![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I recently added the following extra example to the public figures section, because in my opinion the section does not properly cover this particular edge case right now:
Example: A celebrity is charged with and convicted of a crime. If the incident is not well-documented in third-party reliable sources (i.e. not just court documents), leave it out. If it is well-documented in reliable sources, directly state that the celebrity committed the crime. Words that imply doubt like "alleged" and "accused of" should be used if and only if that doubt is also present in the post-conviction sourcing.
Masem immediately reverted it, with the edit summary Bad example; we must always stay on the side of presumed innocent until guilty
. But I think this reversion makes no sense: the phrase is "presumed innocent until proven guilty", and "proven guilty" in this context literally refers to a criminal conviction. So if anything, this edit summary argues for my example rather than against it.
I don't want to edit war over this, however, so I'm coming to the talk page to hopefully demonstrate consensus is not behind this reversion. Loki ( talk) 17:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
charged with, it's redundant. Schazjmd (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
well-documented, which is not really relevant to this proposal. Arguing that something lacks WP:SUSTAINED coverage, for instance (the policy / source-based way to make the argument you are making with regards to something lacking lasting impact), is an argument that it is insufficiently well-documented. But I would strenuously oppose any argument that we can exclude text without regard for whether it is well-documented or not - the arguments you are raising are just different thresholds and aspects of that. If you're worried this proposal would cause problems, it could say "well-documented and WP:DUE", which would implicitly incorporate every aspect of DUE - I think that it's unnecessary but I also definitely don't think it would hurt, and it never hurts to make "this does not override core content policy" unambiguous, since I feel we've had problems in that regard with overly strongly-worded policies and guidelines in the past. -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
if and only if that doubt is also present in the post-conviction sourcing. Loki ( talk) 21:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
well-documented and WP:DUErather than just well-documented; I think they're equivalent (or implicit), but DUEness is much more well-defined and makes it clear what sort of arguments ought to be used for exclusion. -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure this has been discussed and decided but I can't find it. Anyone know where a guideline/discussion exists around when to add the title "sir" in front of someone's name? Carl A. Anderson is an example where there's a "sir" that doesn't look right to me. Elton John is another example (that looks right). Novellasyes ( talk) 15:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME says that, for low profile individuals, we should not include material "that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." At Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual defines low profile individual as "someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event."
I'm confused, because in many (if not most) articles on recent crimes, we have a situation where police have accused a low-profile individual of committing the crime, and this accusation has been covered by multiple RS. Consider the 2021 London, Ontario truck attack: the alleged perpetrator (Nathaniel Veltman) has not been convicted and is not a public figure, but his arrest and trial are mentioned in the article. And this seems like relevant information. As long as we clearly attribute allegations, and cover them in a neutral way, why should articles - that are actually about a crime - not mention who the police have charged and arrested with committing that crime? VR talk 22:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Wikipedia:DENIALS and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 13#Wikipedia:DENIALS until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Sideswipe9th (
talk)
22:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, I did some research regarding the "denial sentence". Here's what I found.... but I'll say up front this strikes me as FYI/background info. Bottom line? We have never had a discussion about how we should deal with denials.
Adding to the sentence history: one "Oct 2020" revert was by PackMecEng, Politrukki on 5 October 2022 reverted more but Newimpartial on 6 October 2022 re-inserted. I do not see that there was consensus for the added clause. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 16:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
"An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted."If silent consensus is your only argument, I'm afraid it's not enough. Core policies should never be substantially changed without clear and unambiguous consensus. What kind of problem are you trying to resolve here?I oppose the proposed addition per WP:CREEP. It's already established in the lead that BLP material must strictly adhere to NPOV. Any reasonable person understands that, for example, if we use 100 words to describe an allegation, a denial shouldn't take 500 words. So I don't understand what's the purpose of the proposal. Politrukki ( talk) 15:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I also agree the MANDY sentence fragment should be removed immediately. Per NewsAndEventsGuy's excellent analysis above, there was no consensus to move any content from that essay to this policy in the first place. Per
WP:TALKFIRST, all substantive changes to policy should achieve consensus before implementation. Even in cases of a user being
BOLD at a Policy or Guideline page, the editor who adds disputed content is "strongly encouraged to follow
WP:1RR or
WP:0RR standards
" once other editors "give a substantive reason for challenging [the addition]
". Either way, the onus is clearly on the editor seeking to alter a policy to achieve consensus before addition, so it needs to go until such consensus is achieved.
