[28] Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe dubbed it "a disgusting way for any university to act."[29] Lee is taking legal action listing five causes, including breach of contract, breach of good faith, and wrongful termination.[30]
132.147.45.65 ( talk) 04:17, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- I removed the alleged thing as at a minimum I think we need further details in the Gerken article if we're going to mention that. The ties thing doesn't really seem to count as further details since it's not necessary to mention the alleged thing if that is all there is. I've left in the ties thing since that sort of stands on its on although I'm not entirely happy with it. Note that the Trump thing while a part of the case is also without explanation in our article, it seems like a random detail just thrown in. I'm on wikibreak so won't be dealing with this any more but saw this when checking out the above and felt it was serious enough to try and partly deal with.
Nil Einne (
talk) 13:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Scratch that. I removed the whole thing since when reading again I realised it makes no sense that the law school would be significantly responsible for firing someone's who's main expertise and employment at Yale was medicine. Looking more carefully, none of the secondary sources mention Gerken except I couldn't check law360 so I don't know. This source [42] specifically says she had no connection to the law school. Perhaps that came about because of Gerken's actions I don't know. It's irrelevant to us as editors as long as the only sources mentioning it are court filings or other such legal documents. Until Gerken's alleged actions in relation to Lee are covered in reliable secondary sources, this stays out of her page. Nil Einne ( talk) 15:14, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Patrick McDermott
- Disappearance of Patrick McDermott ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Not sure if this fits here, but this is a good place as any. This individual disappeared in June 2005, presumed drowned. Since they were the romantic partner of famous actress Olivia Newton-John, they have been repeatedly subject to unsubstantiated tabloid rumours over the last 15 years that they are still alive in Mexico. The article is currently a mess of claims and needs cleanup. Thanks. Hemiauchenia ( talk) 01:30, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
User:Ibrahim shichenje
This user page purports to be a bio of the person whose name the account is named for. But it ends with unsourced negative claims involving criminal activity. Since it's a user page, I assume I'm not allowed to edit it, so I'm bringing it to the attention of others here. Largoplazo ( talk) 14:02, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- Tagged for deletion WP:NOTHOST. Notfrompedro ( talk) 15:13, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
There are weakly sourced negative assertions of criminal activity, not all of which has apparently led to a conviction. I 'm not in a position to find good sources on this subject, so I'd appreciate another editor looking. DGG ( talk ) 05:23, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- @ DGG: I found Italian ex-minister jailed for nine years over bribery from Business Standard but that was all I could find for the actual conviction. For the fraud assertions, there is also an article from The New York Times: Italian governor is held on corruption charges. I don't know if either of these help at all. Notfrompedro ( talk) 15:18, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
H. D. Kumaraswamy
This article H. D. Kumaraswamy is filled with undue accusations in the controversy section likely by one user. Most of the page is now controversy and violates BLP. 2409:4072:806:73D5:2B21:F8A7:7958:1AF3 ( talk) 19:41, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
I believe the material added to this article in [43] may be WP:BLPREMOVE or WP:UNDUE. I'm not able to read french clearly but it seems to me the translation of the information from the source has been mangled. I've tried to communicate this with the editor who added this but so far haven't gotten any dialog other than their initial message on my talk page. I'd appreciate clarification or discussion. Philipnelson99 ( talk) 18:16, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- It's not comprehensible in English and, to the extent that it is understandable, violates NPOV for the reasons you've stated. I reverted and pointed the editor to the talk page. I'll also drop a note on the user's talk.
Eggishorn
(talk)
(contrib) 18:55, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- @
Eggishorn thanks. I just had been thinking about it and wanted a second look. I didn't realize there was a BLP noticeboard to handle this exact situation.
Philipnelson99 (
talk) 19:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
- @ Eggishorn, the same content has been added again by a different editor without any discussion. Philipnelson99 ( talk) 01:44, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- @
Eggishorn thanks. I just had been thinking about it and wanted a second look. I didn't realize there was a BLP noticeboard to handle this exact situation.
Philipnelson99 (
talk) 19:04, 10 July 2021 (UTC)
Is Layla Love a brand name foremost? What is her given name and what makes her notable? This biography of an artist unknown to the general public reads like a press release and links a website of merchandise. When I search this artist, a more popular person with the same name comes up and is an adult film actress.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sennagod ( talk • contribs) 13:01, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- I've removed what seems to be unsourced and confusing puffery from the lede. As for the rest of the article, it certainly comes across as rather promotional, and could do with trimming. I suspect that the sources cited are sufficient to meet Wikipedia notability guidelines though. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 13:15, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Jamie-Lee O'Donnell
Persistent attempts to add date of birth, when as detailed at Talk:Jamie-Lee O'Donnell there are multiple references giving different dates/ages, making the person's date, or even year, of birth unclear. FDW777 ( talk) 17:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Ramiz King : unfair edits by @bonadea
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Ramiz King ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I want to highlight that I tried voicing my opinion to Bonadea on their talk page but they deleted it. It was about how they labeled a well reputed reliable source from Hindustan Times as a press release when it was a editorial independent and interviewed article written by a reputed journalist and this editor did not take in consideration that Hindustan Times adds a disclaimer to their press release articles and without any evidence they made a press release comment visible on the article and when confronted the messages were hidden and this makes me question all their edits which I want another mediator to do so too without being biased. Is this truly a fair space? Positiveilluminati ( talk) 19:21, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- @ Positiveilluminati: Your related complaint at WP:AN has just been rejected. Looks like you're admin-shopping. Favonian ( talk) 19:29, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Donald Trump's mental health
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Would it be within policy (such as WP:PUBLICFIGURE and WP:NFRINGE) to add the following line to Donald Trump?
