This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The following text was recently added to the final paragraph, without references:
In September 2022 a panel assembled by The Lancet published a wide-ranging report on the pandemic, including commentary on the virus origin overseen by the group's chairman Jeffrey Sachs. This suggested that the virus may have originated from an American laboratory, a notion long-promoted by Sachs
As far as I can tell, neither the Lancet Commission nor Jeffrey Sachs have made this suggestion. The latter claim seems to constitute a WP:BLPSOURCE violation. Sachs has said that he thinks that the virus likely originated in a laboratory, with US funding and using techniques developed in the US. This is a plenty controversial claim on its own, and there are reliable sources that support him making that claim. However, Sachs does not appear to have claimed that "the virus may have originated in an American laboratory".
This has already been discussed at Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#New article of the Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic to no avail, with anti-Sachs editors citing dubious sources including the Tehran Times, the New York Post, and a couple of Twitter accounts. The most recent attempt at support is an article from The Daily Telegraph which is a reliable source but misquotes Sachs:
At a conference in Madrid earlier this year, he said he was “pretty convinced” that Sars-Cov-2 “came out of a US lab of biotechnology, not out of nature” [1]
If the grammatical error doesn't make it clear that something is wrong, you can hear the relevant quote from the Madrid talk on YouTube, starting at 12:34. It's clear that Sachs said "out of, uh, US lab biotechnology". Nothing about the virus coming from a US lab.
The article's claim that Sachs said such a thing is surely contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced. - Palpable ( talk) 20:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
"That doesn't at all imply a US lab was involved"← if you publish your novel reading in a reliable source it might have some relevance to this discussion. As I said, "one needs to be familiar with the material to understand why" (Clue: you have to ask yourself what the – extreme fringe – invocation of US research and the NIH in the context of COVID origin at all even means to understand what is being suggested and why it is so shocking). The invocation of the NIH's "resistance" to disclosure obviously does imply quite a lot, as every relevant source shows. Let's follow sources. Bon courage ( talk) 05:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
In September 2022 a panel led by Jeffery Sachs assembled a report published in The Lancet on the origins of the pandemic. The report stated it was "feasible" that the virus was leaked by a lab, but also added, "Independent researchers have not yet investigated the US laboratories engaged in the laboratory manipulation of SARS-CoV-like viruses, nor have they investigated the details of the laboratory research that had been underway in Wuhan. Moreover, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has resisted disclosing details of the research on SARS-CoV-related viruses that it had been supporting, providing extensively redacted information only as required by Freedom of Information Act lawsuits." (parts referred in secondary but this is the direct quote of that section from the primary) These statements were criticized by medical experts to imply that U.S. labs has been involved a lab leak of COVID, seen an an extension of Sachs' favorable views on China.(ref Independent, Daily Beast, others). Virologist Angela Rasmussen commented that this may have been "one of The Lancet's most shameful moments regarding its role as a steward and leader in communicating crucial findings about science and medicine".[6] Virologist David Robertson said the suggestion of US laboratory involvement was "wild speculation" and that "it's really disappointing to see such a potentially influential report contributing to further misinformation on such an important topic".[6]. Sachs stated that the Lancet's commissioners had signed off on the report (Daily Telegraph/Daily Beast), but Peter Hotez, one of Lancet commissioners, said that the report had "diverse views" within the commission, and he had pushed on the panel to remove mention of U.S. labs.(Daily Beast)
Article Jonathan Potter has large quantities of unsourced information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.91.131 ( talk) 21:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Jane Nelson was recently rewritten to be praiseful of the subject, I reverted citing NPOV. They rewrote again, not as egregiously praiseful but still so, and added Template:In use. Unsure how to proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpscatter ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Four Chan, reddit, and other crowd bullying sites are CYBERBULLYING an actual 19 year old child with outrageous slanderous/libelous claims that he is using a sex toy while playing chess.
Please see /info/en/?search=Talk:Carlsen–Niemann_controversy#Anal_beads for my more explicitly complaints. This is morally wrong!
Key points:
whether the material is being presented as true. None of it is being presented as true, but the sex toy part in particular is being presented as wild speculation based on no evidence. What makes it hard is that several good sources are presenting it [as wild speculation based on no evidence]. I'm torn on whether the stand-alone article should exist. It was sent to AfD based on inapplicable rationales, but WP:NEVENT, WP:BLP, and WP:NOPAGE are worth considering (i.e. it is a notable aspect of the tournament/Niemann's/Carlsen's career, but notability doesn't guarantee a stand-alone article if there are (a) other places it can be covered, and (b) if there are BLP-related reasons not to give it a stand-alone article). YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
List of serial killers by number of victims ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Refusal to remove clear and obvious WP:BLPCRIME violation. You would think that after someone has been to trial, and not been convicted of a single one of the 146 murders they were suspected of that suspicious might cease surely? 81.96.130.162 ( talk) 09:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Such blatant violations of WP:BLP policy are endemic on such lists. Wikipedia should not be hosting murder-fancruft. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 12:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Which means, amongst other things, that we don't include such individuals in lists which presume guilt. And no, before anyone asks, you can't weasel-word your way around it by sticking 'accused of' in the inclusion criteria. If the inclusion criteria don't match the title, one is wrong. In this case, the criteria, since lumping the accused together with the convicted is a violation of WP:BLP policy (amongst other things...) AndyTheGrump ( talk) 11:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
User:Anastrophe has now deleted the inclusion criteria that were intended to ensure compliance with WP:BLPCRIME. [13] I rephrased it and tried again. [14] Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I would value some additional opinions at the talk page for Great Yarmouth Charter Academy regarding an attempt to introdce extensive discussion sof Oscar Gibbons which I reverted here [15]. It seems to me that including this in the school's article is a clear WP:COATRACK and creating a separate article would breach WP:BLP1E. I'm not aware of singnificant sourcing beyind the primary source and the (effecively single) secondary source in the material I removed. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 16:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Content has been repeatedly added to the lead of this article with either no citation or with citations that do not back up the statements made. The editor who made the edits has repeatedly threatened to report me for "vandalism" because I reverted these edits. I have attempted to discuss the issues on various talk pages and I have largely been ignored or met with personal attacks and accusations of vandalism. TWM03 ( talk) 10:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Peter Obi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am increasingly concerned that this article is being used as a campaign patformn for the 2023 presidential elections in Nigeria. A section has appeared with candidate endorsements, for example.
While I'm perfecty capable of arguing the point on the talk page (and of removing the section(s) that I bekeive inapproriate), I feel that this is likely to be banging my head against a brick wall. Better to have the team here consider what actions, if any, need to be taken, and probably to take those actions wearing an admin sash, cap, and carrying the janitorial mop, and bucket. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
A section has appeared with candidate endorsements, for exampleis the main element I am referring to. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I am aware that there have been a number of disputes and discussions and deletions of articles about William Bishop. The fact remains that he is a public figure, and as such wikipedia is having a direct affect on his income, by affecting his credability in a negative way. I would ask that you bear this in mind when editing articles about him in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.1.251 ( talk) 20:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
There was a controversies section in this article accusing Dr. Simpson of research misconduct. The sole citation was the personal blog of Rory Robertson, who seems to have had a vendetta against Dr. Simpson and his colleagues related to their work on sugar consumption in Australia. This vendetta includes periodic letters to Dr. Simpson's academic institutions and funding sources with the stated intent of forcing the cessation of Dr. Simpson's research.
Mr. Robertson has not performed any scientific experiments on the topic, nor have his critiques been either peer-reviewed or published in any formal scientific journal. Rather, Mr. Robertson seems to rely on his own lay interpretations of Dr. Simpson's scientific protocols and analyses, as well as anecdotes of his own personal experience with diabetes, obesity, and sugar. The support for these claims alone is insufficient evidence to refute Dr. Simpson's work or prove misconduct, and I was unable to find any other sources that support Mr. Robertson's position.
I have removed the entire controversies section, but my issue is this: the edit that originally created the Controversies section was anonymous. Mr. Robertson has explicitly stated that he wants to disseminate his message by any means necessary, which would likely include making spurious (if not libelous) comments on Dr. Simpson's wiki page.
Whedonist ( talk) 22:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I have recently had a disagreement with Olyus over whether the Daily Mirror's "3AM" column should be used to cite a former partner's claim that Flack was abusive in a relationship. In my view, this is clearly not acceptable per WP:BLPSOURCES (Flack is dead, but the partner making the claim isn't, so the BLP criteria still applies, in my view). The counter-argument is that the Mirror (somewhat surprisingly, in my view) is not listed as a prohibited or deprecated source at WP:RSP. However, BLPSOURCES clearly states that material cited to a tabloid newspaper (which the Mirror is) should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
It seems so far we needed a source (we have one,The Telegraph) and we needed at most two years from the death of the individual, which we have. Does anyone object to reverting the edit and including the information in question? Olyus
In the second paragraph under Personal Life, a number of highly subjective and contentions claims are made about the subject using no source. The first three sentences of the paragraph are uncited. The fourth sentence is cited to a single source, and the fifth sentence is cited to a second source that is simply derived from the single source as well.
Per the BLP policy, "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—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." This would apply to the first three sentences of the second paragraph.
Also per the BLP policy "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: 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". In order for this to be observed, I would suggest that the phrasing needed for the fourth and fifth sentences should be along the lines of "The NYT claims xyz", and "France24 claims xyz". Otherwise, either of those sentences is just repeating sensationalist subjective interpretations as fact. Moreover, either of those sentences bears scant relevance in the larger context of the article and would be better off just being removed.
The paragraph in question was removed by a moderator approximately two days ago, but was quickly reinserted by a contributor with slightly modified wording. Subsequent attempts to have it removed were denied by a moderator who declines to recognize the content as hearsay and libel. Per the BLP policy that states "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing", it would be worth considering preventing the contributor from adding this content again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyno99 ( talk • contribs) 01:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Meloni said some nice things about Benito Mussolini when she was 19 years old, which is pretty extraordinary, and I don’t mind including it in the lead’s last paragraph despite her young age at the time. But we also need some NPOV. She’s also said that she “unambiguously condemns the suppression of democracy and the ignominious anti-Jewish laws” that existed prior to 1945. I’ve added that to the Mussolini bit. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Needs protection, anon editor or editors changing birth date repeatedly without citation. Target may be covered by WP:GS/PAGEANTS. ☆ Bri ( talk) 21:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
{{Notability}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Love696969 ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
The article is poorly-sourced, unduly negative, includes false information, contains information that is irrelevant or otherwise not worth including, and is not neutral. The article repeatedly and falsely accuses me of disseminating false information, and presents a distorted, biased view of my activities. This page has been hijacked by political actors who are using this site to smear me and present a defamatory depiction, This both damages my reputation and the reputation of Judicial Watch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.163.93.127 ( talk) 12:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
More eyes needed here. There has been a lot labelling and speculations about his nationality and ethnicity recently. The sources used supports the fact that he has an Estonian mother and a Swedish father but no more details are given and anything beyond that should not be taken for granted. He is referred to as Swedish in all the references. Currently there is a claim that he holds a dual citizenship, Swedish and Estonian. This is not supported by any source rather its bulit on the logic that other individuals of Estonian decent possess this nationality so it must be ture in this case too. As per the BLP policies this kind of unsourced material must be removed. Shellwood ( talk) 11:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Arbitration needed: I and several other editors have suggested adding to the article's Personal Life section a summary of Adam Levine's recent infidelity scandal, since at this point it's been widely reported on by multiple non-tabloid news outlets for over a week and is, I feel, a significant and notable development in the subject's public life. A user on the talk page, AndyTheGrump, vehemently disagrees, arguing that this violates BLP rules on gossip, that the story is not significant, and that it should either not be included or limited to a single sentence. I feel this is unreasonable, that the story is notable and that one sentence is not nearly enough to accurately, fairly, and coherently present the relevant information and convey the scope of the media attention this has gotten. Can we get a third opinion on this? Invisiboy42293 ( talk) 04:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Y'all are repeating this rule about it needing to be "enduring coverage"; I'm looking at WP:BLP right now and I'm not seeing that criteria anywhere, nor have I ever seen it on any other guideline page. Isn't the whole point of Wikipedia being editable that articles can be updated with new information as it happens rather than being incomplete and outdated? Why on Earth should a development being covered by the Los Angeles Times, Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, NBC News, Esquire, Gizmodo, and HuffPost (just to name a few); that was significant enough for the subject to release a statement in response to; that is very clearly relevant to the subject's personal life; and that doesn't violate a single Wikipedia guideline I'm aware of, be kept on a shelf because of the possibility that it'll be forgotten and not drastically change his life - something that hasn't stopped countless celebrity scandals from being included in articles mere hours after they happened? Since when is a website that has an entire article on the Personal life of Lindsay Lohan above documenting relevant and credibly sourced celebrity news? Pardon me for assuming bad faith but this is sounding less like wanting to maintain Wikipedia's quality of standard and more like just knee-jerk elitism. This doesn't violate anything in WP:NOTGOSSIP nor WP:BLPGOSSIP and I have seen no valid reason not to include it. Invisiboy42293 ( talk) 23:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the consensus in this thread that the material should not appear in the BLP. After failing to get it included here the user seems intent on getting it into the talk. I think that this thread should be closed and oversighted. Xxanthippe ( talk) 01:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC).