Homeostasis07 (
talk/
contributions)
22:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
while also adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance." still contains the inherent misrepresentation of WP:FALSEBALANCE given in the MANDY essay—the only bonafide policy the essay cites. The FALSEBALANCE subsection of NPOV relates solely to "
Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories" such as "
the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones", and how these "
should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." None of this in any way correlates to the BLP policy. This interpretation of FALSEBALANCE should never have been added to this policy at all, much less without prior consensus. Homeostasis07 ( talk/ contributions) 00:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
If someone has publicly denied an accusation, we should report that denial- if it is WP:DUE based on coverage in WP:RSes. WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV are more central policies than BLP, so even BLP cannot override them - we can strongly encourage the inclusion of denials, but we cannot mandate them in situations where their inclusion would violate WP:V, WP:RS or WP:DUE, which is how some people have (incorrectly) interpreted the relevant text. It's important to update them to make that clear - ultimately, inclusion is based on the sourcing and due weight; there is no policy of "it is a denial, so we must include it no matter what WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:DUE say." -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
while alsowith
provided this can be done while, since ultimately WP:DUE is central and is a hard prerequisite for including anything. -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.BLP is strict, but it is also deliberately constrained to well-defined rules, especially when covering public figures (who we often do have to cover extensive negative material about.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 19:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
If reliable sources report that the subject has denied such allegations, that should be reported too, provided this can be done while adhering to appropriate due weight and without giving them false balance.This makes it clear that WP:BLP is still subordinate to WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. -- Aquillion ( talk) 19:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
The principles upon which these policy statements are based are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.@ Masem: - this is extremely important, so please acknowledge that you understand, and accept, that core content policy supercedes WP:BLP (though in an ideal world they shouldn't contradict, of course.) The core content policies are non-negotiable, fullstop, since they define our fundamental mission as an encyclopedia; while BLP is important (and serves to underline several of them), it is not one of them. It is listed on that page merely as one of the "other" content policies, not one of the central, core ones. It is clearly established on that page that other policies, like BLP, it cannot override core content policy; and this has been policy and practice on Wikipedia almost since its inception. -- Aquillion ( talk) 19:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
not supersededas if it were a bedrock of Wikipedia; this lacks a policy basis. Wikipedia's actual treatment of policies is shown in WP:PG (policy, not essay). The lead is far less strident than you imply, and says
Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense.Your argument seems to be the main argument against inclusionism of denials, but lacks solid policy grounding. The inclusionist argument can rely on the WMF's dignity resolution, and IMO more. DFlhb ( talk) 21:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
If the accusation is due then the fact that they denied it is also dueeven if it can only be sourced to
a personal blog) with such transparency and candor. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
What is your basis in policy for We certainly can and should include that the Senator denied the accusation even if it only comes from his own press release
? For You seem to be thinking of labels such as "X is a violent activist". Where violent is a contentious label. Even in that case it may be important to include a denial
? Or for If the person denies it on their personal blog that is likely a sufficient source for that claim
? You haven't shown any basis in WP policy for these claims - they appear to represent only your personal beliefs on these matters. Sorry, that isn't how policy works
.
Newimpartial (
talk)
14:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
We already accept self-published sources by a subject of an article, so the argument that a denial needs to have secondary coverage seems based on nothing. Beyond that, Im a little concerned that people are opposed to including a denial of wrongdoing by a subject of one of our articles. If the sources are emphatic about the guilt notwithstanding the denial then that will be reflected, along with the denial. Also, these bit about implicit consensus is missing the important part. Once challenged, that implicit consensus vanishes, and unless it was ever an explicit consensus you cant just maintain the status quo as the standard from which a new explicit consensus must be formed to change. nableezy - 03:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too, while also adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance) since there is clearly at present no consensus for
If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported toowithout the rest of the sentence. Newimpartial ( talk) 05:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Who besides Newimpartial now thinks there is consensus for the addition?I've seen none so far. Re Aquillion's claim
WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV are more central policies than BLP, so even BLP cannot override themer, Aquillion's false belief that WP:RS is a policy convinces me that Aquillion's claims shouldn't be believed without checking. Re Aquillion's claim
WP:V and WP:NPOV are Wikipedia:Core content policies and strictly supersede BLP in any cases where they contradict.-- although this is irrelevant since there's no contradiction, I did check. WP:NPOV says "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." i.e. it's the principles that can't be superseded not the policy -- and if it was interpreted as "the policy cannot be superseded" then that would mean it can't be superseded by WP:NOR or WP:V which doesn't appear to be what's claimed. Re Springee's refutation of Aquillion: I agree with the example that a denial on a personal blog might be acceptable on the subject's BLP, and if that's a minority view then WP:BLP is a minority view. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 14:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
accept(the last of which I find completely impenetrable), you do have to accept that there is no consensus to restore the 2020 status quo version of the passage. WP:ONUS is not a license to pick a multi-year-old version of a policy page, boldly claim that no subsequent changes to a certain paragraph have consensus, and insist that said version of said paragraph be restored. If you want your version back, you need an RfC: otherwise the only options are the 2021-22 status quo or no paragraph at all, because your version of the text does not now have consensus as many editors have pointed out. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
pay attention to what one editor will or won't acceptin determining consensus (or in establishing what is or isn't stable content, for that matter). Newimpartial ( talk) 17:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
There are a lot of missing facts here. The addition of the "while also adhering" phrase is clearly disputed, and there was never any consensus for it. Per
WP:ONUS (policy), The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content
. The previous version was clearly the status quo:
"The wording in WP:PUBLICFIGURE is longstanding and has served us reasonably well thus far"), and was repeatedly scrutinized [11], with the denials sentence kept perfectly intact. It was also plainly treated as consensus (see WhatamIdoing's Jan 15th reply and Nomoskedasticity's June 8th reply for example).
Some argue that the only status quo versions are the disputed 2021-2022 addition, and the pre-2013 version. That's absurd, and is clear Wikilawyering. The base sentence fragment has been undisputed since 2013, for almost 10 years. The idea that the whole paragraph would need to be removed, since the disputed addition changes its meaning, is also bogus; changes in meaning are precisely why the addition requires consensus.
Some editors act as if WP:STATUSQUO WP:SILENTCONSENSUS, and WP:STABLE are binding policies; wrong, they are essays, and cannot be used to resolve disputes without consensus. WP:SILENT is also clear that silent consensus is nullified if the addition is ever disputed.