Since running for president, [1] Trump's temperament and mental fitness has been a regular topic of public discussion. [2] Trump has responded by saying that he has a "great temperament" [3] and is a "very stable genius". [4]
A similar issue was discussed at BLPN#Dianne Feinstein's health with @ Snooganssnoogans, Springee, Masem, ValarianB, GoodDay, Aquillion, PackMecEng, The Four Deuces, Einsof, and Elizium23:, and at Help desk#Health speculation with @ Alexis Jazz and Novem Linguae:
A relevant example is Kim Jong-un#Health which mentions the 2020 rumor of his death.
The outcome of this discussion could lead to a change to Donald Trump#Current consensus #39. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 19:36, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
Updated proposal with quotes found here. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 19:23, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
References
- ^ Levin, Aaron (25 August 2016). "History of Goldwater Rule Recalled as Media Try to Diagnose Trump". Psychiatric News. American Psychiatric Association. doi: 10.1176/appi.pn.2016.9a13. Retrieved 25 April 2020.
-
^
- McCarthy, Michael (February 17, 2017). "Experts debate Trump's mental health in US press". BMJ. doi: 10.1136/bmj.j864.
-
"White House Daily Briefing January 4, 2018". CSPAN. Retrieved 20 March 2021.
REPORTER: WHAT IS THE PRESIDENT'S REACTION TO THE GROWING NUMBER OF SUGGESTIONS BOTH IN THIS BOOK AND THE MEDIA THAT HE IS MENTALLY UNFIT TO SERVE AS PRESIDENT? MS. SANDERS: THE SAME WAY WE HAVE WHEN IT HAS BEEN ASKED BEFORE COMBAT IT IS DISGRACEFUL AND LAUGHABLE. IF HE WAS UNFIT, ...
- Rucker, Philip; Parker, Ashley (8 January 2018). "The White House struggles to silence talk of Trump's mental fitness". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 28 March 2020. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
- Maza, Carlos (24 January 2018). "The awkward debate over Trump's mental fitness". Vox. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
- Haghbayan, Hourmazd; Coomes, Eric A.; Cheema, Asim N.; Shojania, Kaveh G. (October 2018). "Media Dissemination of the Montreal Cognitive Assessment After President Donald Trump's Medical Evaluation". JAMA Neurology. doi: 10.1001/jamaneurol.2018.1777. PMC 6233843.
- "The 25th Amendment: Can Trump be declared unfit for office? Democratic Congress members tell Vice President Pence that Trump cannot remain for full term as not 'mentally sound'". Al Jazeera. January 7, 2021. Retrieved 20 March 2021.
- ^ Cillizza, Chris (1 August 2016). "Donald Trump's ABC interview may be his best/worst yet". Washington Post. Archived from the original on 17 October 2019. Retrieved 18 May 2020.
-
^
- Rucker, Philip; Leonnig, Carol (2020). A Very Stable Genius: Donald J. Trump's Testing of America. Penguin Press. ISBN 9781984877505.
- Cummings, William (July 11, 2019). "Trump says he's 'so great looking and smart, a true Stable Genius' in tweet bashing 2020 Dems". USA Today. Retrieved 22 May 2020.
- Parker, Ashley; Wan, William (July 22, 2020). "Trump keeps boasting about passing a cognitive test — but it doesn't mean what he thinks it does". Washington Post. Retrieved 1 July 2021.
- I would oppose any mention of "mental fitness". I don't see any problems with descriptions of temperament and personality quirks. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 19:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Bear in mind the outcome of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Health of Donald Trump, which focused to a great degree on reports regarding his mental health. BD2412 T 20:06, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Temperament and personality should be fair game, with all caveats of RS, BLP, NPOV, etc. Mental health rumor mongering is a problem in line with the
Goldwater rule, which maybe should be adopted by Wikipedia. –
Muboshgu (
talk) 20:19, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- The Goldwater Rule does not prevent members of the APA from discussing the fact that Trump's mental health is discussed in the media. Dr. Jack Drescher said the following in the APA's own publication:
"In the past four years, claims were repeatedly made about the mental health of President Trump and his psychological fitness to govern. As an APA member who follows the Goldwater Rule, I cannot ethically comment in a public, professional capacity on the mental health status of public figures—nor do I wish to.
" [44] Kolya Butternut ( talk) 20:34, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- The Goldwater Rule does not prevent members of the APA from discussing the fact that Trump's mental health is discussed in the media. Dr. Jack Drescher said the following in the APA's own publication:
- Given the consensus clearly expressed in the deletion process noted by
User:BD2412, I suggest you'll need much newer sources than those provided above. The many cogent arguments made in that deletion discussion demonstrate it would be difficult to find page consensus for inclusion on the subject's main article page. It's a BLP; the threshold is necessarily high. Putting these older sorts of sources and assertions into the Presidency of DT page would be more likely successful, but still unlikely.