my interests are purely in Wikipedia articles being as up-to-date and comprehensive as reasonably possible, then that inevitably leads to content like "Celebrity A was spotted dining with celebrity B at romantic restaurant C" and "Baseball player D dropped two easy pop fly balls and got booed by the fans" and "Politician E got a hefty ticket for driving 35 MPH in a 25 MPH school zone, which endangered children" and "Pop star F sent flirtatious text messages to several women who are not his wife and was widely mocked on social media". Editors who are experienced at enforcing BLP policy will not readily accept this kind of content. If we lower our standards, we will be swamped by pernicious gossip. Overwhelmed. What we need more of is good editorial judgment. Cullen328 ( talk) 06:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I wanna add that SNL has now done a skit about it 1 2 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷) - (✉) 09:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd also like to note that the aforementioned WP:10YEARTEST that so much of this discussion has been rooted is explicitly described as a "suggestion" and a "thought experiment" for dealing with recentism - it is not presented as a hard and fast policy rule nor as a invitation for editors to speculate what will and will not be relevant in ten years. There is no reason it should trump Wikipedia's actual notability guidelines. Invisiboy42293 ( talk) 22:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Controversy section contains unverified information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.110.243.226 ( talk) 07:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a sort of edit war going on, I summarized the problem in Talk:Giorgia Meloni#Immigration. Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 23:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
There have been multiple WP:BLP violating edits to Hans Niemann over the last day or so. For example:
While established editors have been reverting the IP edits pretty quickly, I think the issue has gotten significant enough that we need to semi-protect the article again. Samboy ( talk) 10:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. That it's quoted in the WSJ is important, though, as it's arguable that they have "republished" some of the information in the Chess.com report. But the degree to which WSJ independently reviewed the material's accuracy is unclear. In any case, I strongly oppose any graphics/data taken from the report being included (I removed some) as there is clearly no oversight there. Ovinus ( talk) 15:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I added tags to this article as part of new page review, and the creator removes them. Currently engaging in a discussion, but we are in disagreement about whether this subject is notable (probably, but for one video, really), and if information about other ventures can be included if its not actually documented anywhere. They are using the subject's own TikTok video as a source for this info that should really be better sourced. Please take a look. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 23:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I reverted addition of an unsourced date of birth to Judy Landers and posted a note on the talk page of the editor who added the date, pointing to Wikipedia:Citing sources and WP:BLPPRIVACY as reasons for needing a citation. The editor re-added an unsourced date of birth and I reverted again, adding a second note on his or her talk page about the need for a valid citation. The editor has added the date again, and I don't know what else to do. Eddie Blick ( talk) 01:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Lanfranco Cirillo, the architect of Putin’s Palace and homes for various oligarchs now has an article. The article was put into article space by an editor that isn’t observing neutrality as none of Cirillo’s various scandals and legal issues are mentioned. I’d appreciate some eyes on the article. Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 23:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Two newish users adding unreferenced cats about his sexuality. Lard Almighty ( talk) 07:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I would appreciate if project members here could conduct a thorough assessment of the Jess Margera page, which is poorly sourced, poorly written, and of questionable notability. Efforts to constructively edit the page in even minor ways, including my own effort today, are met by resistance from User talk:FMSky and User talk:Rift, who both routinely project ownership over this and other pages, issue harshly-worded "warnings" to editors who are making reasonable and constructive edits, and both delete and are unresponsive to substantive talk page notifications from other editors about their editing patters. My short-lived effort to resolve the concerns was met with a stone wall of resistance, and others may prove more effective at this point. Keystone18 ( talk) 00:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Can I get some eyes on this article? I've been working on it and would appreciate one or more sets of eyes looking into improving it based on the BLP principles: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V) and No original research (NOR). The murder convictions of the two women charged with the crime were reversed on appeal, though they were convicted of conspiracy to defraud, forgery and perverting the course of justice as they had pleaded guilty to those charges. I'd appreciate other eyes evaluating the sources cited in the article, particularly the news and newspaper reports, as well as the language used in the article for NPOV. For example, is it necessary to note the residence street and city of the women, at least one of whom is still living? No question that the case and the article are notable, and I think it is appropriate for the encyclopedia, but can use improvement. Thanks for any help. Geoff | Who, me? 15:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Until 2009 the case was treated by police as a missing person's case, but in that year police re-opened the investigation after his employers became suspicious, and suspicion immediately fell on his wife Shirley Banfield and daughter Lynette Banfield.– BBC says
In 2009 police re-opened their investigation and suspicion immediately fell on his wife Shirley, 64, and daughter Lynette, 40.(And less egregiously, the Guardian says
Until 2009, police treated him as a missing person [...] The investigation was reopened after his former employer, William Hill, became suspicious.
After 11 May Shirley and Lynette had then forged documents with his signature on, had fraudulently collected his pension, and had suddenly moved 200 miles away to Yorkshire and then to Kent.(BBC:
They found the pair had forged documents with his signature, fraudulently collected his pension and immediately moved house following his disappearance, first to Yorkshire and then to Canterbury in Kent.)
his post was then intercepted and he found a stash of letters addressed to him hidden behind the sofa, including cheques from William Hill. Nothing like this ever happened before he retired.(Judge's ruling says:
His post was intercepted and he found a stash of letters addressed to him behind the sofa including cheques from William Hill. Nothing like this happened prior to his retirement.)
Los Angeles Lakers (2022-present) 2022-23 season On October 11, 2022, Irving was traded to the Los Angeles Lakers.
This subtext in the "National Team Career" section is incorrect, and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.110.248 ( talk)
I have a COI because I work for ADL, but this edit is a blatant NPOV & BLP violation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jonathan_Greenblatt&diff=1115520761&oldid=1108395446&diffmode=source
can someone please take a look at this?
OceanicFeeling123 (
talk) 17:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Category:American election deniers currently contains eleven biographical articles and one about a protest movement. My concern is that many of the biographies have the category included without it being verified in the body or a defining characteristic of the person. For example, Barbara Boxer was recently added to the category by Toa Nidhiki05, though the body of the article does not call her a denier. Do articles, and the sources they cite, need to be explicit in using the term "election denier"? If not, how do we determine who belongs in the category? Local consensus could be the way, but I'd prefer to see some consistency when it comes to this contentious label applied to biographies.
The biographical articles in question:
Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 15:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Nobody belongs in the category. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a database of people we don't like. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
"Soldier F" is the pseudonym of a soldier believed to be responsible for the killing of several people in the events of Bloody Sunday (1972). He is the subject of an injunction in the UK preventing publishing of his name. He is also the subject of an ongoing trial, set for mention in November and with a committal hearing set to take place in Northern Ireland, beginning in January 2023. Soldier F has been named in the UK House of Commons and his name was published in Hansard. It is also well known on the streets of Derry. There is currently an RfC taking place on whether he should be named in the article, taking place here.
However, since the RfC started, Soldier F's name has been removed from the article Village (magazine), where it had previously been published; Village magazine, an Irish publication, had published the identities of Soldier F and (the late) Soldier G, and this was covered in the article. Discussion on inclusion/removal taking place on that article is taking place here.
The nub of the issue is whether or not WP:BLPNAME applies. It has been suggested that it would be more appropriate to have the discussion centrally, here, as it would cover both articles. I'll post a notice on both of the mentioned sections, directing people here. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
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.has the most weight. Despite the name being known, and currently citable to both of the parliamentarians, there are as far as I can tell no secondary scholarly sources who have published Soldier F's name. Hansard, while generally accurate, is a primary source. It is a transcription of what was said in the UK Parliament, as such it does not count towards this sentence. Accordingly by a strict reading, and in lack of non-media secondary sources, I believe BLPNAME applies. That Wikipedia is not subject to UK injunctions is immaterial to this discussion.
Some organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus, Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic.it might seem obvious that NOTCENSORED applies. And I think in the case of Soldier G, who was reportedly killed in February 1986 ( Irish News), NOTCENSORED would apply.
Although a UK injunction (apparently) exists, there is ample precedent for identifying people or issues in WP articles, despite the existence of such orders: the article on
Gylfi Sigurðsson mentions his arrest for child sex offences, despite that information being suppressed in the UK. During the superinjunctions affair, we were pretty firm that as soon as one reliable source not subject to a court injunction mentioned suppressed information — like the Sunday Herald was in the case of
Ryan Giggs — then inclusion on Wikipedia was permissible. The Pell and Sigurðsson cases indicates that this precedent still applies. It is my contention that
WP:BLPNAME does not apply. First, it is not a blanket ban on identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event
. That policy merely states it is often preferable to omit it
(my emphasis). Soldier F was central to events of Bloody Sunday, is subject to an ongoing trial (and not for a crime that merits suppression of the accused's name, lest it identify a victim), and was not a "private individual" during the events of Bloody Sunday - as has been determined by public inquiry, he was acting under orders as a member of the armed forces at the time. Fundamentally, though, we would not be having this discussion in the absence of a court injunction; his name would have been more widely reported, and it would have been included in the article as a matter of course. We have reliable sources naming him - both Hansard and the Dáil record, as well as Village Magazine.
Bastun
Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
that person being proved under law to be that person, is accurate when it comes to Northern Irish law. In order for an injunction to be granted, the link between Soldier F and the name recorded in Hansard was already proven under law. What the injunction prevents is the publication of that link. As far as I'm aware, Soldier F's name has been known in a legal sense since the Widgery Inquiry in 1972.
the manner and the thoroughness that Soldier F's representatives have in trying to scrub any mention of his name from the internet and sending scare letters to news outlets so they don't print the nameThat is standard practice in UK law, both when an injunction has been sought to prevent publication of a piece of information, an whend a case is subject to reporting restrictions. The only stronger level of restrictions when it comes to reporting in the UK would be if there was a super-injunction, however because of how those work, we would never know about it.
The Saville Inquiry concluded that 'Soldier F' shot Kellyhas no significant loss of context whether we say Solider F, or the name recorded in Hansard.
Well that's a lot of text to wake up to, below. There is a lot above, that is surprising (ANI or ARE and a topic ban on BLPs for proposing a view (that nobody here has proposed)? Really?!) and a lot below that just isn't relevant - naming victims of crimes, WP:DEADNAME, and more. WP:BLPCRIME is, as Sidesipe9th mentions, an odd one as Soldier F has already been implicated in unlawful killings by Savile. In almost any other context, then, their name would already be in the public domain (well - more than it already is). I would certainly argue that given the voluminous coverage of "Soldier F", then Soldier F is a public figure - even if his actual identity has been concealed by court order. BLPCRIME does not apply. What we do have is coverage in Hansard, the Dáil record, and Village Magazine. If one contends that Hansard and the record of the Dáil are primary sources, then look at what WP:PRIMARY actually says:
Policy: Unless restricted by another policy,
So no - we are not precluded from using Hansard or the Dáil record. Meaning we have three reliable sources for Soldier F's name. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth... (snip) Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.(My emphasis added). It is absolutely fine to use Hansard and Dáil record in this instance, especially as multiple reliable secondary sources reported on the issue on both occasions: see here and here. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I've spent a lot of time on this (mostly from my last comment which means sorry I have not read followups) when I have other things I need to do and also I want to avoid bludgeoning this discussion so might leave it with one final long comment. Since it's long even for me, I'll put it in a separate subsection so it's easier for others to ignore it etc and it doesn't crowd out other discussions. The TL;DR version is that looking at various cases, I'm not convinced the is such clear consensus as other editors seem to be suggestion above that once a single source has given the name, we do as well. I also reject the suggestion it's automatically fine to annotate something widely reported with details barely reported, IMO no matter why editors think the details are barely report. Finally while we are WP:NOTCENSORED it's very problematic IMO to say that this means we should ignore what sources are doing because we've decided they're just practicing censorship and we need to counter that.
George Pell seems a poor example of this since from my memory there were a large number of reputable sources which mentioned his later overturned conviction when it happened, indeed our article has comments from the Washington Post and I'm fairly sure they were far from the only one, and looking into the history found [28] which also seems to support this view. A look at that also shows another interesting point, while there was some initial pretrial coverage it stopped in about May 2018 when suppression orders were put in place. While it's a minor thing, AFAICS, we did not report any details about the ongoing trial not even that it was ongoing. While it's not worth me looking in to, I suspect you could have found at least on reliable secondary source which did report this. Yet it's also seems true most international media decided to respect the suppression even if they likely did not have to. It was only after the conviction that the dam broke, [29]. Also Pell was a highly notable individual so we already had an article on them specifically.
Sigurðsson seems a better example, personally I'm not convinced we should be reporting it if we only have that single source although I have not looked whether they may be more and do not feel it is worth me fighting it even if it is only that one source. In any case, Sigurðsson is also a somewhat notable individual and to some extent I'm guessing it's a tricky situation since he has disappeared from his career.
With Murder of Grace Millane, AFAIK we did not report the murderer's name until after the suppression order was lifted despite some non NZ media including The Independent doing so [30]+ [31], see Talk:Murder of Grace Millane#Name Supression RFC. Note that while the murderer was and is not notable (some minor involvement in softball) and while the murder and trial received a lot of attention in NZ and to a lesser extent in the UK, I don't think you could claim he was a public figure so WP:BLPCRIME did apply before his conviction, this clearly changed after yet the suppression order continued for over a year afterwards. As I think most people experienced with NZ law guessed (I implied as much on the talk page), and somewhat similar to the Pell case, the main reason for the continued suppression appears to have been because of some other charges which had not been resolved. (The murderer also wanted suppression while his appeals were considered but the Supreme Court rejected this.) Since this person had not been talked about for a long time, the case has differences from soldier F, still I personally feel it is the most similar. Somewhat related to Pell, my memory is that the number of sources naming the murderer increased and were better sources after conviction.