Arguing that the addition cannot be removed without an RfC is also nonsense, and clearly contradicts
WP:ONUS (policy).
WP:POLICY (itself a policy) states that the purpose of policies and guidelines is to state what most Wikipedians agree upon
.
WP:CONSENSUS (also a policy) states that Bold changes are rarely welcome on policy pages. Improvements to policy are best made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others.
That was not followed here. To support a clearly-disputed statement in a policy (not an article), which was added with zero consensus, against previous affirmative consensus, and to place the onus for seeking consensus on those who dispute it, contradicts multiple policies and is not acceptable. I'll note that an RFC to reinstate the disputed passage
is not currently called for.
DFlhb (
talk)
13:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. The sentence fragment you insist on including is disputed content, absent the additional phrase that was added in early 2021. Unless you are going to argue that ONUS doesn't apply to policy pages, you have to recognize that there isn't now a basis in policy for inserting your preferred version.
Assume for the sake of argument that we have material in a biography that mentions criticism of a living person..., and cannot reasonably be construed as endorsing any particular policy language. It also, of course, was not closed, and seems to have been a sideline for editors engaged in particular disputes around the articles for certain living or recently deceased people. The idea that that RfC expresses a consensus that is still in force and that mandates the inclusion of the sentence fragment in question seems deucedly peculiar.
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, then by all means say it. But please do not overstate that as policy that must be followed in this circumstance.
That is a pretty strong, even if silent, indicator that consensus had changed.You think? Even this discussion shows no consensus!
a "stable version" is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute.DFlhb ( talk) 17:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Consequently, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 23:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
RfC version. The RfC was not about the policy text - it addressed a hypothetical case. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too." DFlhb was 100% correct in their reading of Wiki policy above. This sentence was introduced nearly a decade ago not only as a result an RfC, but multiple talk page discussions here. There was no such discussion for the addition, and it has been disputed by multiple editors. The path forward is clear: an RfC is needed for the addition. Per policy, the disputed content should be removed. All this talk of implied consensus and status quo is unnecessary, and the edit warring is blatantly disruptive. Either initiate an RfC for inclusion, or it's ArbCom time. Homeostasis07 ( talk/ contributions) 00:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
as a result ofan RfC that took place in the following year. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Given the above, let's specifically discuss the proposed change without tangents about ONUS or QUO. This is necessary anyway before any RfC is warranted.
As of this message, there is currently neither consensus for a change; nor on what that change should be. Its current wording is problematic: it misrepresents WP:FALSEBALANCE, as the basis for some denials being unwarranted; but FALSEBALANCE explicitly targets scholarly and scientific POVs, not allegations of crime (see User:Homeostasis07's comment above). It is also distinct from WP:DUEness.
As proposed, the change is likely to discourage inclusion of some denials altogether. That's also problematic, since scholars find that the absence of denials commonly prejudices people into believing accusations are true (see User:Anythingyouwant's comment above for references). Current policy already requires we include enough details for any substantial accusation; readers can make up their own minds on whether to believe any denial (many won't).
I'll note that including denials is just about respecting basic human dignity; even WP:RS can be overtly sensationalistic, and there is deep past consensus on the need to be careful when including some accusations. Some editors in this page's archives specifically call out the risk when it comes to alleged dating impriorieties ( Gamergate) and sexual allegations ( which can have strong racist undertones). It's meant to protect victims (of defamation or harassment), not abusers. Trying to soften this policy seems misguided, and may increase the WMF's legal liability.
On its merits, the idea that the current wording justifies denials for well-sourced adjectives (not allegations) is also false, and extensively addressed by existing policies and consensus. The current wording also specifically applies to such allegations
.
DFlhb (
talk)
15:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
FALSEBALANCE explicitly targets scholarly and scientific POVs, however in practice it is applied to all reliable sources, be they scholarship or not. While scholarly sources are preferred, we also heavily base our articles on WP:NEWSORG content, which I think we can all agree can be biased. Were we not to apply FALSEBALANCE to such content, then we would include all manner of non-mainstream POV content in articles that are based on non-scholarly sources. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 23:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it(the rest of the sentence, predictably, talks about scholarship). DFlhb ( talk) 00:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
allegations, so the denial phrase wouldn't apply when courts have ruled. I'll note that FALSEBALANCE doesn't cover court judgments, under my analysis above.
This online transphobia has been spearheaded by former comedy writer Graham Linehan. [25] We have multiple good sources noting that he has engaged in anti-transgender campaigns/activism; even his allies at The Telegraph refer to him as a
vocal critic of transgenderism. So the RS consensus that Linehan has been actively engaged against trans people / trans rights is rather strong. But Linehan and sympathetic editors repeatedly propose that his comments proposing that he is not anti-trans ought to be platformed in the article. Presenting both the consensus view and Linehan's own view as attributed statements on an equal footing would strike me as a perfect example of WP:FALSEBALANCE (one of these perspectives is FRINGE) - as would, to give another example, platforming Linehan's self-published statements when he was banned from Twitter for violating its policies against hateful conduct. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 1978)[1] is an American neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist[2][3][4]
Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 1978)[1] is often accused of being an American neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist[2][3][4], but he denies it[5]
According to expert on the radical far-right Tamir Bar-On[1], New York Magazine[2], Vanity Fair[3], the Associated Press[4], Slate[5], CNN[6], Tablet[7], the Evening Standard[8], the Christian Science Monitor[9], Katherine Mangen writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education[10] and the New York Times[11], Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 1978)[12] is an American neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist. However, he denies it[13].