BusterD (
talk) 20:21, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Unless those sources are
WP:MEDRS based upon direct examinations of the subject (not mere speculation), then I doubt they'll pass muster for BLP purposes. Due to things such as doctor-patient confidentiality, requests such as this almost never make it into articles.
Zaereth (
talk) 20:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- I have 2020 and 2021 sources included above. My proposal is not to write about Trump's health, but to write about the media's discussion of his health. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 20:42, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Unless those sources are
WP:MEDRS based upon direct examinations of the subject (not mere speculation), then I doubt they'll pass muster for BLP purposes. Due to things such as doctor-patient confidentiality, requests such as this almost never make it into articles.
Zaereth (
talk) 20:38, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- A distinction without a difference.
Zaereth (
talk) 20:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- I think there is; and I cited WP:NFRINGE. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 20:51, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- A distinction without a difference.
Zaereth (
talk) 20:43, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Trump was nuts & Biden is senile, so competing news media have told us. Which do we believe? GoodDay ( talk) 20:53, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Psychologists breaking the Goldwater rule and right-wing pundits spewing nonsense are very different beasts. Media coverage of the former is a question worth discussing (though only the media coverage of it; such claims should not be given credence for the same reason the Goldwater rule exists). The latter is clearly not suitable for inclusion.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 21:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- A question. If one of Trump's political opponents made a statement directly questioned his mental health, would we be able to cover it? Specifically, if they were to call him "slow", "crazy", "nutty", or terms like that, could we include those (with attribution) anywhere on Wikipedia, as we do on eg.
List of nicknames used by Donald Trump? Because Trump has called a lot of people crazy and we currently cover all of those despite the lack of a formal diagnosis. --
Aquillion (
talk) 23:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- I mean, if it were notable enough, yeah. In the case of Trump's disparagement of others, he's done so to a degree that the media took note, which made it notable (much to my chagrin, I might add).
- I'll note that this is why I said there's a discussion to be had about the Goldwater rule violations. We should be covering those incidents using the principles of WP:FRINGE, even though it could be argued convincingly that they're not actually fringe opinions (I'm sure there's a lot of agreement among psychologists that Trump isn't exactly "all there"). We write about what third parties have said about them, good and bad, with a focus on reality (that reality being that none of these experts have actually formally diagnosed Trump). ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:09, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- A question. If one of Trump's political opponents made a statement directly questioned his mental health, would we be able to cover it? Specifically, if they were to call him "slow", "crazy", "nutty", or terms like that, could we include those (with attribution) anywhere on Wikipedia, as we do on eg.
List of nicknames used by Donald Trump? Because Trump has called a lot of people crazy and we currently cover all of those despite the lack of a formal diagnosis. --
Aquillion (
talk) 23:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Psychologists breaking the Goldwater rule and right-wing pundits spewing nonsense are very different beasts. Media coverage of the former is a question worth discussing (though only the media coverage of it; such claims should not be given credence for the same reason the Goldwater rule exists). The latter is clearly not suitable for inclusion.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 21:18, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- You cannot say something has been a regular topic of public discussion without a source that exactly says that, per unattributed contentions. Obviously for someone with his profile, lots of people are going to discuss him, but it's not significant unless it is noted in reliable sources.
- The lone source used is a BMJ news article that says 35 mental health professionals wrote a letter saying that "was unable to tolerate views different from his own." Sure that comes under temperament and mental health, but without reporting what they said it makes the criticism seem worse than it was. Also, 35 mental health professionals isn't a significant number. The American Psychiatric Association has 38.800 members, while the American Psychological Association hasw over 122,000 members.
- Also, instead of quoting Trump's response, it would be better just to say he rejects the claim. Without context, it's unclear if he was being ironic, whether that's how he normally speaks or whether he has delusions of grandeur.
- If you included it in a section about his personality, I would say that a group of medical professionals wrote a letter to the New York Times saying that Trump's lack of tolerance of other views made him unfit for office. That would be a neutral tone.
-
TFD (
talk) 22:30, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- "
[C]olumnists and op-ed writers decided en masse to diagnose one of the candidates with mental illness.
(Levin) - "
The White House is struggling to contain the national discussion about President Trump's mental acuity and fitness for the job
".(Rucker) - "
Is Trump mentally unfit to be president? That is an awkward question, but it's one that's being asked on every major news network in America. President Trump's fitness for office is now the top story in the country.
"(Maza, video) - "
The cognitive fitness of President of the United States Donald Trump and the ethics of his cognitive evaluation have been the topic of intense discussion among both the general public and medical professionals in recent months.
"(Haghbayan) - It could be included in a public image section. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 22:49, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- Just to be completely clear, are you questioning whether sources that say that Trump's mental health has been a regular topic of public discussion exist, or are you just noting that we would have to actually include them? Either way, they plainly do exist (some of them referenced above, but for completeness):
-
[45]:
Trump’s mental health (or lack thereof) is a trending topic on the Internet; on cable news programs; in magazines and newspapers; and most hilariously on Saturday Night Live. And political pundits, politicians and comedians pored over the so-called Bible of Psychiatry, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM), and reached the consensus that Trump suffers from narcissistic personality disorder.
