Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Danny Watts

This article is about Danny Watts a notable retired motorsport athlete who has a class victory at le mans among other accomplishments. He is also known for being one of the first high profile racecar drivers to come out as homosexual.

I am new to this site and I'm not really sure what to do about this situation and I don't want to get blocked or into an editing war with my first edit. Various Mobile IPs seem to be changing, reverting, and deleting sections without providing references or making a summary of their change. They also seem to be continually deleting references in the article. I put up a discussion post about the personal life section because I was hoping that I missed something or just didn't provide high enough quality sources but they have not engaged with it and have continued to change the page.

The crux of the issue is that this is a BLP about an LGBT athlete who had a rather high profile coming out. The change that sparked my initial editing is that the mobile editors keep trying to add the word "regrettably" to the sentence about him being gay and they also keep adding a sentence about him being in a heterosexual relationship with a bunch of superfluous details (like her being his soulmate and stuff.) Both of these changes have no verifiable sources that I can find after hours of digging through the internet. Diff of my sourced edits and the unsourced changes they have tried to revert it to.

What would you recommend be done in this situation? The changes aren't particularly heinous but they also do not seem neutral and, from what I can tell, are unverifiable. I am worried that his page is being manipulated due to the profile and identity of the person in question as well as the sensitive nature of that particular topic. I don't know why they would want to change that section continuously or outright remove it and the references I provided. They also are not engaging in discussion so I don't know what else I can do other than just continually revert the changes.

The last change was by the same mobile IP that re-added the unsourced changes I removed and they just completely removed the personal life section and added their changes into his career. I have reverted that but I will refrain from more because I do not want to be blocked.

Thanks a bunch! Pmcmichen (talk) 16:22, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

Hello @Pmcmichen and welcome to Wikipedia! At the time I write this things seem to have calmed down [1], the current problem I see is a significant lack of inline WP:BLP-good sourcing, perhaps a bit of promo-language, and I'm wondering if mambaonline is a source we should use.

What I would do if similar edits start again (as in IP:s adding crap like "regrettably") is go to WP:RFPP and make a report asking for protection (WP:PROTECT), stating something like "Significant IP-disruption in BLP." Hope this helps. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 11:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

This now escalated to the IP saying they are the subject and making legal threats leading to a block Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Danny Watts, COI, and Legal Threats Nil Einne (talk) 10:28, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Kia Labeija

Kia LaBeija (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Original content rules The vast majority of the notes in this bio refer to comments previously made by the subject of the article. This is a thinly-disguised evasion of the rules against original content: the subject writes about the subject, then quotes his/her/themself as if this were not original content. Material about living persons added to any Wikipedia page must be written with the greatest care and attention to verifiability, neutrality, and avoidance of original research. This article fails that test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BGD808 (talk • contribs) 17:42, 26 Sep 2021 (UTC)

Death of Gabby Petito

The article includes the names of all the eye-witnesses, however WP:BLPNAME seems pretty clear that extreme caution should be used when adding the names of third parties who are not public figures to articles. The witnesses themselvse are not relevant to the case, only what they saw. I've mentioned this issue on the talk page.

• Talk:Death_of_Gabby_Petito#Names_and_irrelevant_details

Harizotoh9 (talk) 17:15, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

Your reading of BLPNAME is correct, and it's highly likely that most/all of those names should be removed. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 17:31, 28 September 2021 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed all the witness names. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 19:43, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Thanx all! - FlightTime (open channel) 02:37, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

The witness names have been subsequently added back to the article. Those adding it have not stated their reasoning to the talk page. Harizotoh9 (talk) 07:54, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

B. Wongar

In the current version of this BLP we have persistent and irrational tendency to disparage the subject based on attempts of some (T. Keneally, J. Hanrahan) to debunk Wongar's work as a literary hoax. There are numerous proofs, implicit or explicit, that this tendency has lost currency, no matter how many times was repeated. Questions of Wongar's authorial identity and legitimacy came from people who are not Australian Aborigines and are an insignificant minority in the world of literary criticism. WP:BLPBALANCE is clear: "the views of small minorities should not be included at all."