Christian Porter is another interesting case albeit one with little we can learn from what actually happened. While there was a lot of speculation, see for example Talk:Christian Porter#Multiple edits, which must relate to the 1988 rape allegation about a member of the current Cabinet and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive325#Christian Porter, member of Australian Cabinet, AFAIK, he was never named anywhere prior to him outing himself fairly early on effectively meaning it never became an issue. However I'm not convinced one or two minor sources would have guaranteed inclusion.
Then there is the Huddersfield grooming gang trial. I suspect if you look around at sources especially after Tommy Robinson (activist)#2018 imprisonment as that received a lot of attention especially from some US sources and while most of these were not reliable, I suspect some may have been considered so especially at the time. (I'm not going to hunt for details or what was available.) Yet the article only came after the convictions [32] and Robinson's article was also sparse on details [33] compared to what I suspect was available. In included this last because while it did involve injunctions and suppression, it wasn't significantly about names. Which does mean in that case, most of the people were and I think remain fairly unknown and aren't named in our article even now. And some of the details Robison tried to make a deal of, BLP was only of minor concern. Also like with the Grace Millane murder, it was only a short term thing compared to soldier F. So a lot of differences although IMO enough that it's not irrelevant either.
Approaching from a different direction, I think we have to remember that us annotating something widely report with additional info not widely reported always need be done with significant care. There are alot of cases where someone has used parliamentary privilege in a way that has been widely reported, just to use a few examples [34], [35]/ [36], [37]/ [38], [39]/ [40], [41]/(partial) [42]/(again partial) [43], [44], [45], [46]. Again I'm not going to hunt all the details of each of these many cases, I'm sure there are many more than here. But I suspect if you do, you'd find some of them are too insiginificant so we do not report them at all. Some of them we do report but only in the context of person A made controversial remarks in parliament about whatever, without giving many details especially not the names of the other people involved. In some cases we do (or did since the situation may have changed anyway) I'm sure report such details. And while this doesn't mean we always made the right decision (same too with any of the examples earlier), I'm sure we sometimes did even in cases where we continued to not name other people or other details.
The details also vary, in some cases there was no existing adverse finding so defamation may have been the main concern and so for us BLPCRIME etc although an interesting point is that in number but far from all cases I highlighted, the people named were notable and likely public figures. in some cases it was suppression or an injuction, like here. In some cases the may have been an ongoing trial but no existing finding against anyone so again BLPCRIME etc. In some cases like here, there may have been some finding, arguably in some cases and even stronger finding than here against someone i.e a successful court case against someone.
It's true that in nearly all of the cases I highlighted, we probably did not mention anything particularly related to whatever was said in parliament before that happened; which is different from soldier F. But I think there's at least once case there where this does not apply and likely more examples where this was not the case if you look hard enough and I fairly doubt in all cases we report all 'significant' details said in parliament (especially names etc) if these details were not widely reported elsewhere. Point being, ultimately I'm far from convinced our response was or should be that once the person is named in parliament, we should too just because a single non primary reliable source has repeated the name. (As said before, I remain convinced we should never do so if it's only in primary sources but even if you still don't accept that, these examples seem to illustrate why that's a problem.)
This applies to other details others feel are super important too. I'm not saying we always need multiple sources, but we do need to consider carefully per WP:UNDUE etc that sources have chosen not to and we should avoid. Notably, whatever our personal feelings on WP:NOTCENSORED, I think we need to take great care with speculating that sources are just practicing censorship for legal reasons so we need to ignore their decisions. There is often going to be some mix of legal reasons, editorial judgement etc; e.g. when we consider how sources seem more willing to respect foreign suppression prior to conviction.
I'd note that there are definitely people who say 'censorship' over media not naming victims or alleged victims of sexual abuse who haven't chosen to be named. And in a number of countries this is something limited by law. But in others especially in the US it's not and nowadays media often make clear they won't name regardless. If it's high profile enough it's often not hard to find source which are probably enough to comply with BLP which don't agree. WP:BLPPRIVACY generally applies here although in rare cases the person may be notable anyway. I'm hoping that everyone in this discussion agrees that in most cases we should follow the sources and if most have suppressed this information, legal reasons or not, we should too.
Getting back to something I said earlier, people say the same crap about real names especially of those involved in adult entertainment or sex workers and then try to use trademark documents, court documents, musical scores etc as sources. And for good reason, we have it enshrined into policy we not mention WP:DEADNAMEs of transgender or non-binary persons if they weren't notable prior to transition whatever sources people may find and as much as they may yell 'censorship'. Or birth dates etc, especially birth year controversies. While primary sources tend to be complex here since a lot of the time, there's a fair amount of WP:OR to say it's the same person but not always and I think policy is clear when it comes to BLPs for most primary sources it does not matter whether you need to OR. (Actually to be blunt, if you spend enough time on BLPN, you'll find there's basically nothing that BLP requires or strongly suggests that doesn't result in someone saying CENSORSHIP!)
Nil Einne ( talk) 06:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
An IP ( 82.20.254.54 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)) has over the last few months continually inserted and reinserted potentially libellous accusation in Calvin Robinson. (Eg. [47]). The issue has been brought up at the IP's talk page and the article's talk page. As I explained there, the current sources support the current rather hedged wording of the article, and may in fact support a wider wording. Thus, I In any case the IP has been thoroughly warned and has refused to engage. The article has also been vandalised by Dwayne Dibley 3rd ( talk · contribs). Thanks for your help, I really don't know what else to do now. Jtrrs0 ( talk) 10:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
This profile violates biographies of living persons policy, most of the sources are tabloid journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apanatura ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
On the talk page for Roger Waters, there are various editors, specifically Te og kaker, who are trying to minimize the allegations of antisemitism, by suggesting they be reduced to a sentence as part of the BDS political activity. They are attempting to decide what constitutes hate speech, invalidate the experiences and conclusions of actual Jewish groups, and reduce everything to Israel. Other users are removing examples by claiming the source (facebook) is not allowed, when the reference is a video recording of Roger Waters. Calling groups such as the ADL or Simon Weisenthal Center as radical groups.
Is this the example Wikipedia wants to adopt? Will white supremecists have their hate speech or racism relegated to political opinions? Are a racist's own words not a valid source? Is it acceptable for someone to dicate to a minority what should and shouldn't offend them?
I am bringing this to Wiki's attention because I know what can happen.... the page can succomb to edit wars dealing with Israel and by the end, just like the Te og kaker wants for the page, "I can't see that this is important enough to warrant more than a sentence in the section about his BDS activism," In reality, there isn't any need for a PR firm to whitewash his page and improve his image, unfortunately there seems to be no shortage of editors with their own agendas who are ready to do the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:3F00:BE42:D4FB:9AC6:D874:1219 ( talk) 00:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I removed an op-ed written by Waters from the laundry list of examples of his anti-semitism because I thought it was UNDUE and OR (analysis) without secondary RS commenting on it. [48] @ Andrevan:, why did you reinstate it without addressing the need for secondary sourcing or gaining consensus? This isn't a WP:SKYISBLUE situation. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 16:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
As this is related to Waters' pro-Palestinian activism, I'm guessing that there wouldn't be much disagreement that it falls within the area covered by WP:ARBPIA. In the WP:ARBPIA area there is a restriction on participation by non-extended confirmed accounts, of which the account raising this notice is one: "However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the 'Talk:' namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions." If this noticeboard comes under the classification "internal project discussion," IP accounts should not be raising notices about ARBPIA-related material here.
On ARBPIA-affected article talkpages, non-extended confirmed accounts may only leave "constructive" comments (about ARBPIA-related material at least), one way of measuring constructiveness being whether they are disruptive or not. Part of WP:BLP is that any content, including that on article talkpages, must be NPOV. On the Waters article talkpage, IP accounts have left some distinctly non-NPOV-looking remarks.
Waters is chiefly known as a musician. In the Waters article, there is a history of editors who are chiefly interested in Waters' career as a musician trying to stop editors opposed to Waters' stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict overwhelming it with material from pro-Israel organisations or individuals acussing Waters of antisemitism.
←
ZScarpia 09:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Horse Eye's Back is repeatedly calling a living person antisemitic ( Alice Walker) on the talk page, starting here ("Are you disputing whether or not Alice Walker is antisemitic? Thats not open for dispute, she is... Thats a basic fact we all have to work from.") doubling down here. Alice Walker certainly has been accused of promoting a book widely decried as antisemitic, but the sourcing for such a claim that Alice Walker is antisemitic simply does not meet the bar in stating that as a fact. Horse Eye's Back has both claimed that BLP prevents sources that say she is not antisemitic (eg this) are not usable, but also that the sourcing to call her an antisemite need not reach that same bar. This appears to be repeated BLP violations by a user who is game playing with the BLP policy. nableezy - 15:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Are you disputing whether or not Alice Walker is antisemitic? Thats not open for dispute, she isand
In the meantime I will say that Alice Walker is antisemiticis directly calling a living person a racist. nableezy - 15:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
“How Anti-Semitic is Alice Walker?” The New Yorker might have asked. The straightforward answer is very, very anti-Semitic.[51] (The Atlantic) Andre 🚐 03:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
An RFC has been opened on the content side of this, interested users welcome to participate in the talk page. The WP:BLPTALK offending content remains on the talk page though, and Id welcome administrative action to remove it. nableezy - 20:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate.Emphasis mine, but that "and" is vital; to get something revdeled or an editor sanctioned for a talk (as opposed to article) violation, you have to successfully make the argument that it is both unsourced or poorly sourced and that it is not reasonably related to making content choices. Of course, sometimes one follows from the other (if it completely, glaringly obvious that the sourcing is insufficient and has no reasonable expectation of ever becoming sufficient, then it can't be reasonably be related to content choices), but it is acceptable for someone to say, on talk, eg. "a lot of coverage is saying that this person just made an antisemitic remark. Can we find enough high-quality sources to support that in the article?", without providing any sources themselves, provided the coverage actually exists to the point where it's reasonable to WP:AGF that they believe it can be properly-cited in the article with a bit of work. -- Aquillion ( talk) 13:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I am extremely disturbed by this edit by @ Iskandar323, which includes the line "In 2009 Michael Lerner, an anti-Zionist rabbi who invited her to speak to his congregation on Yom Kippur, found her "claims about human rights abuses by Israel" offensive and apologized for inviting her." This is an total misrepresentation of the source and should be immediately removed. Lerner in fact writes that "Ms. Walker's claims about human rights abuses by Israel are largely substantiated by independent investigations" but "I was particularly disturbed that Alice Walker's presentation was so unconvincing and missed the opportunity to speak to our hearts, in large part because it felt contaminated by anger and a lack of compassion for the Jewish people and for Israelis. I believe that such compassion must be part of our critique. For that reason, I now regret having had Alice Walker as a speaker. I personally experienced some of her remarks as offensive to me and her manner of talking to us dismissive and put-downish and her perception of the Jewish people seemed largely ignorant of the tradition of Jews that we represent and that has been growing worldwide. So I want to apologize to our community for subjecting you to this talk." and "[T]hose sins, while amazingly absent from the Jewish media and the public discourse inside the Jewish community, are increasingly obvious to most other people on the planet, and are generating anger toward Jews that will last for generations and place Jews in grave danger in the 21st century. We ignore them at our peril. So this is why I was so disappointed at Alice Walker's presentation--because the way she presented had the opposite effect of waht I had hoped for and expected. Instead of speaking to our hearts and opening us to consider the ways we need atonement, Ms. Walker's talk actually closed the ears and hearts of many of our congregants and made it less likely that we would be able to engage in the teshuva that is really necessary and urgent for our people. I base this on the reactions of congregants both during and after the talk that they conveyed to me. For that, I wish to apologize to Beyt Tikkun."
The same user has on the same page summarized the cited source (WaPo)'s "The poem repeats a slew of anti-Semitic tropes" as "The poem was criticized as using tropes and arguments frequently used by anti-semites". GordonGlottal ( talk) 20:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
I've just edited the article of John Ware (journalist). /info/en/?search=John_Ware_(TV_journalist)
He's a veteran investigative journalist in the UK. He's worked on quite a few topics that are polarising, the most recent being about Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour Party, and anti-semitism in the Labour Party. As a result, he has attracted a lot of vitriolic, inaccurate and sometimes anti-semitic attention by those that disliked his reporting, often it seems because they disliked the consequences that occurred after his reporting (airing of uncomfortable information) and generally seek to unfairly blame him for things that happened to their causes. This isn't the only difficult subject he has reported on, including about islamism and the IRA.
The whole article's tone was very dismissive of Ware and focused on criticism, which was often reported inaccurately and one-sided, in what seemed to be about character assassination, and overlooked his extensive achievements or work on other topics.
I'm not currently reporting an issue, but I am sure that there will be users who will soon notice the edits I have made and seek to reverse them. There is currently a twitter campaign, and wider, to try and attack Ware, where disinformation is the warfare. Ware has successively taken libel action in the UK against various individuals and groups on the topic of the Labour Party and antisemitism, with another soon to be concluding, but which are the focus of most of this issue. One of those articles that had been the focus of one of the libels had in fact been sourced on the wiki article at one point, as stated truth. When the moderators previously removed some contentious links, worried about libel and bias on this same matter, they unfortunately had not realised that this particular link was another such issue and at the heart of a live case.