(The author opposes this diagnoses, but acknowledges that Trump's health has been a major focus of conversation over an extended period of time.) -
[46]
After several calls from high profile psychiatrists with concerns about Trump’s mental health, what does the MoCA tell us about his cognitive health?
- Experts debate Trump’s mental health in US press
-
Scientific American
Yet the rioters’ actions—and Trump’s own role in, and response to, them—come as little surprise to many, particularly those who have been studying the president’s mental fitness and the psychology of his most ardent followers since he took office.
-
CJR:
Just about every week, the media invites a psychiatrist or psychologist to admonish other psychiatrists or psychologists for calling Donald Trump mentally ill.
-
Politico:
Consequently, he is plainly out of sorts, say former close associates, longtime Trump watchers and mental health experts.
...The people who’ve known Trump well, the people who’ve watched him for a long, long time, the mental health professionals — they’re worried, they told me, about what’s to come, in the next month, and in the months and years after that.
-
Washington Post
The White House is struggling to contain the national discussion about President Trump's mental acuity and fitness for the job, which has overshadowed the administration's agenda for the past week.
-
mlive.com:
U.S. Rep. Elissa Slotkin, D-Holly, joined growing calls to remove President Donald Trump from office before the next president is sworn in on Jan. 20, citing concerns from high ranking military officials that Trump is unfit for office. Slotkin, a former CIA analyst and Pentagon official, said she’s been in conversation with senior military officials at the Pentagon who are concerned about the president’s mental health. Members of Congress were forced to evacuate offices and barricade themselves as pro-Trump protesters broke into the U.S. Capitol and disrupted the certification of Electoral College votes.
-
BBC:
It is a question that has dogged Donald Trump - fairly or otherwise - since he was elected president: is he mentally fit for office?
-
[45]:
- I can find many more comparable sources if people want to see them, but you get the idea. Note that many of these sources are new and postdate previous discussions (in particular there was increased coverage following the January 6th riots, though almost all of it notes that it is an extended controversy that dogged him for most of his time in office.) I think it's obviously important that we avoid implying a specific diagnosis in the article voice, but given the sustained nature of those discussions and the significant impact it had, we have to acknowledge that they took place; when it comes to public figures, the Goldwater Rule and similar cautions only mean that we cannot imply that someone has been diagnosed when they haven't, not that we must omit any coverage of discussion that relates to their mental health at all. This is no different than eg. a public figure who is suspected of a crime - the bar for covering that without a conviction is high, but it is not at the unreachable point where some people are trying to argue we need to place eg. extended media coverage discussion a politician's mental health. In fact, Trump's article currently lists numerous accusations, investigations, and so on that did not result in a formal conviction; discussions of his mental health seem precisely comparable. Yes, we must be cautious with such controversies, but when a controversy follows a politician for their entire time in office - and multiple high-quality sources describe it as such - we are clearly required to at least note its existence. --
Aquillion (
talk) 23:59, 6 July 2021 (UTC)
- I was replying to the question posted which begins with a source saying that 25 mental health professionals question Trump's tolerance for differing opinions. Bear in mind that conclusions reported in articles, in this case that "Trump's temperament and mental fitness has been a regular topic of public discussion," should be based on sources that make those conclusions not on the conclusions reached by Wikipedia editors, per no original research.
- I would point out also that only one source is required for any statement made in Wikipedia. In my experience, when editors provide multiple sources, none of them say exactly what they want to say, but they believe that all put together they do, which is implicit synthesis.
- The one source you provided I looked at was "Misdiagnosing Donald Trump," which says, "Trump’s mental health (or lack thereof) is a trending topic on the Internet; on cable news programs...." It doesn't say that "Trump's [mental] health has been a major focus of conversation over an extended period of time." Trending means "currently popular." (Oxford) [47] Nor does it say that the discussion is significant relative to overall coverage of Trump, which is required to support noteworthiness in the article.
- I don't see why I should have to read 20 articles to determine if any of them support the text. Please hit me with your best shot and provide ONE source that alone is adequate to support the text.
- As an additional comment, should the information be added, it should also explain the degree of acceptance of the claim.
-
TFD (
talk) 01:58, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Let's not get hung up on the precise language proposed; the question is whether to include any content about the attention given to Trump's mental fitness/health. There are so many examples I'm not sure which one is best, but notice a quote I already mentioned:
"In the past four years, claims were repeatedly made about the mental health of President Trump and his psychological fitness to govern."
(2021) [48] Kolya Butternut ( talk) 04:01, 7 July 2021 (UTC)"The questioning of Trump’s fitness has persisted throughout his Presidency, as members of his party and his close associates fed the narrative of a deteriorating mind. "
(Oct 2020) [49] Kolya Butternut ( talk) 14:24, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
Please hit me with your best shot and provide ONE source that alone is adequate to support the text.