Request 1. Remove Cultural appropriation category and this sentence: The revelation that Wongar was a Serbian immigrant, as well as inconsistencies in his life story, have led to controversy and allegations of literary hoax and cultural appropriation. from the lead paragraph. If wanting more support for this request please, read Ann McGrath: In Search of the Never-Never: Mickey Dewar: Champion of History Across Many Genres, ANU Press, Apr 9, 2019 page 214 and after. Needles to say, keeping this category and the quoted sentence in the lead, we have an attack page which is forbidden by BLP policy.

The current text is nonsensically tag bombed by and tags. All text is fully covered by references, and I even added the new ones in order to strenghten the content. But each time I added the new references and warned about nonsense, my text changes get reverted without any justification on the talk page. Not a single was ever justified on the talk page.

Request 2. Prevent tag bombing .

One user claims: The article has multiple issues. One of them The biography needs to be cleaned up to indicate that the entire backstory is based on (some of) his own claims. Nothing like this. His own claims are entered only if already being accepted by biographers and literary critics.

Request 3. Remove the The article has multiple issues tag and ignore the request above given.--Bocin kolega (talk) 16:50, 29 September 2021 (UTC)--

The strength of reliable sources publishing the viewpoint like the Guardian and peer-reviewed academic journals determine its WP:WEIGHT. The current text that have the citation needed tags are in danger of being removed and should be supported by reliable sources. Perhaps Xxanthippe and David Eppstein can explain the issues with the references you added since they reverted you. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:55, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The Wongar article is one of the obsessions of a recurring sockpuppet / abusive editor, who also pushes Serbian nationalist topics, hypes up the achievements of certain mathematicians, has some interest in Catholic-church sexual abuse scandals that I'm not entirely sure of the details of, and repeatedly attacks certain Wikipedia editors who have disagreed with these edits. For this reason, any change to the Wongar article, especially one denying the Wongar hoax story and trying to remove the well-documented published reliable sources claiming it to be a hoax, is likely to come under great scrutiny. In any case, the cleanup banners are appropriate (the article has many "citation needed" tags), the claims here that those tags are unnecessary are false, the removal of the well-sourced hoax claims would be inappropriate and would violate both WP:NPOV and WP:INUNIVERSE, and in general the requested edits are both problematic and consistent with the past problematic sockpuppetry on this article. To be blunt, BLP is not about the whitewashing of well-sourced negative information about a living person merely because it is negative. The McGrath source mentioned above ([2]) does not do anything to contradict this information; it merely suggests that some literary critics view it as old news. The sentence about "hoax and literary appropriation" in the lead is reference-bombed with four published reliable sources, providing exactly this information and using the exact words "hoax" and "literary appropriation", in part because of the persistent sockpuppet-led attempts to remove this information. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:08, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

A reader of the sources in the BIO will have noted that long ago Wongar was outed as a literary hoaxer and a misappropriator of the cultures of indigenous Australian peoples.[3][4][5] "Facts" about Wongar that have been regurgitated by credulous journalists after those "facts" have been fed to them by the hoaxer himself cannot be relied upon until they are verified by sources totally independent of Wongar. Much of the BIO is based on such unreliable sources. I am tempted to call for a topic ban, but realize that it would probably result, as it did before, with a barrage of WP:spa socks and redlinks. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC).

All I see here, in the last two comments, is a barrage of poorly veiled personal attacks. I never ever edited anything related to mathematics or to Catholic church. But let us pretend that such comments would be sanitized or even removed later.

Now let us dig deeper in "the well-documented published reliable sources claiming it to be a hoax" - as it was claimed by Mr Eppstein. I have this sentence The revelation that Wongar was a Serbian immigrant, as well as inconsistencies in his life story, have led to controversy and allegations of literary hoax and cultural appropriation.[5][6][7][8] on my mind.