Newimpartial, thanks for the example. I took a while to reply because I wanted to read all the Graham Linehan talk page archives, and give deep thought to this whole BLP issue. I was indeed wrong on the denials phrase. I again apologize for the length, it's important I break down other policies too.
By my reading, here's what current policy says:
Lineham denied being transphobic(not necessarily in the lead! But at least in the body). I was wrong to state otherwise; and do agree it would be required. But I disagree the RFC's option 3 would change this.
topics. Linehan is a person, not a topic.
This comment is purely about trying to interpret what the rules currently mean, not about changing them, so I'd appreciate if everyone else here would double-check my reasoning. I want to make sure I got this right, because if I did, then option 3 was motivated by a misunderstanding all along.
If I understand you goals correctly, your correct next steps would be the RFC on self-published denials being undue. As for me, I still prefer the denials phrase reverted, but that wouldn't affect your goals at all, I'm sorry to say. I believe that the fact you believe otherwise is a result of misinterpretation. DFlhb ( talk) 02:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
topics, not
articles about topicsas you propose here. The idea that WP:BLP policies belong to one set of articles and other policies like WP:FALSEBALANCE belong to another set of articles is one of the great myths of Wikipedia: none of these policies operate at the article level (few things do, actually, outside of editing restrictions like 0/1RR). Newimpartial ( talk) 02:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Forgive me if this has been discussed recently, but I came across this topic via the RfC for Talk:Laurence Olivier and Talk:Maddie Ziegler. Apparently there are some very strong opinions about utilizing infoboxes on WP:BLP articles. It's my understanding there's no policy for when to include and not include an infobox.
The history of this discussion has been contentious and it ended up at ArbCom. ArbCom has urged the community to go make a policy for infoboxes. Since there is no current policy, this topic is being fiercely debated article by article by some of the same editors.
I'm not sure what the answer to this issue is... small articles with little information aren't good candidates for infoboxes. However, articles with a readable prose of 15kb or more are improved with infoboxes. It might not be possible to standardize something like this as apposed to a sport club article infobox, but I thought I'd ask here so perhaps this article by artile conflict can be ended. Thanks! Nemov ( talk) 15:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
From: Kharpa to Rupnagar to Bhaktapur Balarampo ( talk) 18:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi. There is a discussion of contentious information in Talk:Tudor Dixon, under the thread "Restoration of contentious info in place of neutral language ". If you have the time and the interest, it would be nice if you share your input there. Thanks! Thinker78 (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I just removed some old rape accusations from the bios of MLB players, and now I am second-guessing myself. Even when Kobe Bryant was alive, the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case was clearly noteworthy, even though it never even went to trial. Are old accusations against public figures fair game, as long as said accusations received significant coverage? DefThree ( talk) 23:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion prompted me to read WP:BLPPUBLIC and I'd like to raise the other example listed there for discussion:
In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
- Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."
I think the "messy divorce" example should be removed or possibly replaced, because it's not a good example for the issue being discussed. First, we'd never say "messy divorce" because of MOS:LABEL (which is what those words are linked to) and MOS:TONE. That has nothing to do with BLP; we wouldn't use that language for a historical figure either. (Also, all divorces are messy just as all affairs are "torrid"; those are just clichés.) Second, whether we mention the divorce or not is a WP:DUE consideration, not really a WP:BLP one. If someone got divorced, that's not an accusation or an allegation, that's a fact. And if someone's divorce was "messy," that's a characterization (and an unencyclopedic one to boot). So I'm not sure what the allegation is in "messy divorce" that someone might conceivably deny: that it was not a divorce? That it was not messy? Overall, I think this just isn't a good example. The other example (about an alleged affair) seems far more on point. Not sure if we need a second example at all? Thoughts? Levivich ( talk) 16:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Some who shall remain nameless seem to have a huge anal-retentive problem with birthdates pretty much overwhelmingly agreed upon by consensus by a myriad of independent sources if they are not actually vetted by a birth certificate and/or the actual anklet from the birthing hospital. Can we all just get along by saying a reasonably documented birthdate *might* be enough in the overwhelming majority of cases, and that it will have a minimal deleterious effect on the well-being of those subjects? Mary McDonnell thanks you, and Kaitlin Olsen thanks you. TashTish ( talk) 05:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
I recently added the following extra example to the public figures section, because in my opinion the section does not properly cover this particular edge case right now:
Example: A celebrity is charged with and convicted of a crime. If the incident is not well-documented in third-party reliable sources (i.e. not just court documents), leave it out. If it is well-documented in reliable sources, directly state that the celebrity committed the crime. Words that imply doubt like "alleged" and "accused of" should be used if and only if that doubt is also present in the post-conviction sourcing.
Masem immediately reverted it, with the edit summary Bad example; we must always stay on the side of presumed innocent until guilty
. But I think this reversion makes no sense: the phrase is "presumed innocent until proven guilty", and "proven guilty" in this context literally refers to a criminal conviction. So if anything, this edit summary argues for my example rather than against it.