I do not believe one source could ever be sufficient, since WP:SUSTAINED coverage is necessary for something of this nature, and since (as I'm sure you're aware as an experienced editor) WP:PUBLICFIGURE specifically says thatIf you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out
- multiple sources are flatly required by policy here, and in general, for something as high-profile as this, I would expect people to at least skim a large number of sources to make sure that the ones being directly cited are representative per WP:BLP's requirements and to come up with a sentence that accurately reflects what they say. But if you're unwilling to do that extended reading, two of the most useful ones I linked are are:
-
BBC (
It is a question that has dogged Donald Trump - fairly or otherwise - since he was elected president: is he mentally fit for office?
) -
Washington Post (
The White House is struggling to contain the national discussion about President Trump's mental acuity and fitness for the job, which has overshadowed the administration's agenda for the past week.
)
-
BBC (
- I should emphasize, as mentioned above, that my point isn't to decide one specific wording (that is another reason I presented so many sources, allowing us to go over them and figure out the best wording out of what they cover) - the question we're deciding now is whether we should say anything at all about the discussion over Trump's mental health. That requires an extended survey of a large number of sources to establish whether it meets the high standard set by BLP. -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:59, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- "
- This is likely a topic that we should wait until we have better backwards-looking sources covering Trump's presidency as a whole to make a summary like this, along the likes of TDF's comments above. Certainly the subject of Trump's mental health has been reported, but it would be so piecemeal that we risk potential problems (given the close on the other health article). But backwards-looking summaries of his presidency would be a better place for us to start with the type of summary that is being asked. If this is added before we get a good summary, it must be kept brief and short as suggested. --
Masem (
t) 04:10, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not 100% sure I agree with the implication that we'll have a better view in years to come, but it's likely good advice nonetheless.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 13:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Not necessarily that we'll have a better view, but we'll most likely have a better retrospective that can frame how his mental health (or discussions relating to it) framed his presidency, to provide the type of structure that is a good secondary or even tertiary source to build from. Then we can fill pieces with now-current sources on specifics if necessary. --
Masem (
t) 15:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yeah, sorry, I believe I was being unclear. I agree with your advice. I was just saying that there's no guarantee that we'll have any better perspective on a subject like this, where Trump can (and absolutely will) do his best to obfuscate any information that might reflect poorly on him, and will (inadvertently) endeavor to get any information that reflects well on him pushed out in a manner that draws it into doubt and/or incoherence.
- Most topics; yes, we'll definitely have a better picture in years to come. This topic? I think it's very unlikely that we'll look back in ten years and have any clearer of a picture than we do now.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 16:02, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree on the specific topic of Trump's mental health we'll likely not have a solitary work devoted to it in the future. But we will likely have plenty of works to discuss his presidency and lead-up to it (and likely fallout), and those works, if his mental health or the discussion around it was a core part of the narrative around his presidency, will find a place to document enough of it for us to know where to discuss it and to what level of detail, drawing from now-current sources if necessary. Maybe it will be found to have been a red herring for the most part and its simply glimpsed over, and to that end we should remain vague as well (which is what most advice here is recommending as well if mention is even made). --
Masem (
t) 16:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yep. I would dearly love to see the results of a legit psych exam, though. And an IQ test.
- Not just because of my own views on the topic (I'm so far convinced he's just dumb and narcissistic, with no other pathology there), but because of the fact that it's been such a topic of hot discussion. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:00, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- I agree on the specific topic of Trump's mental health we'll likely not have a solitary work devoted to it in the future. But we will likely have plenty of works to discuss his presidency and lead-up to it (and likely fallout), and those works, if his mental health or the discussion around it was a core part of the narrative around his presidency, will find a place to document enough of it for us to know where to discuss it and to what level of detail, drawing from now-current sources if necessary. Maybe it will be found to have been a red herring for the most part and its simply glimpsed over, and to that end we should remain vague as well (which is what most advice here is recommending as well if mention is even made). --
Masem (
t) 16:18, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Not necessarily that we'll have a better view, but we'll most likely have a better retrospective that can frame how his mental health (or discussions relating to it) framed his presidency, to provide the type of structure that is a good secondary or even tertiary source to build from. Then we can fill pieces with now-current sources on specifics if necessary. --
Masem (
t) 15:45, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not 100% sure I agree with the implication that we'll have a better view in years to come, but it's likely good advice nonetheless.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 13:11, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- @
Kolya Butternut:
The outcome of this discussion could lead to a change to Donald Trump#Current consensus #39.