Please can the moderators keep an eye on this article and if this does arise in the future, seek to remedy it swiftly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W987654321 ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Hasan Minhaj ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is this really an appropriate reason to change a lead image? Not sure if it really matters myself. Aza24 (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
By coincidence, I noticed a similar request recently by another BLP subject, Dasha Nekrasova: "Can any of you people put a hotter pic of me on wikipedia……". Some people tried to change it (see page history), and she posted some images of herself on Twitter she suggested she wanted it changed to. I don't think that really counts as releasing the image under a free license, and I'm not sure if there's much we can do to accommodate BLP subjects requests in these cases if there aren't any good freely licensed alternatives available. Endwise ( talk) 05:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I was looking to create a redirect to a target where the page that existed was previously G10'd. I am unclear if the content of the page was a redirect, or if so if it was a redirect to the same target. I want to proceed with caution as I have no desire to have a BLP violation but I do think the redirect could be helpful. The title in question is Idiot kicker. I will not mention where I want to target unless I am cleared to make the redirect (there is a citation for this; it's not my personal opinion that said person is this; however, they have been referred to as such notably). Tartar Torte 12:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Are the sources provided at this edit enough to verify the subject's status as trans? If not, what else can be done to fix this article? 8.37.179.254 ( talk) 20:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article seems to have a long history of COI editing (I mean straight-up fluffing and spamming), but I wonder about those allegations--"Controversies". What happened with the lawsuit? Is this still OK to keep in the article? One COI edit suggested it was settled, but of course it whitewashed the text, removed the sources, and provided no evidence. Your assistance, from all you political editors and Northeasterners, is appreciated. Drmies ( talk) 22:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
In the article ZeniMax Media, subsection Zenimax Media#Early history, SBS investment, Providence investment, there is an inflammatory statement about a living person, Christopher Weaver, based entirely on an original court document, directly contrary to WP:BLPPRIMARY. It reads:
The suit was dismissed, with the court sanctioning Weaver, and finding that Weaver "acted willfully, wrongfully, and in bad faith."[Source redacted]
Obviously, it should be removed. I have a conflict of interest, though, because I have a personal connection to Weaver. So I am requesting that independent editors review this request.
There is a remaining question as to whether the lawsuit, the allegations and its eventual settlement, which was covered in one press account [57] should be in this article at all. (Weaver’s lawsuit for improper dismissal is mentioned in the previous sentence.)
This supporting source, from The Escapist (magazine), is older than the Polygon (website) source, so does not mention the settlement out of court [58], but Polygon does. (FYI, The Escapist may not be a reliable source since it is created by industry insiders rather than journalists. See About.
Relevant to this discussion is that The Escapist and Polygon make a general reference to Zenimax’s allegation in a countersuit that Weaver improperly accessed company emails to bolster his allegations of Zenimax’s wrongdoing. But the lower court decision finding Weaver behaved improperly was overturned in its entirety, with the higher court determining that the lower court’s findings were an open question of fact that should be determined in a trial, not by summary judgment. Weaver vehemently denied that it was improper for him to access company emails while he was the Chief Technology Officer of the company and its largest stakeholder, even if he was contemplating litigation. [Source redacted]
Given the personally damaging nature of the accusations about improper access to emails and the higher court throwing out the lower court’s findings to this effect, even if the case and the settlement are included in the Zenimax article, I think it is questionable as to whether there should be any mention of the unproven and disputed allegations against Weaver. While Weaver was certainly never charged with a crime (and the strong evidence indicates there was none) Zenimax’s allegations are nevertheless tantamount to an allegation of criminal conduct. Thus, I think Wikipedia:BLPCRIME is relevant.
I also think getting into this level of detail about the allegations of improper dismissal and counter-allegations about a person’s alleged behavior is WP:COATRACKING and excessive - if not for the whole case, then at least as to the heavily disputed email allegations. Otherwise, these allegations against a living person need to be disputed with the use of a primary source, a highly complex appellate legal decision. [Source redacted]. Use of primary legal documents in anything involving a person is heavily discouraged WP:BLPPRIMARY but to refute a near-criminal allegation, an exception would need to be made. For these reasons, omitting the personal attacks is a better course. 38.140.161.59 ( talk) 16:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Cordyceps-Zombie has been calling editors sexist and racist on the Suella Braverman article for using the article subject's most recognisable and widely-accepted name (even by herself) ( Diff, diff, diff). The user has also been unilaterally this high-profile pages without prior talk page consensus ( diff, diff). Even as I write this, there are more incidents coming up.
Clearly a poor attempt at trolling by someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia on a high-profile BLP. Given the situation at the moment, there will likely be a spate of vandalism relating to British politicians BLPs. -- QueenofBithynia ( talk) 19:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Vladislav Doronin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'd appreciate some input from this group about recent edits to Vladislav Doronin's article. There appears to be one editor with an almost obsessive interest in the subject, and a pattern of suspicious editing, who adds inappropriate and unencyclopedic content to the article. As someone who hasn't experienced this before, any guidance and insight would be appreciated. Thank you CharlotteAman ( talk) 10:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Please take a look at this draft article about a professor created yesterday. The original version was mostly about his arrest. The current version has more about him professionally but still has a section devoted to details of the misdemeanor charge. Without a conviction this seems inappropriate for a professor who is not a public figure. StarryGrandma ( talk) 18:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
User:Arifer sock Magnatyrannus ( talk | contribs) 02:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I revised the BLP on Gregg L. Semenza today by adding the new section "Retractions". My effort was motivated by a recent Nature article stating that Semenza's coauthored work that has attracted public scrutiny due to concerns regarding the validity of the data. The article claims that 17 papers by the subject have been retracted or corrected or elicited expressions of concern, and another 15 papers are currently under close scrutiny. It is unclear whether this may be construed as a misconduct pattern or just sloppiness in the lab. I suppose the article may be regarded as a secondary source and therefore worth incorporated in WP given the importance of the matter. Since the subject is a famous living person, abundance of caution becomes mandatory and accordingly, I would like to invite fellow editors to intervene and review or revise the material I have inserted. IneqsBell ( talk) 23:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
|
Talk:Kiwi Farms was set to perma semi-protection, then was changed to time-expiry extended-confirmed due to a single troll; when it expired, it reverted to no protection, but should be set back to perma semi-protection to avoid persistent vandalism. Lizthegrey ( talk) 20:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd appreciate an extra pair of eyes here. Someone has been adding information about one of the outlet's contributor, who had an award retracted after allegations were raised about anti-Semitism and pro-Nazism writings. While that part of the information seem verified, I fear the way it's being added violates our WP:BLP policies (specially as it's been written in WP:WIKIVOICE), and it might be WP:UNDUE, as it isn't directly related to the outlet itself. My attempts at explaining that to the editor didn't work. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 20:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
With a subscription to Ancestry.com, anybody can find out when they were really born. Joanna was born on October 20, 1936, [59] Lucy on May 5, 1940, [60] and Carly on June 25, 1943. [61] Those are the facts. Check the 1950 census and the facts line up. [62]
Two prior discussions (one at this noticeboard) proved fruitless, with hardly any users engaging. I ask that more users provide input. Lots of secondary sources report Carly's birth year truthfully. Fewer for Joanna and Lucy cause they're not as famous.
It's been said that birth and census records are not allowed in a BLP. But the article for Lee Grant includes an Ancestry link to the same publicly accessible birth index the Simons are listed in. And the Barbara Walters article cites a book which names the U.S. Census Bureau as its source for the claim that Walters was born in the 1920s.
If the birthdate is ascertainible then why do we have to also list the debunked birthdates that have previously been published? Some of you may remember that Madonna used to claim 1960, early in her career, and several almanacs and articles from the eighties shaved two years off her birthdate. But only 1958 is listed on Wikipedia....because there can only be one accurate year regardless of how many have been published in the past. Ysovain ( talk) 01:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
@
Ysovain: I did not respond to your earlier question because I felt it had already been answered. You do not need 10 people to tell you that policy does not allow Ancestry to be used in that way per
WP:BLPPRIMARY and
WP:BLPPRIVACY, that's simply not how Wikipedia works. indeedIndeed, your editing career here is likely to be short if you keep demanding 10 people tell you the same thing per
WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. You need to accept our policies and guidelines especially BLP or stop editing here. From you description of the sourcing, from Wikipedia's POV, this discrepancy is not resolvable despite what you keep saying. If other sources did not care to resolve it, we don't either.
As for the other stuff, well, about
Lee Grant
Barbara Walters, it's perfectly fine for reliable secondary sources to use primary sources to ascertain the date. That's the whole point of reliable secondary sources, we trust them to adequately assess primary and other sources for accuracy, as well as decide if the information is important enough to publish. About
Barbara Walters
Lee Grant, there seem to be a lot of sources including some secondary and tertiary ones for the year. I'm not sure how the specific year was decided, but I'm not convinced it was from deciding Ancestry or the other primary sources are is the be all sources. If it was, then this was a mistake put per
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it does not mean we should repeat that mistake elsewhere. Edit: Personally I would much rather we didn't include most of those primary sources in Grant at all but with so many other sources it's a fairly minor thing IMO.
Nil Einne ( talk) 04:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC) 04:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I think a block or ban is necessary at this point. [66] Ysovain appears unable to differentiate reliable from unreliable sources or work with other editors following policy.
I'm unclear why the ref (Jack Harkrider (April 27, 1963).
"Smothers Brothers Visit 'Hootenanny'". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. The Simon Sisters, Lucy and Carly, making their television debut, will sing "Winken, Blinken, and Nod."
) has been removed. I've gone ahead and removed it further
[67]
[68], until we can sort out the content policy issues around it.
I'm not seeing any article talk page discussions at all. @ 4meter4: could you explain the problems with using the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reference above? -- Hipal ( talk) 17:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Carly Simon's date of birth is 1945, according to Massachusetts voter records. I also seem to remember reading somewhere that Carly was 17 when she first heard the Beatles, so her date of birth has to be 1945 as The Beatles did not put out their first record until 1962. (
2601:C6:8480:1F10:B8FA:5E82:ECBB:C731 (
talk) 16:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC))
I don't understand why we can't use ancestry as a source. There is a document published there with the birth being reported on 25 June 1943. That seems as the most reliable source to me. DrKilleMoff ( talk) 21:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
The 1974 book entitled Carly Simon by Charles and Ann Morse noted, "Because Joanna was 6 years older than Carly, the two never had to compete. Carly enjoyed her brother Peter. But Lucy, only 3 years older, was someone Carly wanted to copy." This is congruent with births in October 1936 for Joanna, May 1940 for Lucy, and June 1943 for Carly.-- Samp4ngeles ( talk) 13:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
The 2012 book Hearts of Darkness: James Taylor, Jackson Browne, Cat Stevens, and the Unlikely Rise of the Singer-Songwriter quotes James Taylor as saying, "I thought [Carly Simon] was quite attractive, but she was, and still is, four years older than I was, so back then when she was eighteen and I was fourteen, she was a bit less approachable than she was when I was twenty-four." This is congruent with births in June 1943 for Carly Simon and March 1948 for James Taylor.-- Samp4ngeles ( talk) 13:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Pierre Dadak ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sure, they're no angel, but this page seems to be functioning as little more than an exposè of the subject, and seems to be pretty close to an attack page. It details content without immediate relevance to the subject (male rape in the Sudanese Civil War), and seems to be based heavily on a single source. It also seems to add labels to them which aren't appropriate. The whole thing is a bigger mess than I feel like cleaning up at the moment. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 01:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Hafsia Herzi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A single purpose-account on a mission has readded again excessively long imbalanced information in a biography of a living person. Some of the information he added is outright false and defamatory. Among other things, the editor claims that the actress in question was long known as an Arab-hater. This is an extremely harmful accusation which is NOT backed by the French-language source provided. I already pointed this out when I previously removed the material, even linking to the Wikipedia guidelines in question. The BLP template has also been in display on the talk page for quite some time, not that it made any difference. Note that this single-purpose account first added the highly contentious material 3 years ago. After I removed it some weeks ago he suddenly makes a reappearance after 3 years (!) starting an edit-war about the material and not caring for any other subject. This appears to be a person with a very personal interest in the matter of question. It's also likely the editor is identical with this IP sockpuppet.
I've made a notice of this incident very early in this case because Hafsia Herzi's Wikipedia article has been viciously assailed by trolls in the past who inserted other defamatory material falsely claiming that she was a pornographic actress or falsely asserting that she had performed unsimulated sex on screen. In the page history you can see that some of these harmful claims stood uncorrected for months. This is why I think that this BLP page is in dire need of semi-protection and the single-purpose account should not be allowed to carry on like that. Lizavers ( talk) 20:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
This page is an archive. Do not edit the contents of this page. Please direct any additional comments to the current main page. |
The following text was recently added to the final paragraph, without references:
In September 2022 a panel assembled by The Lancet published a wide-ranging report on the pandemic, including commentary on the virus origin overseen by the group's chairman Jeffrey Sachs. This suggested that the virus may have originated from an American laboratory, a notion long-promoted by Sachs
As far as I can tell, neither the Lancet Commission nor Jeffrey Sachs have made this suggestion. The latter claim seems to constitute a WP:BLPSOURCE violation. Sachs has said that he thinks that the virus likely originated in a laboratory, with US funding and using techniques developed in the US. This is a plenty controversial claim on its own, and there are reliable sources that support him making that claim. However, Sachs does not appear to have claimed that "the virus may have originated in an American laboratory".
This has already been discussed at Talk:Investigations into the origin of COVID-19#New article of the Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic to no avail, with anti-Sachs editors citing dubious sources including the Tehran Times, the New York Post, and a couple of Twitter accounts. The most recent attempt at support is an article from The Daily Telegraph which is a reliable source but misquotes Sachs:
At a conference in Madrid earlier this year, he said he was “pretty convinced” that Sars-Cov-2 “came out of a US lab of biotechnology, not out of nature” [1]
If the grammatical error doesn't make it clear that something is wrong, you can hear the relevant quote from the Madrid talk on YouTube, starting at 12:34. It's clear that Sachs said "out of, uh, US lab biotechnology". Nothing about the virus coming from a US lab.