I don't want to edit war over this, however, so I'm coming to the talk page to hopefully demonstrate consensus is not behind this reversion. Loki ( talk) 17:31, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
charged with, it's redundant. Schazjmd (talk) 17:52, 5 September 2022 (UTC)
well-documented, which is not really relevant to this proposal. Arguing that something lacks WP:SUSTAINED coverage, for instance (the policy / source-based way to make the argument you are making with regards to something lacking lasting impact), is an argument that it is insufficiently well-documented. But I would strenuously oppose any argument that we can exclude text without regard for whether it is well-documented or not - the arguments you are raising are just different thresholds and aspects of that. If you're worried this proposal would cause problems, it could say "well-documented and WP:DUE", which would implicitly incorporate every aspect of DUE - I think that it's unnecessary but I also definitely don't think it would hurt, and it never hurts to make "this does not override core content policy" unambiguous, since I feel we've had problems in that regard with overly strongly-worded policies and guidelines in the past. -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
if and only if that doubt is also present in the post-conviction sourcing. Loki ( talk) 21:46, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
well-documented and WP:DUErather than just well-documented; I think they're equivalent (or implicit), but DUEness is much more well-defined and makes it clear what sort of arguments ought to be used for exclusion. -- Aquillion ( talk) 22:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
I'm sure this has been discussed and decided but I can't find it. Anyone know where a guideline/discussion exists around when to add the title "sir" in front of someone's name? Carl A. Anderson is an example where there's a "sir" that doesn't look right to me. Elton John is another example (that looks right). Novellasyes ( talk) 15:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)
WP:BLPCRIME says that, for low profile individuals, we should not include material "that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." At Wikipedia:Who is a low-profile individual defines low profile individual as "someone who has been covered in reliable sources without seeking such attention, often as part of their connection with a single event."
I'm confused, because in many (if not most) articles on recent crimes, we have a situation where police have accused a low-profile individual of committing the crime, and this accusation has been covered by multiple RS. Consider the 2021 London, Ontario truck attack: the alleged perpetrator (Nathaniel Veltman) has not been convicted and is not a public figure, but his arrest and trial are mentioned in the article. And this seems like relevant information. As long as we clearly attribute allegations, and cover them in a neutral way, why should articles - that are actually about a crime - not mention who the police have charged and arrested with committing that crime? VR talk 22:27, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect
Wikipedia:DENIALS and has thus listed it
for discussion. This discussion will occur at
Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 August 13#Wikipedia:DENIALS until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion.
Sideswipe9th (
talk)
22:54, 13 August 2022 (UTC)
FWIW, I did some research regarding the "denial sentence". Here's what I found.... but I'll say up front this strikes me as FYI/background info. Bottom line? We have never had a discussion about how we should deal with denials.
Adding to the sentence history: one "Oct 2020" revert was by PackMecEng, Politrukki on 5 October 2022 reverted more but Newimpartial on 6 October 2022 re-inserted. I do not see that there was consensus for the added clause. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 16:05, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
"An edit has presumed consensus until it is disputed or reverted."If silent consensus is your only argument, I'm afraid it's not enough. Core policies should never be substantially changed without clear and unambiguous consensus. What kind of problem are you trying to resolve here?I oppose the proposed addition per WP:CREEP. It's already established in the lead that BLP material must strictly adhere to NPOV. Any reasonable person understands that, for example, if we use 100 words to describe an allegation, a denial shouldn't take 500 words. So I don't understand what's the purpose of the proposal. Politrukki ( talk) 15:08, 7 October 2022 (UTC)
I also agree the MANDY sentence fragment should be removed immediately. Per NewsAndEventsGuy's excellent analysis above, there was no consensus to move any content from that essay to this policy in the first place. Per
WP:TALKFIRST, all substantive changes to policy should achieve consensus before implementation. Even in cases of a user being
BOLD at a Policy or Guideline page, the editor who adds disputed content is "strongly encouraged to follow
WP:1RR or
WP:0RR standards
" once other editors "give a substantive reason for challenging [the addition]
". Either way, the onus is clearly on the editor seeking to alter a policy to achieve consensus before addition, so it needs to go until such consensus is achieved.
Homeostasis07 (
talk/
contributions)
22:47, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
while also adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance." still contains the inherent misrepresentation of WP:FALSEBALANCE given in the MANDY essay—the only bonafide policy the essay cites. The FALSEBALANCE subsection of NPOV relates solely to "
Conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, speculative history, or plausible but currently unaccepted theories" such as "
the Earth is flat, that the Knights Templar possessed the Holy Grail, that the Apollo Moon landings were a hoax, and similar ones", and how these "
should not be legitimized through comparison to accepted academic scholarship." None of this in any way correlates to the BLP policy. This interpretation of FALSEBALANCE should never have been added to this policy at all, much less without prior consensus. Homeostasis07 ( talk/ contributions) 00:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
If someone has publicly denied an accusation, we should report that denial- if it is WP:DUE based on coverage in WP:RSes. WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV are more central policies than BLP, so even BLP cannot override them - we can strongly encourage the inclusion of denials, but we cannot mandate them in situations where their inclusion would violate WP:V, WP:RS or WP:DUE, which is how some people have (incorrectly) interpreted the relevant text. It's important to update them to make that clear - ultimately, inclusion is based on the sourcing and due weight; there is no policy of "it is a denial, so we must include it no matter what WP:V, WP:RS, or WP:DUE say." -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
while alsowith
provided this can be done while, since ultimately WP:DUE is central and is a hard prerequisite for including anything. -- Aquillion ( talk) 18:49, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it.BLP is strict, but it is also deliberately constrained to well-defined rules, especially when covering public figures (who we often do have to cover extensive negative material about.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 19:57, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