Then why start this discussion here and not on the Donald Trump talk page? Space4Time3Continuum2x ( talk) 09:37, 7 July 2021 (UTC)- This is the place to have a community-wide discussion for policy questions about BLPs... Kolya Butternut ( talk) 10:03, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
NO, not unless he had been Profesionally diagnosed by a qualified professional as part of a formal (and face to face) examination. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:48, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- As a general comment, I'd say that "Over the past several years, numerous experts have raised concerns about Donald Trump's mental health..." and "Over the past several years, numerous claims about Donald Trump's mental health have been made..." are two very different ways of phrasing this. The former is flatly unacceptable, and should never be entertained, even though it's strictly true. The second is worth discussing, but I'm still unsure of whether it's a good move myself. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 14:40, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- Some inclusion of the rampant speculation about his mental state seems DUE but needs to be carefully worded. It cannot be "numerous experts" because I'm pretty sure providing armchair diagnosis, as some of them did, is in violation of practicing guidelines for licensed practitioners; you cannot diagnose someone who isn't even your patient and who you haven't even examined. ProcrastinatingReader ( talk) 14:49, 7 July 2021 (UTC)
- I would disagree that speculation about his mental health should be included. There is so much speculation about Trump and it's hard to say what is legitimate vs motivated by dislike of a person who was easy to dislike... even before he ran for office. I agree with Masem that this is a case where we really should wait for a retrospective review of the topic and it's impact. We should also keep BLP and the idea of do no harm (even if it is Trump) in mind. Springee ( talk) 02:08, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- No. We should stick with the longstanding local consensus (#39 as mentioned by the OP) not to include any speculation about his mental health. For heavens sake, our BLP policy clearly states that we need firm sourcing to say negative things about a living person. There is nothing but speculation, "armchair diagnosis," and POV-influenced punditry as sources about his mental health. We should not raise questions about it, and we should not report that other people have raised questions about it. BTW this discussion should not be influenced by how we personally feel about Trump or the state of his mental health. This is the BLP board and we are discussing how to apply BLP policy. --
MelanieN (
talk) 15:54, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- This is why I think it's worth discussing. There are arguments to be made for inclusion (the broad coverage in sources, for example), but as you pointed out, there are arguments to be made for exclusion, as well.
- If a consensus to report on this stuff emerges, I'm gonna look like a red hatted POV pusher to anyone not familiar with my editing history in discussions of how to include it. It's gonna have to be absolutely neutral and dispassionate and there can't be even a hint that WP endorses any of those views. They'll need to be framed as examples of people breaking the Goldwater rule, not as examples of experts describing Trump's mental state. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- I am somewhat upset at Kolya's now second attempt (at least) to try to relitigate the mental health RfC. The RfC was vitriolic, long, and painful. The issue was solved according to our policies, leading to consensus #39, and should stay put to rest. This is little more than a disruptive attempt to find a different venue that might agree with them. I have no personal opinion on the subject but firmly stand by my close of the mental health RfC, believe little new info has come out that would change the decision, believe consensus has not changed, and ask Kolya to drop the stick already. This is a waste of editor time.
CaptainEek
Edits Ho Cap'n!
⚓ 20:55, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- I'm not familiar with the course of that RfC, but assuming you're correct, I may need to re-evaluate the advice I gave them below to go with a new RfC. I'm going to go look it up now, and my impressions of that will color my next response to Koyla. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:11, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- I am raising this again now because I have found so many sources which were not discussed in the previous RfC (and many newer sources since 2019), but I guess in this forum I should have asked the general policy questions below not specific to Trump. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 21:15, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- I read through the RFC linked to #39 above, and I think there is a subtly different question being asked - or least as editors here have responded. No, we don't want a paragraph-length discussion about his mental health until better sources as identified at the RFC come about. But acknowledging briefly that there has been discussion in political media related to his mental health in a sentence or two at most is a far different issue than what details were being sought at at the RFC. This is not to say we need to have it, it's still very touchy if we should and there's clearly overlapping issues to consider. -- Masem ( t) 21:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- The problem I see is that if we do it for Trump, then we have to do it for everyone else. How much coverage did speculation about McCain's health (both mental and physical) get? The answer is: a hell of a lot. Same with Palin. Same with Bush, and Reagan. Not that it's limited to one side of the aisle, what about all the speculation about Hilary Clinton's health? Joe Biden's? Walter Mondale? Bob Dole? Would people be arguing this same thing for candidates they like, or is it only limited to one's they dislike?
- I consider myself impartial, because I dislike them all equally. I'll admit, I voted for Trump, but I would have voted for Daffy Duck if that was an option, just to give my big middle finger to the entire system. Trump's one redeeming quality is that he had no filter. I don't think he could pull off a lie with a costume, stunt double, and a script, which is a rare quality in any politician.
- They taught us in debate class to play devil's advocate; to walk a mile in your opponent's shoes, so to speak. You learn a lot when you try to argue the position you're against. If the situation were reversed, and we were talking about your favorite candidate (using "your" in the collective sense) would you still be in favor of this? I think it's a Pandora's box that we don't want to open, even if it is Trump we're talking about. We need to have better standards than that, and I wouldn't want to set a precedence.
Zaereth (
talk) 22:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it is different with Trump. The Goldwater Rule was even violated. A video summary of coverage just in January 2018:
[50]
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 22:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- No it's not. Anyway you try to rationalize it, it's still the same. The Goldwater Rule is a code of ethical conduct within the psychiatric community, not a law. Trump is not a psychiatrist. You can find all kinds of psychiatrists breaking that rule for McCain, Palin, Clinton, etc... Maybe it's just me, because I have an eidetic memory, or maybe others just have the memories of goldfish, I don't know, but I see no difference between this and all the others. It's so much the same it's like they just keep recycling the same script, just changing the names. Zaereth ( talk) 22:43, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Yes, it is different with Trump. The Goldwater Rule was even violated. A video summary of coverage just in January 2018:
[50]
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 22:18, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- They taught us in debate class to play devil's advocate; to walk a mile in your opponent's shoes, so to speak. You learn a lot when you try to argue the position you're against. If the situation were reversed, and we were talking about your favorite candidate (using "your" in the collective sense) would you still be in favor of this? I think it's a Pandora's box that we don't want to open, even if it is Trump we're talking about. We need to have better standards than that, and I wouldn't want to set a precedence.