The article's claim that Sachs said such a thing is surely contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced. - Palpable ( talk) 20:38, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
"That doesn't at all imply a US lab was involved"← if you publish your novel reading in a reliable source it might have some relevance to this discussion. As I said, "one needs to be familiar with the material to understand why" (Clue: you have to ask yourself what the – extreme fringe – invocation of US research and the NIH in the context of COVID origin at all even means to understand what is being suggested and why it is so shocking). The invocation of the NIH's "resistance" to disclosure obviously does imply quite a lot, as every relevant source shows. Let's follow sources. Bon courage ( talk) 05:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
In September 2022 a panel led by Jeffery Sachs assembled a report published in The Lancet on the origins of the pandemic. The report stated it was "feasible" that the virus was leaked by a lab, but also added, "Independent researchers have not yet investigated the US laboratories engaged in the laboratory manipulation of SARS-CoV-like viruses, nor have they investigated the details of the laboratory research that had been underway in Wuhan. Moreover, the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) has resisted disclosing details of the research on SARS-CoV-related viruses that it had been supporting, providing extensively redacted information only as required by Freedom of Information Act lawsuits." (parts referred in secondary but this is the direct quote of that section from the primary) These statements were criticized by medical experts to imply that U.S. labs has been involved a lab leak of COVID, seen an an extension of Sachs' favorable views on China.(ref Independent, Daily Beast, others). Virologist Angela Rasmussen commented that this may have been "one of The Lancet's most shameful moments regarding its role as a steward and leader in communicating crucial findings about science and medicine".[6] Virologist David Robertson said the suggestion of US laboratory involvement was "wild speculation" and that "it's really disappointing to see such a potentially influential report contributing to further misinformation on such an important topic".[6]. Sachs stated that the Lancet's commissioners had signed off on the report (Daily Telegraph/Daily Beast), but Peter Hotez, one of Lancet commissioners, said that the report had "diverse views" within the commission, and he had pushed on the panel to remove mention of U.S. labs.(Daily Beast)
Article Jonathan Potter has large quantities of unsourced information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 51.6.91.131 ( talk) 21:47, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
Jane Nelson was recently rewritten to be praiseful of the subject, I reverted citing NPOV. They rewrote again, not as egregiously praiseful but still so, and added Template:In use. Unsure how to proceed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wpscatter ( talk • contribs) 21:47, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
Four Chan, reddit, and other crowd bullying sites are CYBERBULLYING an actual 19 year old child with outrageous slanderous/libelous claims that he is using a sex toy while playing chess.
Please see /info/en/?search=Talk:Carlsen–Niemann_controversy#Anal_beads for my more explicitly complaints. This is morally wrong!
Key points:
whether the material is being presented as true. None of it is being presented as true, but the sex toy part in particular is being presented as wild speculation based on no evidence. What makes it hard is that several good sources are presenting it [as wild speculation based on no evidence]. I'm torn on whether the stand-alone article should exist. It was sent to AfD based on inapplicable rationales, but WP:NEVENT, WP:BLP, and WP:NOPAGE are worth considering (i.e. it is a notable aspect of the tournament/Niemann's/Carlsen's career, but notability doesn't guarantee a stand-alone article if there are (a) other places it can be covered, and (b) if there are BLP-related reasons not to give it a stand-alone article). YMMV. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:24, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
List of serial killers by number of victims ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Refusal to remove clear and obvious WP:BLPCRIME violation. You would think that after someone has been to trial, and not been convicted of a single one of the 146 murders they were suspected of that suspicious might cease surely? 81.96.130.162 ( talk) 09:18, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
Such blatant violations of WP:BLP policy are endemic on such lists. Wikipedia should not be hosting murder-fancruft. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 12:01, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Which means, amongst other things, that we don't include such individuals in lists which presume guilt. And no, before anyone asks, you can't weasel-word your way around it by sticking 'accused of' in the inclusion criteria. If the inclusion criteria don't match the title, one is wrong. In this case, the criteria, since lumping the accused together with the convicted is a violation of WP:BLP policy (amongst other things...) AndyTheGrump ( talk) 11:51, 29 September 2022 (UTC)
User:Anastrophe has now deleted the inclusion criteria that were intended to ensure compliance with WP:BLPCRIME. [13] I rephrased it and tried again. [14] Anythingyouwant ( talk) 21:17, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I would value some additional opinions at the talk page for Great Yarmouth Charter Academy regarding an attempt to introdce extensive discussion sof Oscar Gibbons which I reverted here [15]. It seems to me that including this in the school's article is a clear WP:COATRACK and creating a separate article would breach WP:BLP1E. I'm not aware of singnificant sourcing beyind the primary source and the (effecively single) secondary source in the material I removed. Jonathan A Jones ( talk) 16:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
Content has been repeatedly added to the lead of this article with either no citation or with citations that do not back up the statements made. The editor who made the edits has repeatedly threatened to report me for "vandalism" because I reverted these edits. I have attempted to discuss the issues on various talk pages and I have largely been ignored or met with personal attacks and accusations of vandalism. TWM03 ( talk) 10:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Peter Obi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am increasingly concerned that this article is being used as a campaign patformn for the 2023 presidential elections in Nigeria. A section has appeared with candidate endorsements, for example.
While I'm perfecty capable of arguing the point on the talk page (and of removing the section(s) that I bekeive inapproriate), I feel that this is likely to be banging my head against a brick wall. Better to have the team here consider what actions, if any, need to be taken, and probably to take those actions wearing an admin sash, cap, and carrying the janitorial mop, and bucket. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 18:51, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
A section has appeared with candidate endorsements, for exampleis the main element I am referring to. 🇺🇦 FiddleTimtrent FaddleTalk to me 🇺🇦 19:35, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
I am aware that there have been a number of disputes and discussions and deletions of articles about William Bishop. The fact remains that he is a public figure, and as such wikipedia is having a direct affect on his income, by affecting his credability in a negative way. I would ask that you bear this in mind when editing articles about him in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.1.251 ( talk) 20:24, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
There was a controversies section in this article accusing Dr. Simpson of research misconduct. The sole citation was the personal blog of Rory Robertson, who seems to have had a vendetta against Dr. Simpson and his colleagues related to their work on sugar consumption in Australia. This vendetta includes periodic letters to Dr. Simpson's academic institutions and funding sources with the stated intent of forcing the cessation of Dr. Simpson's research.
Mr. Robertson has not performed any scientific experiments on the topic, nor have his critiques been either peer-reviewed or published in any formal scientific journal. Rather, Mr. Robertson seems to rely on his own lay interpretations of Dr. Simpson's scientific protocols and analyses, as well as anecdotes of his own personal experience with diabetes, obesity, and sugar. The support for these claims alone is insufficient evidence to refute Dr. Simpson's work or prove misconduct, and I was unable to find any other sources that support Mr. Robertson's position.
I have removed the entire controversies section, but my issue is this: the edit that originally created the Controversies section was anonymous. Mr. Robertson has explicitly stated that he wants to disseminate his message by any means necessary, which would likely include making spurious (if not libelous) comments on Dr. Simpson's wiki page.
Whedonist ( talk) 22:45, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
I have recently had a disagreement with Olyus over whether the Daily Mirror's "3AM" column should be used to cite a former partner's claim that Flack was abusive in a relationship. In my view, this is clearly not acceptable per WP:BLPSOURCES (Flack is dead, but the partner making the claim isn't, so the BLP criteria still applies, in my view). The counter-argument is that the Mirror (somewhat surprisingly, in my view) is not listed as a prohibited or deprecated source at WP:RSP. However, BLPSOURCES clearly states that material cited to a tabloid newspaper (which the Mirror is) should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Your thoughts, please. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
It seems so far we needed a source (we have one,The Telegraph) and we needed at most two years from the death of the individual, which we have. Does anyone object to reverting the edit and including the information in question? Olyus
In the second paragraph under Personal Life, a number of highly subjective and contentions claims are made about the subject using no source. The first three sentences of the paragraph are uncited. The fourth sentence is cited to a single source, and the fifth sentence is cited to a second source that is simply derived from the single source as well.
Per the BLP policy, "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—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." This would apply to the first three sentences of the second paragraph.
Also per the BLP policy "Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: 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". In order for this to be observed, I would suggest that the phrasing needed for the fourth and fifth sentences should be along the lines of "The NYT claims xyz", and "France24 claims xyz". Otherwise, either of those sentences is just repeating sensationalist subjective interpretations as fact. Moreover, either of those sentences bears scant relevance in the larger context of the article and would be better off just being removed.
The paragraph in question was removed by a moderator approximately two days ago, but was quickly reinserted by a contributor with slightly modified wording. Subsequent attempts to have it removed were denied by a moderator who declines to recognize the content as hearsay and libel. Per the BLP policy that states "Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing", it would be worth considering preventing the contributor from adding this content again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dyno99 ( talk • contribs) 01:25, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Meloni said some nice things about Benito Mussolini when she was 19 years old, which is pretty extraordinary, and I don’t mind including it in the lead’s last paragraph despite her young age at the time. But we also need some NPOV. She’s also said that she “unambiguously condemns the suppression of democracy and the ignominious anti-Jewish laws” that existed prior to 1945. I’ve added that to the Mussolini bit. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 03:17, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
Needs protection, anon editor or editors changing birth date repeatedly without citation. Target may be covered by WP:GS/PAGEANTS. ☆ Bri ( talk) 21:58, 5 October 2022 (UTC)
{{Notability}} — Preceding unsigned comment added by Love696969 ( talk • contribs) 11:20, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
The article is poorly-sourced, unduly negative, includes false information, contains information that is irrelevant or otherwise not worth including, and is not neutral. The article repeatedly and falsely accuses me of disseminating false information, and presents a distorted, biased view of my activities. This page has been hijacked by political actors who are using this site to smear me and present a defamatory depiction, This both damages my reputation and the reputation of Judicial Watch. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.163.93.127 ( talk) 12:44, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
More eyes needed here. There has been a lot labelling and speculations about his nationality and ethnicity recently. The sources used supports the fact that he has an Estonian mother and a Swedish father but no more details are given and anything beyond that should not be taken for granted. He is referred to as Swedish in all the references. Currently there is a claim that he holds a dual citizenship, Swedish and Estonian. This is not supported by any source rather its bulit on the logic that other individuals of Estonian decent possess this nationality so it must be ture in this case too. As per the BLP policies this kind of unsourced material must be removed. Shellwood ( talk) 11:57, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Arbitration needed: I and several other editors have suggested adding to the article's Personal Life section a summary of Adam Levine's recent infidelity scandal, since at this point it's been widely reported on by multiple non-tabloid news outlets for over a week and is, I feel, a significant and notable development in the subject's public life. A user on the talk page, AndyTheGrump, vehemently disagrees, arguing that this violates BLP rules on gossip, that the story is not significant, and that it should either not be included or limited to a single sentence. I feel this is unreasonable, that the story is notable and that one sentence is not nearly enough to accurately, fairly, and coherently present the relevant information and convey the scope of the media attention this has gotten. Can we get a third opinion on this? Invisiboy42293 ( talk) 04:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
Y'all are repeating this rule about it needing to be "enduring coverage"; I'm looking at WP:BLP right now and I'm not seeing that criteria anywhere, nor have I ever seen it on any other guideline page. Isn't the whole point of Wikipedia being editable that articles can be updated with new information as it happens rather than being incomplete and outdated? Why on Earth should a development being covered by the Los Angeles Times, Rolling Stone, Entertainment Weekly, NBC News, Esquire, Gizmodo, and HuffPost (just to name a few); that was significant enough for the subject to release a statement in response to; that is very clearly relevant to the subject's personal life; and that doesn't violate a single Wikipedia guideline I'm aware of, be kept on a shelf because of the possibility that it'll be forgotten and not drastically change his life - something that hasn't stopped countless celebrity scandals from being included in articles mere hours after they happened? Since when is a website that has an entire article on the Personal life of Lindsay Lohan above documenting relevant and credibly sourced celebrity news? Pardon me for assuming bad faith but this is sounding less like wanting to maintain Wikipedia's quality of standard and more like just knee-jerk elitism. This doesn't violate anything in WP:NOTGOSSIP nor WP:BLPGOSSIP and I have seen no valid reason not to include it. Invisiboy42293 ( talk) 23:47, 24 September 2022 (UTC)
I agree with the consensus in this thread that the material should not appear in the BLP. After failing to get it included here the user seems intent on getting it into the talk. I think that this thread should be closed and oversighted. Xxanthippe ( talk) 01:26, 25 September 2022 (UTC).