If reliable sources report that the subject has denied such allegations, that should be reported too, provided this can be done while adhering to appropriate due weight and without giving them false balance.This makes it clear that WP:BLP is still subordinate to WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV. -- Aquillion ( talk) 19:01, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
The principles upon which these policy statements are based are not superseded by other policies or guidelines, or by editors' consensus.@ Masem: - this is extremely important, so please acknowledge that you understand, and accept, that core content policy supercedes WP:BLP (though in an ideal world they shouldn't contradict, of course.) The core content policies are non-negotiable, fullstop, since they define our fundamental mission as an encyclopedia; while BLP is important (and serves to underline several of them), it is not one of them. It is listed on that page merely as one of the "other" content policies, not one of the central, core ones. It is clearly established on that page that other policies, like BLP, it cannot override core content policy; and this has been policy and practice on Wikipedia almost since its inception. -- Aquillion ( talk) 19:24, 13 October 2022 (UTC)
not supersededas if it were a bedrock of Wikipedia; this lacks a policy basis. Wikipedia's actual treatment of policies is shown in WP:PG (policy, not essay). The lead is far less strident than you imply, and says
Policies and guidelines should always be applied using reason and common sense.Your argument seems to be the main argument against inclusionism of denials, but lacks solid policy grounding. The inclusionist argument can rely on the WMF's dignity resolution, and IMO more. DFlhb ( talk) 21:23, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
If the accusation is due then the fact that they denied it is also dueeven if it can only be sourced to
a personal blog) with such transparency and candor. Newimpartial ( talk) 01:06, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
What is your basis in policy for We certainly can and should include that the Senator denied the accusation even if it only comes from his own press release
? For You seem to be thinking of labels such as "X is a violent activist". Where violent is a contentious label. Even in that case it may be important to include a denial
? Or for If the person denies it on their personal blog that is likely a sufficient source for that claim
? You haven't shown any basis in WP policy for these claims - they appear to represent only your personal beliefs on these matters. Sorry, that isn't how policy works
.
Newimpartial (
talk)
14:22, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
We already accept self-published sources by a subject of an article, so the argument that a denial needs to have secondary coverage seems based on nothing. Beyond that, Im a little concerned that people are opposed to including a denial of wrongdoing by a subject of one of our articles. If the sources are emphatic about the guilt notwithstanding the denial then that will be reflected, along with the denial. Also, these bit about implicit consensus is missing the important part. Once challenged, that implicit consensus vanishes, and unless it was ever an explicit consensus you cant just maintain the status quo as the standard from which a new explicit consensus must be formed to change. nableezy - 03:14, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too, while also adhering to appropriate due weight of all sources covering the subject and avoiding false balance) since there is clearly at present no consensus for
If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported toowithout the rest of the sentence. Newimpartial ( talk) 05:01, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
Who besides Newimpartial now thinks there is consensus for the addition?I've seen none so far. Re Aquillion's claim
WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:NPOV are more central policies than BLP, so even BLP cannot override themer, Aquillion's false belief that WP:RS is a policy convinces me that Aquillion's claims shouldn't be believed without checking. Re Aquillion's claim
WP:V and WP:NPOV are Wikipedia:Core content policies and strictly supersede BLP in any cases where they contradict.-- although this is irrelevant since there's no contradiction, I did check. WP:NPOV says "This policy is non-negotiable, and the principles upon which it is based cannot be superseded by other policies or guidelines, nor by editor consensus." i.e. it's the principles that can't be superseded not the policy -- and if it was interpreted as "the policy cannot be superseded" then that would mean it can't be superseded by WP:NOR or WP:V which doesn't appear to be what's claimed. Re Springee's refutation of Aquillion: I agree with the example that a denial on a personal blog might be acceptable on the subject's BLP, and if that's a minority view then WP:BLP is a minority view. Peter Gulutzan ( talk) 14:52, 14 October 2022 (UTC)
accept(the last of which I find completely impenetrable), you do have to accept that there is no consensus to restore the 2020 status quo version of the passage. WP:ONUS is not a license to pick a multi-year-old version of a policy page, boldly claim that no subsequent changes to a certain paragraph have consensus, and insist that said version of said paragraph be restored. If you want your version back, you need an RfC: otherwise the only options are the 2021-22 status quo or no paragraph at all, because your version of the text does not now have consensus as many editors have pointed out. Newimpartial ( talk) 17:44, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
pay attention to what one editor will or won't acceptin determining consensus (or in establishing what is or isn't stable content, for that matter). Newimpartial ( talk) 17:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
There are a lot of missing facts here. The addition of the "while also adhering" phrase is clearly disputed, and there was never any consensus for it. Per
WP:ONUS (policy), The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content
. The previous version was clearly the status quo:
"The wording in WP:PUBLICFIGURE is longstanding and has served us reasonably well thus far"), and was repeatedly scrutinized [11], with the denials sentence kept perfectly intact. It was also plainly treated as consensus (see WhatamIdoing's Jan 15th reply and Nomoskedasticity's June 8th reply for example).
Some argue that the only status quo versions are the disputed 2021-2022 addition, and the pre-2013 version. That's absurd, and is clear Wikilawyering. The base sentence fragment has been undisputed since 2013, for almost 10 years. The idea that the whole paragraph would need to be removed, since the disputed addition changes its meaning, is also bogus; changes in meaning are precisely why the addition requires consensus.
Some editors act as if WP:STATUSQUO WP:SILENTCONSENSUS, and WP:STABLE are binding policies; wrong, they are essays, and cannot be used to resolve disputes without consensus. WP:SILENT is also clear that silent consensus is nullified if the addition is ever disputed.