Zaereth (
talk) 22:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Masem, you seem to appreciate what I'm asking about here. I still have several unanswered questions I wonder if I can get your opinion on.
- Do you think the previous RfC and Consensus #39 may not apply here? The RfC seemed to be about whether to maintain the previous consensus to "
include one paragraph merged from Health of Donald Trump describing views about Trump's psychology expressed by public figures, media sources, and mental health professionals who have not examined him.
" [51] Previously included paragraph found here. My proposal is just to briefly mention the media story in the Public image/profile section. - Can you discuss PUBLICFIGURE and BLPGOSSIP? Do both of these policies apply, and inclusion is simply a question of WEIGHT? Kolya Butternut ( talk) 23:01, 9 July 2021 (UTC)
CaptainEek, can we start over? I understand that you are frustrated, but I have brought this question up again after finding many more sources since last year, including more current sources. I thought it made sense to post here to discuss the policy questions before discussing starting a new RfC or challenging your RfC close. I want to proceed with the least disruption possible, but there are many issues I feel need to be addressed. I am considering first challenging your RfC close as overbroad, and then at Talk:Donald Trump discussing the new sources I've found to see if folks think this content is now DUE. Do you have any thoughts on this? Kolya Butternut ( talk) 01:48, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- Community consensus has been pretty clear and consistant on this topic and the topic in general. Speculation like this has no place in a BLP.
PackMecEng (
talk) 02:57, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
-
PackMecEng, can you tell me which discussions you're referring to? Even thought the Trump RfC wasn't about including the speculation itself, above I gave the example of Kim Jong-un's rumored death. We also write about speculation that
Sean Mendes is gay.
[52] Speculation about Anderson Cooper's sexuality had been included before he came out.
[53]
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 14:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
-
Kolya Butternut, Yes I am referring to the RFC at the Trump article
here. I believe that speculation on mental or physical health should not be included in any BLP article. And yes unless a doctor has examined and diagnosed the subject in person it is indeed speculation. I would oppose it in all the ones you listed as well as Biden's article for example. It is not appropriate.
PackMecEng (
talk) 14:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- PackMecEng, what is the policy basis? Even noteworthy speculated diagnoses should be included per NFRINGE (not in this case IMO). Kolya Butternut ( talk) 14:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC) added ping Kolya Butternut ( talk) 15:03, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- Paul McCartney's 1969 death rumor is included,
[54] and it's a featured article.
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 15:27, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- Kolya Butternut, It is rooted in BLP policy and a broad consensus. Again I do not care about what other articles, also that example has nothing to do with this. PS your ping did not work PackMecEng ( talk) 15:31, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
-
Kolya Butternut, Yes I am referring to the RFC at the Trump article
here. I believe that speculation on mental or physical health should not be included in any BLP article. And yes unless a doctor has examined and diagnosed the subject in person it is indeed speculation. I would oppose it in all the ones you listed as well as Biden's article for example. It is not appropriate.
PackMecEng (
talk) 14:34, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
-
PackMecEng, can you tell me which discussions you're referring to? Even thought the Trump RfC wasn't about including the speculation itself, above I gave the example of Kim Jong-un's rumored death. We also write about speculation that
Sean Mendes is gay.
[52] Speculation about Anderson Cooper's sexuality had been included before he came out.
[53]
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 14:28, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
Donald Trump mental health - policy analysis
Could we have more direct analysis here of WP:PUBLICFIGURE, WP:NFRINGE, etc.? Kolya Butternut ( talk) 19:09, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Why? Those policies have nothing to do with the question at hand. PUBLICFIGURE is an exception to BLPCRIME, but we're not talking about any crime here. NFRINGE is about the notability of fringe theories, which is again is completely off topic. What we're talking about is what happens with every politician: political rhetoric and rank speculation. It's about as likely to gain consensus here as it did with McCain, Palin, Obama, Clinton, Bush, and all of the others since the beginning of time. Normally this kind of thing would simply be undue weight (eg: trivial nonsense), but when you start getting into any speculation about a subject's medical health or conditions, suddenly you've entered the world of MEDRS, and standards there are extremely high.
- Mostly, it's about common human decency, and you'll have a hard time convincing people that this kind of stuff is not in incredibly bad taste and thus encyclopedic in nature. We should not be a vehicle for pushing political diatribe.