my interests are purely in Wikipedia articles being as up-to-date and comprehensive as reasonably possible, then that inevitably leads to content like "Celebrity A was spotted dining with celebrity B at romantic restaurant C" and "Baseball player D dropped two easy pop fly balls and got booed by the fans" and "Politician E got a hefty ticket for driving 35 MPH in a 25 MPH school zone, which endangered children" and "Pop star F sent flirtatious text messages to several women who are not his wife and was widely mocked on social media". Editors who are experienced at enforcing BLP policy will not readily accept this kind of content. If we lower our standards, we will be swamped by pernicious gossip. Overwhelmed. What we need more of is good editorial judgment. Cullen328 ( talk) 06:27, 28 September 2022 (UTC)
I wanna add that SNL has now done a skit about it 1 2 𝙨𝙥𝙞𝙙𝙚𝙧-𝙬𝙞𝙣𝙚-𝙗𝙤𝙩𝙩𝙡𝙚(🕷) - (✉) 09:14, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd also like to note that the aforementioned WP:10YEARTEST that so much of this discussion has been rooted is explicitly described as a "suggestion" and a "thought experiment" for dealing with recentism - it is not presented as a hard and fast policy rule nor as a invitation for editors to speculate what will and will not be relevant in ten years. There is no reason it should trump Wikipedia's actual notability guidelines. Invisiboy42293 ( talk) 22:04, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
Controversy section contains unverified information — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.110.243.226 ( talk) 07:49, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
There is a sort of edit war going on, I summarized the problem in Talk:Giorgia Meloni#Immigration. Est. 2021 ( talk · contribs) 23:54, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
There have been multiple WP:BLP violating edits to Hans Niemann over the last day or so. For example:
While established editors have been reverting the IP edits pretty quickly, I think the issue has gotten significant enough that we need to semi-protect the article again. Samboy ( talk) 10:51, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article. That it's quoted in the WSJ is important, though, as it's arguable that they have "republished" some of the information in the Chess.com report. But the degree to which WSJ independently reviewed the material's accuracy is unclear. In any case, I strongly oppose any graphics/data taken from the report being included (I removed some) as there is clearly no oversight there. Ovinus ( talk) 15:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I added tags to this article as part of new page review, and the creator removes them. Currently engaging in a discussion, but we are in disagreement about whether this subject is notable (probably, but for one video, really), and if information about other ventures can be included if its not actually documented anywhere. They are using the subject's own TikTok video as a source for this info that should really be better sourced. Please take a look. Pyrrho the Skipper ( talk) 23:59, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I reverted addition of an unsourced date of birth to Judy Landers and posted a note on the talk page of the editor who added the date, pointing to Wikipedia:Citing sources and WP:BLPPRIVACY as reasons for needing a citation. The editor re-added an unsourced date of birth and I reverted again, adding a second note on his or her talk page about the need for a valid citation. The editor has added the date again, and I don't know what else to do. Eddie Blick ( talk) 01:46, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
Lanfranco Cirillo, the architect of Putin’s Palace and homes for various oligarchs now has an article. The article was put into article space by an editor that isn’t observing neutrality as none of Cirillo’s various scandals and legal issues are mentioned. I’d appreciate some eyes on the article. Thank you, Thriley ( talk) 23:35, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
Two newish users adding unreferenced cats about his sexuality. Lard Almighty ( talk) 07:51, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I would appreciate if project members here could conduct a thorough assessment of the Jess Margera page, which is poorly sourced, poorly written, and of questionable notability. Efforts to constructively edit the page in even minor ways, including my own effort today, are met by resistance from User talk:FMSky and User talk:Rift, who both routinely project ownership over this and other pages, issue harshly-worded "warnings" to editors who are making reasonable and constructive edits, and both delete and are unresponsive to substantive talk page notifications from other editors about their editing patters. My short-lived effort to resolve the concerns was met with a stone wall of resistance, and others may prove more effective at this point. Keystone18 ( talk) 00:23, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
Can I get some eyes on this article? I've been working on it and would appreciate one or more sets of eyes looking into improving it based on the BLP principles: Neutral point of view (NPOV), Verifiability (V) and No original research (NOR). The murder convictions of the two women charged with the crime were reversed on appeal, though they were convicted of conspiracy to defraud, forgery and perverting the course of justice as they had pleaded guilty to those charges. I'd appreciate other eyes evaluating the sources cited in the article, particularly the news and newspaper reports, as well as the language used in the article for NPOV. For example, is it necessary to note the residence street and city of the women, at least one of whom is still living? No question that the case and the article are notable, and I think it is appropriate for the encyclopedia, but can use improvement. Thanks for any help. Geoff | Who, me? 15:42, 4 October 2022 (UTC)
Until 2009 the case was treated by police as a missing person's case, but in that year police re-opened the investigation after his employers became suspicious, and suspicion immediately fell on his wife Shirley Banfield and daughter Lynette Banfield.– BBC says
In 2009 police re-opened their investigation and suspicion immediately fell on his wife Shirley, 64, and daughter Lynette, 40.(And less egregiously, the Guardian says
Until 2009, police treated him as a missing person [...] The investigation was reopened after his former employer, William Hill, became suspicious.
After 11 May Shirley and Lynette had then forged documents with his signature on, had fraudulently collected his pension, and had suddenly moved 200 miles away to Yorkshire and then to Kent.(BBC:
They found the pair had forged documents with his signature, fraudulently collected his pension and immediately moved house following his disappearance, first to Yorkshire and then to Canterbury in Kent.)
his post was then intercepted and he found a stash of letters addressed to him hidden behind the sofa, including cheques from William Hill. Nothing like this ever happened before he retired.(Judge's ruling says:
His post was intercepted and he found a stash of letters addressed to him behind the sofa including cheques from William Hill. Nothing like this happened prior to his retirement.)
Los Angeles Lakers (2022-present) 2022-23 season On October 11, 2022, Irving was traded to the Los Angeles Lakers.
This subtext in the "National Team Career" section is incorrect, and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.97.110.248 ( talk)
I have a COI because I work for ADL, but this edit is a blatant NPOV & BLP violation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Jonathan_Greenblatt&diff=1115520761&oldid=1108395446&diffmode=source
can someone please take a look at this?
OceanicFeeling123 (
talk) 17:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Category:American election deniers currently contains eleven biographical articles and one about a protest movement. My concern is that many of the biographies have the category included without it being verified in the body or a defining characteristic of the person. For example, Barbara Boxer was recently added to the category by Toa Nidhiki05, though the body of the article does not call her a denier. Do articles, and the sources they cite, need to be explicit in using the term "election denier"? If not, how do we determine who belongs in the category? Local consensus could be the way, but I'd prefer to see some consistency when it comes to this contentious label applied to biographies.
The biographical articles in question:
Firefangledfeathers ( talk / contribs) 15:25, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Nobody belongs in the category. Wikipedia is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, not a database of people we don't like. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 16:05, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
"Soldier F" is the pseudonym of a soldier believed to be responsible for the killing of several people in the events of Bloody Sunday (1972). He is the subject of an injunction in the UK preventing publishing of his name. He is also the subject of an ongoing trial, set for mention in November and with a committal hearing set to take place in Northern Ireland, beginning in January 2023. Soldier F has been named in the UK House of Commons and his name was published in Hansard. It is also well known on the streets of Derry. There is currently an RfC taking place on whether he should be named in the article, taking place here.
However, since the RfC started, Soldier F's name has been removed from the article Village (magazine), where it had previously been published; Village magazine, an Irish publication, had published the identities of Soldier F and (the late) Soldier G, and this was covered in the article. Discussion on inclusion/removal taking place on that article is taking place here.
The nub of the issue is whether or not WP:BLPNAME applies. It has been suggested that it would be more appropriate to have the discussion centrally, here, as it would cover both articles. I'll post a notice on both of the mentioned sections, directing people here. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:16, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
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.has the most weight. Despite the name being known, and currently citable to both of the parliamentarians, there are as far as I can tell no secondary scholarly sources who have published Soldier F's name. Hansard, while generally accurate, is a primary source. It is a transcription of what was said in the UK Parliament, as such it does not count towards this sentence. Accordingly by a strict reading, and in lack of non-media secondary sources, I believe BLPNAME applies. That Wikipedia is not subject to UK injunctions is immaterial to this discussion.
Some organizations' rules or traditions call for secrecy with regard to certain information about them. Such restrictions do not apply to Wikipedia, because Wikipedia is not a member of those organizations; thus, Wikipedia will not remove such information from articles if it is otherwise encyclopedic.it might seem obvious that NOTCENSORED applies. And I think in the case of Soldier G, who was reportedly killed in February 1986 ( Irish News), NOTCENSORED would apply.
Although a UK injunction (apparently) exists, there is ample precedent for identifying people or issues in WP articles, despite the existence of such orders: the article on
Gylfi Sigurðsson mentions his arrest for child sex offences, despite that information being suppressed in the UK. During the superinjunctions affair, we were pretty firm that as soon as one reliable source not subject to a court injunction mentioned suppressed information — like the Sunday Herald was in the case of
Ryan Giggs — then inclusion on Wikipedia was permissible. The Pell and Sigurðsson cases indicates that this precedent still applies. It is my contention that
WP:BLPNAME does not apply. First, it is not a blanket ban on identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event
. That policy merely states it is often preferable to omit it
(my emphasis). Soldier F was central to events of Bloody Sunday, is subject to an ongoing trial (and not for a crime that merits suppression of the accused's name, lest it identify a victim), and was not a "private individual" during the events of Bloody Sunday - as has been determined by public inquiry, he was acting under orders as a member of the armed forces at the time. Fundamentally, though, we would not be having this discussion in the absence of a court injunction; his name would have been more widely reported, and it would have been included in the article as a matter of course. We have reliable sources naming him - both Hansard and the Dáil record, as well as Village Magazine.
Bastun
Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:07, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
that person being proved under law to be that person, is accurate when it comes to Northern Irish law. In order for an injunction to be granted, the link between Soldier F and the name recorded in Hansard was already proven under law. What the injunction prevents is the publication of that link. As far as I'm aware, Soldier F's name has been known in a legal sense since the Widgery Inquiry in 1972.
the manner and the thoroughness that Soldier F's representatives have in trying to scrub any mention of his name from the internet and sending scare letters to news outlets so they don't print the nameThat is standard practice in UK law, both when an injunction has been sought to prevent publication of a piece of information, an whend a case is subject to reporting restrictions. The only stronger level of restrictions when it comes to reporting in the UK would be if there was a super-injunction, however because of how those work, we would never know about it.
The Saville Inquiry concluded that 'Soldier F' shot Kellyhas no significant loss of context whether we say Solider F, or the name recorded in Hansard.
Well that's a lot of text to wake up to, below. There is a lot above, that is surprising (ANI or ARE and a topic ban on BLPs for proposing a view (that nobody here has proposed)? Really?!) and a lot below that just isn't relevant - naming victims of crimes, WP:DEADNAME, and more. WP:BLPCRIME is, as Sidesipe9th mentions, an odd one as Soldier F has already been implicated in unlawful killings by Savile. In almost any other context, then, their name would already be in the public domain (well - more than it already is). I would certainly argue that given the voluminous coverage of "Soldier F", then Soldier F is a public figure - even if his actual identity has been concealed by court order. BLPCRIME does not apply. What we do have is coverage in Hansard, the Dáil record, and Village Magazine. If one contends that Hansard and the record of the Dáil are primary sources, then look at what WP:PRIMARY actually says:
Policy: Unless restricted by another policy,
So no - we are not precluded from using Hansard or the Dáil record. Meaning we have three reliable sources for Soldier F's name. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:02, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth... (snip) Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.(My emphasis added). It is absolutely fine to use Hansard and Dáil record in this instance, especially as multiple reliable secondary sources reported on the issue on both occasions: see here and here. Bastun Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:43, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
I've spent a lot of time on this (mostly from my last comment which means sorry I have not read followups) when I have other things I need to do and also I want to avoid bludgeoning this discussion so might leave it with one final long comment. Since it's long even for me, I'll put it in a separate subsection so it's easier for others to ignore it etc and it doesn't crowd out other discussions. The TL;DR version is that looking at various cases, I'm not convinced the is such clear consensus as other editors seem to be suggestion above that once a single source has given the name, we do as well. I also reject the suggestion it's automatically fine to annotate something widely reported with details barely reported, IMO no matter why editors think the details are barely report. Finally while we are WP:NOTCENSORED it's very problematic IMO to say that this means we should ignore what sources are doing because we've decided they're just practicing censorship and we need to counter that.
George Pell seems a poor example of this since from my memory there were a large number of reputable sources which mentioned his later overturned conviction when it happened, indeed our article has comments from the Washington Post and I'm fairly sure they were far from the only one, and looking into the history found [28] which also seems to support this view. A look at that also shows another interesting point, while there was some initial pretrial coverage it stopped in about May 2018 when suppression orders were put in place. While it's a minor thing, AFAICS, we did not report any details about the ongoing trial not even that it was ongoing. While it's not worth me looking in to, I suspect you could have found at least on reliable secondary source which did report this. Yet it's also seems true most international media decided to respect the suppression even if they likely did not have to. It was only after the conviction that the dam broke, [29]. Also Pell was a highly notable individual so we already had an article on them specifically.
Sigurðsson seems a better example, personally I'm not convinced we should be reporting it if we only have that single source although I have not looked whether they may be more and do not feel it is worth me fighting it even if it is only that one source. In any case, Sigurðsson is also a somewhat notable individual and to some extent I'm guessing it's a tricky situation since he has disappeared from his career.
With Murder of Grace Millane, AFAIK we did not report the murderer's name until after the suppression order was lifted despite some non NZ media including The Independent doing so [30]+ [31], see Talk:Murder of Grace Millane#Name Supression RFC. Note that while the murderer was and is not notable (some minor involvement in softball) and while the murder and trial received a lot of attention in NZ and to a lesser extent in the UK, I don't think you could claim he was a public figure so WP:BLPCRIME did apply before his conviction, this clearly changed after yet the suppression order continued for over a year afterwards. As I think most people experienced with NZ law guessed (I implied as much on the talk page), and somewhat similar to the Pell case, the main reason for the continued suppression appears to have been because of some other charges which had not been resolved. (The murderer also wanted suppression while his appeals were considered but the Supreme Court rejected this.) Since this person had not been talked about for a long time, the case has differences from soldier F, still I personally feel it is the most similar. Somewhat related to Pell, my memory is that the number of sources naming the murderer increased and were better sources after conviction.