Arguing that the addition cannot be removed without an RfC is also nonsense, and clearly contradicts
WP:ONUS (policy).
WP:POLICY (itself a policy) states that the purpose of policies and guidelines is to state what most Wikipedians agree upon
.
WP:CONSENSUS (also a policy) states that Bold changes are rarely welcome on policy pages. Improvements to policy are best made slowly and conservatively, with active efforts to seek out input and agreement from others.
That was not followed here. To support a clearly-disputed statement in a policy (not an article), which was added with zero consensus, against previous affirmative consensus, and to place the onus for seeking consensus on those who dispute it, contradicts multiple policies and is not acceptable. I'll note that an RFC to reinstate the disputed passage
is not currently called for.
DFlhb (
talk)
13:21, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content. The sentence fragment you insist on including is disputed content, absent the additional phrase that was added in early 2021. Unless you are going to argue that ONUS doesn't apply to policy pages, you have to recognize that there isn't now a basis in policy for inserting your preferred version.
Assume for the sake of argument that we have material in a biography that mentions criticism of a living person..., and cannot reasonably be construed as endorsing any particular policy language. It also, of course, was not closed, and seems to have been a sideline for editors engaged in particular disputes around the articles for certain living or recently deceased people. The idea that that RfC expresses a consensus that is still in force and that mandates the inclusion of the sentence fragment in question seems deucedly peculiar.
The onus to achieve consensus for inclusion is on those seeking to include disputed content, then by all means say it. But please do not overstate that as policy that must be followed in this circumstance.
That is a pretty strong, even if silent, indicator that consensus had changed.You think? Even this discussion shows no consensus!
a "stable version" is an informal concept that carries no weight whatsoever, and it should never be invoked as an argument in a content dispute.DFlhb ( talk) 17:21, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
Consequently, you should not remove any change solely on the grounds that there was no formal discussion indicating consensus for the change before it was made. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 23:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
RfC version. The RfC was not about the policy text - it addressed a hypothetical case. Newimpartial ( talk) 23:37, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
If the subject has denied such allegations, their denial(s) should be reported too." DFlhb was 100% correct in their reading of Wiki policy above. This sentence was introduced nearly a decade ago not only as a result an RfC, but multiple talk page discussions here. There was no such discussion for the addition, and it has been disputed by multiple editors. The path forward is clear: an RfC is needed for the addition. Per policy, the disputed content should be removed. All this talk of implied consensus and status quo is unnecessary, and the edit warring is blatantly disruptive. Either initiate an RfC for inclusion, or it's ArbCom time. Homeostasis07 ( talk/ contributions) 00:38, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
as a result ofan RfC that took place in the following year. Newimpartial ( talk) 00:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Given the above, let's specifically discuss the proposed change without tangents about ONUS or QUO. This is necessary anyway before any RfC is warranted.
As of this message, there is currently neither consensus for a change; nor on what that change should be. Its current wording is problematic: it misrepresents WP:FALSEBALANCE, as the basis for some denials being unwarranted; but FALSEBALANCE explicitly targets scholarly and scientific POVs, not allegations of crime (see User:Homeostasis07's comment above). It is also distinct from WP:DUEness.
As proposed, the change is likely to discourage inclusion of some denials altogether. That's also problematic, since scholars find that the absence of denials commonly prejudices people into believing accusations are true (see User:Anythingyouwant's comment above for references). Current policy already requires we include enough details for any substantial accusation; readers can make up their own minds on whether to believe any denial (many won't).
I'll note that including denials is just about respecting basic human dignity; even WP:RS can be overtly sensationalistic, and there is deep past consensus on the need to be careful when including some accusations. Some editors in this page's archives specifically call out the risk when it comes to alleged dating impriorieties ( Gamergate) and sexual allegations ( which can have strong racist undertones). It's meant to protect victims (of defamation or harassment), not abusers. Trying to soften this policy seems misguided, and may increase the WMF's legal liability.
On its merits, the idea that the current wording justifies denials for well-sourced adjectives (not allegations) is also false, and extensively addressed by existing policies and consensus. The current wording also specifically applies to such allegations
.
DFlhb (
talk)
15:47, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
FALSEBALANCE explicitly targets scholarly and scientific POVs, however in practice it is applied to all reliable sources, be they scholarship or not. While scholarly sources are preferred, we also heavily base our articles on WP:NEWSORG content, which I think we can all agree can be biased. Were we not to apply FALSEBALANCE to such content, then we would include all manner of non-mainstream POV content in articles that are based on non-scholarly sources. Sideswipe9th ( talk) 23:53, 8 November 2022 (UTC)
we merely omit this information where including it would unduly legitimize it(the rest of the sentence, predictably, talks about scholarship). DFlhb ( talk) 00:32, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
allegations, so the denial phrase wouldn't apply when courts have ruled. I'll note that FALSEBALANCE doesn't cover court judgments, under my analysis above.