Zaereth (
talk) 19:37, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- In their close,
CaptainEek wrote that
armchair diagnosis is likely WP:FRINGE, and must meet the requirements of WP:EXCEPTIONAL
. So a question here is whether the coverage since the last RfC raises characterizations of Trump's behavior to notable fringe. I'm not arguing either way on that point. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 20:36, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
-
WP:BLP is about getting it right (according to the best sources available). What happened in the latter part of Michael Jackson's life was a tragedy, but it is fact that speculation about his medical and mental health had a massive, life-changing impact on his later career; covering that is not optional, and appealing to
common human decency
to argue that we had an obligation to omit it while he was alive is an inappropriate attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS by arguing that the genuine, wide-spread coverage in reliable sources was unfair and that the impact it had on him is a tragedy that Wikipedia should correct. We aren't allowed to make those determinations. "The sources are bad", fine. "It's not significant enough based on the sourcing", fine. "Only a medical diagnosis, fullstop" is inappropriate and not defensible as a standard. And certainly MEDRS does not apply to covering the existence of public debate regarding the health and mental state of a public figure, since it is not something that implies treatment. The question for us is purely how significant that public debate is, how much impact it had, and whether it is a major part of the subject's biography (a point at which, not-incidentally, appeals tobasic human decency
fall flat because our coverage of something that is manifestly a major part of the subject's biography cannot reasonably harm them; Jackson may have detested theWacko Jacko
nickname and the reputation that came with it, but it played a major role in his life to the point where it's unrealistic to argue that we harmed him by reporting on it during his life.) I am fine with the argument that such things are often or usually not significant, but there are plainly places where it defines the course of the subject's life, and in those cases we cannot omit it. -- Aquillion ( talk) 02:46, 11 July 2021 (UTC)
- In their close,
CaptainEek wrote that
Donald Trump mental health - WP:PUBLICFIGURE
Does
WP:PUBLICFIGURE only apply to criminal allegations and incidents, or would it apply to noteworthy claims and speculations about health, etc?
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 20:06, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 20:39, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Why are you asking this? Both of the cited examples are non-crimes. I do see someone asserting that this only applies to crimes, but the section very clearly doesn't.
- Zaereth raised other points which are worth addressing (or acknowledging). Focusing on the one instance of a clearly wrong claim, and pretending to need clarity about whether it's wrong isn't helpful.
- The question about whether to include this information is not directly addressed by policy, so trying to make a policy-based case for it is misguided at best. There is a consensus answer to this specific question,
and if you want a different answer, the way to get that is to try to achieve a new consensus. To that end, an RfC at the appropriate talk page is the way to go.Continuing to argue your case here is not helping. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:19, 8 July 2021 (UTC)- I'm asking a good faith question. I didn't phrase it well. I could have asked whether it only applied to allegations of wrongdoing, although it's true that the divorce example shows it's broader than that.
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 20:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- I want to repeat my advice:
Go start an RfC to discuss this.I'm fairly neutral on the core question of whether or not we should have this material, though I lean very slightly towards "yes". But this is not the place to decide that. This is an open question wrt our actual BLP policy, so you need a consensus to do this, and given that a consensus not to do this exists,you need to address that by way of a new RfC.A notification here would be appropriate, but trying to establish the consensus here... Well, not so much. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:38, 8 July 2021 (UTC)- Maybe a better question here would be about if and when any material like this would be in a BLP, rather than about Trump in particular, to answer the policy questions.
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 20:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note my comment in response to Captain Eek above. I've reviewed the previous RfC (and the closing statements of the AfD and the prior discussions...) and I'm now of the opinion that you should drop this matter and simply accept that this is not going to happen.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 21:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- That RfC was mostly about including information about his mental health, not just mentioning that there has been public discussion of his mental health. And like I said we have many more sources now. I'm still looking for where sources were discussed in that RfC but I haven't found much. Kolya Butternut ( talk) 21:25, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Note my comment in response to Captain Eek above. I've reviewed the previous RfC (and the closing statements of the AfD and the prior discussions...) and I'm now of the opinion that you should drop this matter and simply accept that this is not going to happen.
ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants
Tell me all about it. 21:21, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- Maybe a better question here would be about if and when any material like this would be in a BLP, rather than about Trump in particular, to answer the policy questions.
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 20:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- I want to repeat my advice:
- I'm asking a good faith question. I didn't phrase it well. I could have asked whether it only applied to allegations of wrongdoing, although it's true that the divorce example shows it's broader than that.
Kolya Butternut (
talk) 20:31, 8 July 2021 (UTC)
- I am curious how people who want to omit this feel we should have covered Michael Jackson when he was alive. Speculation about his health and mental state were major aspects of his notability in the later part of his life and completely defined the final parts of his career - is the argument here that we would have had to completely omit them, regardless of the level of sourcing, unless we had someone presenting a formal diagnosis? This does not seem to reflect WP:BLP; we obviously have to be careful about what we state in the article voice, but allegations about public figures should be covered (and in extreme cases must be covered), with attribution, if they become a significant part of their notability. The sourcing requirement to cover such things is high, but requiring a medical diagnosis specifically, simply to cover high-profile opinions with extensive secondary coverage, is completely unsupported by policy and completely unworkable as a standard. Sometimes people speculate about other people's mental health; sometimes that speculation, itself - whether it is right or wrong - becomes central to the course of events and receives massive secondary coverage to the point where an encyclopedia cannot ignore it. I can understand the people who are uncertain whether discussion over Trump's mental health reached that point (ie. if it passes the "Wacko Jacko" standard, where a biography of the subject simply does not make sense and can never be called complete if it is omitted), but I do not think that strictly requiring a formal diagnoses is a defensible position. A hypothetical, for example - suppose we had extensive, high-quality WP:RSes stating that public concerns over Trump's mental health played a role in his losing the election. Could we omit that? (Partially, more than Trump specifically, I want to nail down what people consider the dividing line.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 02:38, 11 July 2021 (UTC)