Christian Porter is another interesting case albeit one with little we can learn from what actually happened. While there was a lot of speculation, see for example Talk:Christian Porter#Multiple edits, which must relate to the 1988 rape allegation about a member of the current Cabinet and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive325#Christian Porter, member of Australian Cabinet, AFAIK, he was never named anywhere prior to him outing himself fairly early on effectively meaning it never became an issue. However I'm not convinced one or two minor sources would have guaranteed inclusion.
Then there is the Huddersfield grooming gang trial. I suspect if you look around at sources especially after Tommy Robinson (activist)#2018 imprisonment as that received a lot of attention especially from some US sources and while most of these were not reliable, I suspect some may have been considered so especially at the time. (I'm not going to hunt for details or what was available.) Yet the article only came after the convictions [32] and Robinson's article was also sparse on details [33] compared to what I suspect was available. In included this last because while it did involve injunctions and suppression, it wasn't significantly about names. Which does mean in that case, most of the people were and I think remain fairly unknown and aren't named in our article even now. And some of the details Robison tried to make a deal of, BLP was only of minor concern. Also like with the Grace Millane murder, it was only a short term thing compared to soldier F. So a lot of differences although IMO enough that it's not irrelevant either.
Approaching from a different direction, I think we have to remember that us annotating something widely report with additional info not widely reported always need be done with significant care. There are alot of cases where someone has used parliamentary privilege in a way that has been widely reported, just to use a few examples [34], [35]/ [36], [37]/ [38], [39]/ [40], [41]/(partial) [42]/(again partial) [43], [44], [45], [46]. Again I'm not going to hunt all the details of each of these many cases, I'm sure there are many more than here. But I suspect if you do, you'd find some of them are too insiginificant so we do not report them at all. Some of them we do report but only in the context of person A made controversial remarks in parliament about whatever, without giving many details especially not the names of the other people involved. In some cases we do (or did since the situation may have changed anyway) I'm sure report such details. And while this doesn't mean we always made the right decision (same too with any of the examples earlier), I'm sure we sometimes did even in cases where we continued to not name other people or other details.
The details also vary, in some cases there was no existing adverse finding so defamation may have been the main concern and so for us BLPCRIME etc although an interesting point is that in number but far from all cases I highlighted, the people named were notable and likely public figures. in some cases it was suppression or an injuction, like here. In some cases the may have been an ongoing trial but no existing finding against anyone so again BLPCRIME etc. In some cases like here, there may have been some finding, arguably in some cases and even stronger finding than here against someone i.e a successful court case against someone.
It's true that in nearly all of the cases I highlighted, we probably did not mention anything particularly related to whatever was said in parliament before that happened; which is different from soldier F. But I think there's at least once case there where this does not apply and likely more examples where this was not the case if you look hard enough and I fairly doubt in all cases we report all 'significant' details said in parliament (especially names etc) if these details were not widely reported elsewhere. Point being, ultimately I'm far from convinced our response was or should be that once the person is named in parliament, we should too just because a single non primary reliable source has repeated the name. (As said before, I remain convinced we should never do so if it's only in primary sources but even if you still don't accept that, these examples seem to illustrate why that's a problem.)
This applies to other details others feel are super important too. I'm not saying we always need multiple sources, but we do need to consider carefully per WP:UNDUE etc that sources have chosen not to and we should avoid. Notably, whatever our personal feelings on WP:NOTCENSORED, I think we need to take great care with speculating that sources are just practicing censorship for legal reasons so we need to ignore their decisions. There is often going to be some mix of legal reasons, editorial judgement etc; e.g. when we consider how sources seem more willing to respect foreign suppression prior to conviction.
I'd note that there are definitely people who say 'censorship' over media not naming victims or alleged victims of sexual abuse who haven't chosen to be named. And in a number of countries this is something limited by law. But in others especially in the US it's not and nowadays media often make clear they won't name regardless. If it's high profile enough it's often not hard to find source which are probably enough to comply with BLP which don't agree. WP:BLPPRIVACY generally applies here although in rare cases the person may be notable anyway. I'm hoping that everyone in this discussion agrees that in most cases we should follow the sources and if most have suppressed this information, legal reasons or not, we should too.
Getting back to something I said earlier, people say the same crap about real names especially of those involved in adult entertainment or sex workers and then try to use trademark documents, court documents, musical scores etc as sources. And for good reason, we have it enshrined into policy we not mention WP:DEADNAMEs of transgender or non-binary persons if they weren't notable prior to transition whatever sources people may find and as much as they may yell 'censorship'. Or birth dates etc, especially birth year controversies. While primary sources tend to be complex here since a lot of the time, there's a fair amount of WP:OR to say it's the same person but not always and I think policy is clear when it comes to BLPs for most primary sources it does not matter whether you need to OR. (Actually to be blunt, if you spend enough time on BLPN, you'll find there's basically nothing that BLP requires or strongly suggests that doesn't result in someone saying CENSORSHIP!)
Nil Einne ( talk) 06:03, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
An IP ( 82.20.254.54 ( talk · contribs · WHOIS)) has over the last few months continually inserted and reinserted potentially libellous accusation in Calvin Robinson. (Eg. [47]). The issue has been brought up at the IP's talk page and the article's talk page. As I explained there, the current sources support the current rather hedged wording of the article, and may in fact support a wider wording. Thus, I In any case the IP has been thoroughly warned and has refused to engage. The article has also been vandalised by Dwayne Dibley 3rd ( talk · contribs). Thanks for your help, I really don't know what else to do now. Jtrrs0 ( talk) 10:52, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
This profile violates biographies of living persons policy, most of the sources are tabloid journalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Apanatura ( talk • contribs) 00:26, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
On the talk page for Roger Waters, there are various editors, specifically Te og kaker, who are trying to minimize the allegations of antisemitism, by suggesting they be reduced to a sentence as part of the BDS political activity. They are attempting to decide what constitutes hate speech, invalidate the experiences and conclusions of actual Jewish groups, and reduce everything to Israel. Other users are removing examples by claiming the source (facebook) is not allowed, when the reference is a video recording of Roger Waters. Calling groups such as the ADL or Simon Weisenthal Center as radical groups.
Is this the example Wikipedia wants to adopt? Will white supremecists have their hate speech or racism relegated to political opinions? Are a racist's own words not a valid source? Is it acceptable for someone to dicate to a minority what should and shouldn't offend them?
I am bringing this to Wiki's attention because I know what can happen.... the page can succomb to edit wars dealing with Israel and by the end, just like the Te og kaker wants for the page, "I can't see that this is important enough to warrant more than a sentence in the section about his BDS activism," In reality, there isn't any need for a PR firm to whitewash his page and improve his image, unfortunately there seems to be no shortage of editors with their own agendas who are ready to do the work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9001:3F00:BE42:D4FB:9AC6:D874:1219 ( talk) 00:05, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
I removed an op-ed written by Waters from the laundry list of examples of his anti-semitism because I thought it was UNDUE and OR (analysis) without secondary RS commenting on it. [48] @ Andrevan:, why did you reinstate it without addressing the need for secondary sourcing or gaining consensus? This isn't a WP:SKYISBLUE situation. Morbidthoughts ( talk) 16:57, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
As this is related to Waters' pro-Palestinian activism, I'm guessing that there wouldn't be much disagreement that it falls within the area covered by WP:ARBPIA. In the WP:ARBPIA area there is a restriction on participation by non-extended confirmed accounts, of which the account raising this notice is one: "However, non-extended-confirmed editors may not make edits to internal project discussions related to the topic area, even within the 'Talk:' namespace. Internal project discussions include, but are not limited to, AfDs, WikiProjects, RfCs, RMs, and noticeboard discussions." If this noticeboard comes under the classification "internal project discussion," IP accounts should not be raising notices about ARBPIA-related material here.
On ARBPIA-affected article talkpages, non-extended confirmed accounts may only leave "constructive" comments (about ARBPIA-related material at least), one way of measuring constructiveness being whether they are disruptive or not. Part of WP:BLP is that any content, including that on article talkpages, must be NPOV. On the Waters article talkpage, IP accounts have left some distinctly non-NPOV-looking remarks.
Waters is chiefly known as a musician. In the Waters article, there is a history of editors who are chiefly interested in Waters' career as a musician trying to stop editors opposed to Waters' stance on the Israel-Palestine conflict overwhelming it with material from pro-Israel organisations or individuals acussing Waters of antisemitism.
←
ZScarpia 09:47, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Horse Eye's Back is repeatedly calling a living person antisemitic ( Alice Walker) on the talk page, starting here ("Are you disputing whether or not Alice Walker is antisemitic? Thats not open for dispute, she is... Thats a basic fact we all have to work from.") doubling down here. Alice Walker certainly has been accused of promoting a book widely decried as antisemitic, but the sourcing for such a claim that Alice Walker is antisemitic simply does not meet the bar in stating that as a fact. Horse Eye's Back has both claimed that BLP prevents sources that say she is not antisemitic (eg this) are not usable, but also that the sourcing to call her an antisemite need not reach that same bar. This appears to be repeated BLP violations by a user who is game playing with the BLP policy. nableezy - 15:27, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Are you disputing whether or not Alice Walker is antisemitic? Thats not open for dispute, she isand
In the meantime I will say that Alice Walker is antisemiticis directly calling a living person a racist. nableezy - 15:47, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
“How Anti-Semitic is Alice Walker?” The New Yorker might have asked. The straightforward answer is very, very anti-Semitic.[51] (The Atlantic) Andre 🚐 03:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
An RFC has been opened on the content side of this, interested users welcome to participate in the talk page. The WP:BLPTALK offending content remains on the talk page though, and Id welcome administrative action to remove it. nableezy - 20:19, 12 October 2022 (UTC)
Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate.Emphasis mine, but that "and" is vital; to get something revdeled or an editor sanctioned for a talk (as opposed to article) violation, you have to successfully make the argument that it is both unsourced or poorly sourced and that it is not reasonably related to making content choices. Of course, sometimes one follows from the other (if it completely, glaringly obvious that the sourcing is insufficient and has no reasonable expectation of ever becoming sufficient, then it can't be reasonably be related to content choices), but it is acceptable for someone to say, on talk, eg. "a lot of coverage is saying that this person just made an antisemitic remark. Can we find enough high-quality sources to support that in the article?", without providing any sources themselves, provided the coverage actually exists to the point where it's reasonable to WP:AGF that they believe it can be properly-cited in the article with a bit of work. -- Aquillion ( talk) 13:50, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
I am extremely disturbed by this edit by @ Iskandar323, which includes the line "In 2009 Michael Lerner, an anti-Zionist rabbi who invited her to speak to his congregation on Yom Kippur, found her "claims about human rights abuses by Israel" offensive and apologized for inviting her." This is an total misrepresentation of the source and should be immediately removed. Lerner in fact writes that "Ms. Walker's claims about human rights abuses by Israel are largely substantiated by independent investigations" but "I was particularly disturbed that Alice Walker's presentation was so unconvincing and missed the opportunity to speak to our hearts, in large part because it felt contaminated by anger and a lack of compassion for the Jewish people and for Israelis. I believe that such compassion must be part of our critique. For that reason, I now regret having had Alice Walker as a speaker. I personally experienced some of her remarks as offensive to me and her manner of talking to us dismissive and put-downish and her perception of the Jewish people seemed largely ignorant of the tradition of Jews that we represent and that has been growing worldwide. So I want to apologize to our community for subjecting you to this talk." and "[T]hose sins, while amazingly absent from the Jewish media and the public discourse inside the Jewish community, are increasingly obvious to most other people on the planet, and are generating anger toward Jews that will last for generations and place Jews in grave danger in the 21st century. We ignore them at our peril. So this is why I was so disappointed at Alice Walker's presentation--because the way she presented had the opposite effect of waht I had hoped for and expected. Instead of speaking to our hearts and opening us to consider the ways we need atonement, Ms. Walker's talk actually closed the ears and hearts of many of our congregants and made it less likely that we would be able to engage in the teshuva that is really necessary and urgent for our people. I base this on the reactions of congregants both during and after the talk that they conveyed to me. For that, I wish to apologize to Beyt Tikkun."
The same user has on the same page summarized the cited source (WaPo)'s "The poem repeats a slew of anti-Semitic tropes" as "The poem was criticized as using tropes and arguments frequently used by anti-semites". GordonGlottal ( talk) 20:30, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
Hi,
I've just edited the article of John Ware (journalist). /info/en/?search=John_Ware_(TV_journalist)
He's a veteran investigative journalist in the UK. He's worked on quite a few topics that are polarising, the most recent being about Jeremy Corbyn, the former leader of the Labour Party, and anti-semitism in the Labour Party. As a result, he has attracted a lot of vitriolic, inaccurate and sometimes anti-semitic attention by those that disliked his reporting, often it seems because they disliked the consequences that occurred after his reporting (airing of uncomfortable information) and generally seek to unfairly blame him for things that happened to their causes. This isn't the only difficult subject he has reported on, including about islamism and the IRA.
The whole article's tone was very dismissive of Ware and focused on criticism, which was often reported inaccurately and one-sided, in what seemed to be about character assassination, and overlooked his extensive achievements or work on other topics.
I'm not currently reporting an issue, but I am sure that there will be users who will soon notice the edits I have made and seek to reverse them. There is currently a twitter campaign, and wider, to try and attack Ware, where disinformation is the warfare. Ware has successively taken libel action in the UK against various individuals and groups on the topic of the Labour Party and antisemitism, with another soon to be concluding, but which are the focus of most of this issue. One of those articles that had been the focus of one of the libels had in fact been sourced on the wiki article at one point, as stated truth. When the moderators previously removed some contentious links, worried about libel and bias on this same matter, they unfortunately had not realised that this particular link was another such issue and at the heart of a live case.