This online transphobia has been spearheaded by former comedy writer Graham Linehan. [25] We have multiple good sources noting that he has engaged in anti-transgender campaigns/activism; even his allies at The Telegraph refer to him as a
vocal critic of transgenderism. So the RS consensus that Linehan has been actively engaged against trans people / trans rights is rather strong. But Linehan and sympathetic editors repeatedly propose that his comments proposing that he is not anti-trans ought to be platformed in the article. Presenting both the consensus view and Linehan's own view as attributed statements on an equal footing would strike me as a perfect example of WP:FALSEBALANCE (one of these perspectives is FRINGE) - as would, to give another example, platforming Linehan's self-published statements when he was banned from Twitter for violating its policies against hateful conduct. Newimpartial ( talk) 18:55, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 1978)[1] is an American neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist[2][3][4]
Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 1978)[1] is often accused of being an American neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist[2][3][4], but he denies it[5]
According to expert on the radical far-right Tamir Bar-On[1], New York Magazine[2], Vanity Fair[3], the Associated Press[4], Slate[5], CNN[6], Tablet[7], the Evening Standard[8], the Christian Science Monitor[9], Katherine Mangen writing in the Chronicle of Higher Education[10] and the New York Times[11], Richard Bertrand Spencer (born May 1978)[12] is an American neo-Nazi, antisemitic conspiracy theorist, and white supremacist. However, he denies it[13].
Newimpartial, thanks for the example. I took a while to reply because I wanted to read all the Graham Linehan talk page archives, and give deep thought to this whole BLP issue. I was indeed wrong on the denials phrase. I again apologize for the length, it's important I break down other policies too.
By my reading, here's what current policy says:
Lineham denied being transphobic(not necessarily in the lead! But at least in the body). I was wrong to state otherwise; and do agree it would be required. But I disagree the RFC's option 3 would change this.
topics. Linehan is a person, not a topic.
This comment is purely about trying to interpret what the rules currently mean, not about changing them, so I'd appreciate if everyone else here would double-check my reasoning. I want to make sure I got this right, because if I did, then option 3 was motivated by a misunderstanding all along.
If I understand you goals correctly, your correct next steps would be the RFC on self-published denials being undue. As for me, I still prefer the denials phrase reverted, but that wouldn't affect your goals at all, I'm sorry to say. I believe that the fact you believe otherwise is a result of misinterpretation. DFlhb ( talk) 02:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
topics, not
articles about topicsas you propose here. The idea that WP:BLP policies belong to one set of articles and other policies like WP:FALSEBALANCE belong to another set of articles is one of the great myths of Wikipedia: none of these policies operate at the article level (few things do, actually, outside of editing restrictions like 0/1RR). Newimpartial ( talk) 02:54, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
Forgive me if this has been discussed recently, but I came across this topic via the RfC for Talk:Laurence Olivier and Talk:Maddie Ziegler. Apparently there are some very strong opinions about utilizing infoboxes on WP:BLP articles. It's my understanding there's no policy for when to include and not include an infobox.
The history of this discussion has been contentious and it ended up at ArbCom. ArbCom has urged the community to go make a policy for infoboxes. Since there is no current policy, this topic is being fiercely debated article by article by some of the same editors.
I'm not sure what the answer to this issue is... small articles with little information aren't good candidates for infoboxes. However, articles with a readable prose of 15kb or more are improved with infoboxes. It might not be possible to standardize something like this as apposed to a sport club article infobox, but I thought I'd ask here so perhaps this article by artile conflict can be ended. Thanks! Nemov ( talk) 15:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
From: Kharpa to Rupnagar to Bhaktapur Balarampo ( talk) 18:07, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
Hi. There is a discussion of contentious information in Talk:Tudor Dixon, under the thread "Restoration of contentious info in place of neutral language ". If you have the time and the interest, it would be nice if you share your input there. Thanks! Thinker78 (talk) 03:11, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
I just removed some old rape accusations from the bios of MLB players, and now I am second-guessing myself. Even when Kobe Bryant was alive, the Kobe Bryant sexual assault case was clearly noteworthy, even though it never even went to trial. Are old accusations against public figures fair game, as long as said accusations received significant coverage? DefThree ( talk) 23:23, 6 December 2022 (UTC)
The above discussion prompted me to read WP:BLPPUBLIC and I'd like to raise the other example listed there for discussion:
In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.
- Example: "John Doe had a messy divorce from Jane Doe." Is the divorce important to the article, and was it published by third-party reliable sources? If not, leave it out. If so, avoid use of "messy" and stick to the facts: "John Doe and Jane Doe divorced."
I think the "messy divorce" example should be removed or possibly replaced, because it's not a good example for the issue being discussed. First, we'd never say "messy divorce" because of MOS:LABEL (which is what those words are linked to) and MOS:TONE. That has nothing to do with BLP; we wouldn't use that language for a historical figure either. (Also, all divorces are messy just as all affairs are "torrid"; those are just clichés.) Second, whether we mention the divorce or not is a WP:DUE consideration, not really a WP:BLP one. If someone got divorced, that's not an accusation or an allegation, that's a fact. And if someone's divorce was "messy," that's a characterization (and an unencyclopedic one to boot). So I'm not sure what the allegation is in "messy divorce" that someone might conceivably deny: that it was not a divorce? That it was not messy? Overall, I think this just isn't a good example. The other example (about an alleged affair) seems far more on point. Not sure if we need a second example at all? Thoughts? Levivich ( talk) 16:18, 9 November 2022 (UTC)
Some who shall remain nameless seem to have a huge anal-retentive problem with birthdates pretty much overwhelmingly agreed upon by consensus by a myriad of independent sources if they are not actually vetted by a birth certificate and/or the actual anklet from the birthing hospital. Can we all just get along by saying a reasonably documented birthdate *might* be enough in the overwhelming majority of cases, and that it will have a minimal deleterious effect on the well-being of those subjects? Mary McDonnell thanks you, and Kaitlin Olsen thanks you. TashTish ( talk) 05:55, 12 December 2022 (UTC)