Please can the moderators keep an eye on this article and if this does arise in the future, seek to remedy it swiftly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by W987654321 ( talk • contribs) 23:21, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
Hasan Minhaj ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is this really an appropriate reason to change a lead image? Not sure if it really matters myself. Aza24 (talk) 21:50, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
By coincidence, I noticed a similar request recently by another BLP subject, Dasha Nekrasova: "Can any of you people put a hotter pic of me on wikipedia……". Some people tried to change it (see page history), and she posted some images of herself on Twitter she suggested she wanted it changed to. I don't think that really counts as releasing the image under a free license, and I'm not sure if there's much we can do to accommodate BLP subjects requests in these cases if there aren't any good freely licensed alternatives available. Endwise ( talk) 05:04, 16 October 2022 (UTC)
I was looking to create a redirect to a target where the page that existed was previously G10'd. I am unclear if the content of the page was a redirect, or if so if it was a redirect to the same target. I want to proceed with caution as I have no desire to have a BLP violation but I do think the redirect could be helpful. The title in question is Idiot kicker. I will not mention where I want to target unless I am cleared to make the redirect (there is a citation for this; it's not my personal opinion that said person is this; however, they have been referred to as such notably). Tartar Torte 12:47, 18 October 2022 (UTC)
Are the sources provided at this edit enough to verify the subject's status as trans? If not, what else can be done to fix this article? 8.37.179.254 ( talk) 20:56, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Article seems to have a long history of COI editing (I mean straight-up fluffing and spamming), but I wonder about those allegations--"Controversies". What happened with the lawsuit? Is this still OK to keep in the article? One COI edit suggested it was settled, but of course it whitewashed the text, removed the sources, and provided no evidence. Your assistance, from all you political editors and Northeasterners, is appreciated. Drmies ( talk) 22:25, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
In the article ZeniMax Media, subsection Zenimax Media#Early history, SBS investment, Providence investment, there is an inflammatory statement about a living person, Christopher Weaver, based entirely on an original court document, directly contrary to WP:BLPPRIMARY. It reads:
The suit was dismissed, with the court sanctioning Weaver, and finding that Weaver "acted willfully, wrongfully, and in bad faith."[Source redacted]
Obviously, it should be removed. I have a conflict of interest, though, because I have a personal connection to Weaver. So I am requesting that independent editors review this request.
There is a remaining question as to whether the lawsuit, the allegations and its eventual settlement, which was covered in one press account [57] should be in this article at all. (Weaver’s lawsuit for improper dismissal is mentioned in the previous sentence.)
This supporting source, from The Escapist (magazine), is older than the Polygon (website) source, so does not mention the settlement out of court [58], but Polygon does. (FYI, The Escapist may not be a reliable source since it is created by industry insiders rather than journalists. See About.
Relevant to this discussion is that The Escapist and Polygon make a general reference to Zenimax’s allegation in a countersuit that Weaver improperly accessed company emails to bolster his allegations of Zenimax’s wrongdoing. But the lower court decision finding Weaver behaved improperly was overturned in its entirety, with the higher court determining that the lower court’s findings were an open question of fact that should be determined in a trial, not by summary judgment. Weaver vehemently denied that it was improper for him to access company emails while he was the Chief Technology Officer of the company and its largest stakeholder, even if he was contemplating litigation. [Source redacted]
Given the personally damaging nature of the accusations about improper access to emails and the higher court throwing out the lower court’s findings to this effect, even if the case and the settlement are included in the Zenimax article, I think it is questionable as to whether there should be any mention of the unproven and disputed allegations against Weaver. While Weaver was certainly never charged with a crime (and the strong evidence indicates there was none) Zenimax’s allegations are nevertheless tantamount to an allegation of criminal conduct. Thus, I think Wikipedia:BLPCRIME is relevant.
I also think getting into this level of detail about the allegations of improper dismissal and counter-allegations about a person’s alleged behavior is WP:COATRACKING and excessive - if not for the whole case, then at least as to the heavily disputed email allegations. Otherwise, these allegations against a living person need to be disputed with the use of a primary source, a highly complex appellate legal decision. [Source redacted]. Use of primary legal documents in anything involving a person is heavily discouraged WP:BLPPRIMARY but to refute a near-criminal allegation, an exception would need to be made. For these reasons, omitting the personal attacks is a better course. 38.140.161.59 ( talk) 16:26, 19 October 2022 (UTC)
Cordyceps-Zombie has been calling editors sexist and racist on the Suella Braverman article for using the article subject's most recognisable and widely-accepted name (even by herself) ( Diff, diff, diff). The user has also been unilaterally this high-profile pages without prior talk page consensus ( diff, diff). Even as I write this, there are more incidents coming up.
Clearly a poor attempt at trolling by someone who is not here to build an encyclopedia on a high-profile BLP. Given the situation at the moment, there will likely be a spate of vandalism relating to British politicians BLPs. -- QueenofBithynia ( talk) 19:54, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
Vladislav Doronin ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'd appreciate some input from this group about recent edits to Vladislav Doronin's article. There appears to be one editor with an almost obsessive interest in the subject, and a pattern of suspicious editing, who adds inappropriate and unencyclopedic content to the article. As someone who hasn't experienced this before, any guidance and insight would be appreciated. Thank you CharlotteAman ( talk) 10:18, 11 October 2022 (UTC)
Please take a look at this draft article about a professor created yesterday. The original version was mostly about his arrest. The current version has more about him professionally but still has a section devoted to details of the misdemeanor charge. Without a conviction this seems inappropriate for a professor who is not a public figure. StarryGrandma ( talk) 18:53, 20 October 2022 (UTC)
User:Arifer sock Magnatyrannus ( talk | contribs) 02:30, 22 October 2022 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I revised the BLP on Gregg L. Semenza today by adding the new section "Retractions". My effort was motivated by a recent Nature article stating that Semenza's coauthored work that has attracted public scrutiny due to concerns regarding the validity of the data. The article claims that 17 papers by the subject have been retracted or corrected or elicited expressions of concern, and another 15 papers are currently under close scrutiny. It is unclear whether this may be construed as a misconduct pattern or just sloppiness in the lab. I suppose the article may be regarded as a secondary source and therefore worth incorporated in WP given the importance of the matter. Since the subject is a famous living person, abundance of caution becomes mandatory and accordingly, I would like to invite fellow editors to intervene and review or revise the material I have inserted. IneqsBell ( talk) 23:55, 21 October 2022 (UTC)
|
Talk:Kiwi Farms was set to perma semi-protection, then was changed to time-expiry extended-confirmed due to a single troll; when it expired, it reverted to no protection, but should be set back to perma semi-protection to avoid persistent vandalism. Lizthegrey ( talk) 20:00, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
I'd appreciate an extra pair of eyes here. Someone has been adding information about one of the outlet's contributor, who had an award retracted after allegations were raised about anti-Semitism and pro-Nazism writings. While that part of the information seem verified, I fear the way it's being added violates our WP:BLP policies (specially as it's been written in WP:WIKIVOICE), and it might be WP:UNDUE, as it isn't directly related to the outlet itself. My attempts at explaining that to the editor didn't work. Isabelle Belato 🏳🌈 20:16, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
With a subscription to Ancestry.com, anybody can find out when they were really born. Joanna was born on October 20, 1936, [59] Lucy on May 5, 1940, [60] and Carly on June 25, 1943. [61] Those are the facts. Check the 1950 census and the facts line up. [62]
Two prior discussions (one at this noticeboard) proved fruitless, with hardly any users engaging. I ask that more users provide input. Lots of secondary sources report Carly's birth year truthfully. Fewer for Joanna and Lucy cause they're not as famous.
It's been said that birth and census records are not allowed in a BLP. But the article for Lee Grant includes an Ancestry link to the same publicly accessible birth index the Simons are listed in. And the Barbara Walters article cites a book which names the U.S. Census Bureau as its source for the claim that Walters was born in the 1920s.
If the birthdate is ascertainible then why do we have to also list the debunked birthdates that have previously been published? Some of you may remember that Madonna used to claim 1960, early in her career, and several almanacs and articles from the eighties shaved two years off her birthdate. But only 1958 is listed on Wikipedia....because there can only be one accurate year regardless of how many have been published in the past. Ysovain ( talk) 01:10, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
@
Ysovain: I did not respond to your earlier question because I felt it had already been answered. You do not need 10 people to tell you that policy does not allow Ancestry to be used in that way per
WP:BLPPRIMARY and
WP:BLPPRIVACY, that's simply not how Wikipedia works. indeedIndeed, your editing career here is likely to be short if you keep demanding 10 people tell you the same thing per
WP:IDONTHEARTHAT. You need to accept our policies and guidelines especially BLP or stop editing here. From you description of the sourcing, from Wikipedia's POV, this discrepancy is not resolvable despite what you keep saying. If other sources did not care to resolve it, we don't either.
As for the other stuff, well, about
Lee Grant
Barbara Walters, it's perfectly fine for reliable secondary sources to use primary sources to ascertain the date. That's the whole point of reliable secondary sources, we trust them to adequately assess primary and other sources for accuracy, as well as decide if the information is important enough to publish. About
Barbara Walters
Lee Grant, there seem to be a lot of sources including some secondary and tertiary ones for the year. I'm not sure how the specific year was decided, but I'm not convinced it was from deciding Ancestry or the other primary sources are is the be all sources. If it was, then this was a mistake put per
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, it does not mean we should repeat that mistake elsewhere. Edit: Personally I would much rather we didn't include most of those primary sources in Grant at all but with so many other sources it's a fairly minor thing IMO.
Nil Einne ( talk) 04:09, 6 October 2022 (UTC) 04:35, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
I think a block or ban is necessary at this point. [66] Ysovain appears unable to differentiate reliable from unreliable sources or work with other editors following policy.
I'm unclear why the ref (Jack Harkrider (April 27, 1963).
"Smothers Brothers Visit 'Hootenanny'". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. The Simon Sisters, Lucy and Carly, making their television debut, will sing "Winken, Blinken, and Nod."
) has been removed. I've gone ahead and removed it further
[67]
[68], until we can sort out the content policy issues around it.
I'm not seeing any article talk page discussions at all. @ 4meter4: could you explain the problems with using the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reference above? -- Hipal ( talk) 17:11, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
Carly Simon's date of birth is 1945, according to Massachusetts voter records. I also seem to remember reading somewhere that Carly was 17 when she first heard the Beatles, so her date of birth has to be 1945 as The Beatles did not put out their first record until 1962. (
2601:C6:8480:1F10:B8FA:5E82:ECBB:C731 (
talk) 16:40, 17 October 2022 (UTC))
I don't understand why we can't use ancestry as a source. There is a document published there with the birth being reported on 25 June 1943. That seems as the most reliable source to me. DrKilleMoff ( talk) 21:03, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
The 1974 book entitled Carly Simon by Charles and Ann Morse noted, "Because Joanna was 6 years older than Carly, the two never had to compete. Carly enjoyed her brother Peter. But Lucy, only 3 years older, was someone Carly wanted to copy." This is congruent with births in October 1936 for Joanna, May 1940 for Lucy, and June 1943 for Carly.-- Samp4ngeles ( talk) 13:19, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
The 2012 book Hearts of Darkness: James Taylor, Jackson Browne, Cat Stevens, and the Unlikely Rise of the Singer-Songwriter quotes James Taylor as saying, "I thought [Carly Simon] was quite attractive, but she was, and still is, four years older than I was, so back then when she was eighteen and I was fourteen, she was a bit less approachable than she was when I was twenty-four." This is congruent with births in June 1943 for Carly Simon and March 1948 for James Taylor.-- Samp4ngeles ( talk) 13:27, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Pierre Dadak ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Sure, they're no angel, but this page seems to be functioning as little more than an exposè of the subject, and seems to be pretty close to an attack page. It details content without immediate relevance to the subject (male rape in the Sudanese Civil War), and seems to be based heavily on a single source. It also seems to add labels to them which aren't appropriate. The whole thing is a bigger mess than I feel like cleaning up at the moment. Mako001 (C) (T) 🇺🇦 01:43, 23 October 2022 (UTC)
Hafsia Herzi ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
A single purpose-account on a mission has readded again excessively long imbalanced information in a biography of a living person. Some of the information he added is outright false and defamatory. Among other things, the editor claims that the actress in question was long known as an Arab-hater. This is an extremely harmful accusation which is NOT backed by the French-language source provided. I already pointed this out when I previously removed the material, even linking to the Wikipedia guidelines in question. The BLP template has also been in display on the talk page for quite some time, not that it made any difference. Note that this single-purpose account first added the highly contentious material 3 years ago. After I removed it some weeks ago he suddenly makes a reappearance after 3 years (!) starting an edit-war about the material and not caring for any other subject. This appears to be a person with a very personal interest in the matter of question. It's also likely the editor is identical with this IP sockpuppet.
I've made a notice of this incident very early in this case because Hafsia Herzi's Wikipedia article has been viciously assailed by trolls in the past who inserted other defamatory material falsely claiming that she was a pornographic actress or falsely asserting that she had performed unsimulated sex on screen. In the page history you can see that some of these harmful claims stood uncorrected for months. This is why I think that this BLP page is in dire need of semi-protection and the single-purpose account should not be allowed to carry on like that. Lizavers ( talk) 20:40, 23 October 2022 (UTC)