Reference [5] mentions B Wongar's name only inside two sentences and these two sentences are far from being well-documented sources of anything since these sentences are just a bad opinion (full of nonsensical phrases) about Wongar. One of them is: Fake authors, such as Darville/Demidenko, Koomatrie/Carmen and Wongar/Bozic, appear to demonstrate a cynical but also unconsciously keen perception of both the nature of literature as fakery and of the literary, in contemporary Australia, as ethical commodity.

References [6] and [7] are about T. Kenneally's personal opinion about B. Wongar reduced in [7] to "that while Wongar's work is celebrated in Europe and that he may one day be regarded as 'a highly significant Australian writer', 'his deception has soured his reception in the English-speaking world'." B. Wongar's books were translated into 13 languages (so not celebrated just in Europe, but worldwide) and the English speaking world awarded Wongar many times. Read Wongar's awards and honors to see why you are wrong mr Kenneally. In the John Mandelberg's documentary "A double life: the life & times of B. Wongar", Kenneally was more cautious: did not accuse B. Wongar of anything (or Mandelberg did no include it in the documentary, if any).

The most surprising thing is reference [8]:Notes on the postmodernity of fake(?) Aboriginal literature. This reference does not support the claim it was added to. Rather, it reject the idea about Wongar's literary hoax/cultural appropriation by saying: "The impossible struggles over authenticity of authors and artists like Mudrooroo and Sally Morgan are a perfect (if ironic) fit with the postmodern stress on inauthenticity, or a commodified and globalized capitalist culture in which everything is a copy, nothing is original (let alone Aboriginal)."

About the McGrath source - Mr Eppstein has strong opinion about Wongar based on not reading the source he referred to. Under the title "Poor Buggler All Of Us" and inside this source, we read: "Latterly the debunking of Wongar as a literary hoax has lost currency²⁰, although perhaps not entirely²¹."

Mr Eppstein continued with his bad habit of having strong opinion about something he did not read. See, for example his Two not-yet-used recent sources where he claims The first one appears to be about the question of Wongar's identity, Not at all Mr Eppstein. Try, before making your opinion, to read fully the reference you mentioned there.

Xxanthippe wrote: "A reader of the sources in the BIO will have noted that long ago Wongar was outed as a literary hoaxer and a misappropriator of the cultures of indigenous Australian peoples." Hm. Xxanthippe, I advise you to read what the four Nobel laureates J.P. Sartre, H. Böll, S. Beckett, and P. Handke wrote about B. Wongar's works and try to understand why these four big men supported B. Wongar. Try to explain to yourself why B. Wongar, the "hoaxer" and "appropriator", held the Writer-in-residence post at the Aboriginal Research Centre at Monash University in the late 1980s. Then answer this question: Which of the sources supporting this biography are unreliable and why?

Bottom line: All my three requests are valid since the comments of Xxanthippe and Mr Eppstein are personal opinions at their best.--Bocin kolega (talk) 13:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I don't know who you are, I do know we keep getting lots of nonsense BLPN threads about B. Wongar on BLPN from random "new" editors. I'll say something similar to what I said to another area where something similar kept happening. It's unlikely anything will come from these threads. I think many regulars here are just taking to ignoring them.

If there really is something we can do to improve the article, what we need is an editor willing to stick it out and not a continually bunch of "new" editors. By this stage, given the disruption, if that is you, you need to establish a reputation outside controversial areas, and I don't mean just a few edits. If in a few years time when you have such a reputation you still see problems, and come back then talk about them much better aware of our policies and guidelines, then perhaps something might happen.

Alternatively we'll likely look at the concerns of any editor with a declared COI although it might still be the case there's nothing we can do.

I would note that Jean-Paul Sartre, Samuel Beckett and Heinrich Böll all passed away prior to 1990 and the late 1980s is also the late 1980s. While it seems there was already some controversy over Wongar by then, suffice to say it was a very different time especially for stuff like the treatment of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander peoples as well as but to an even greater extent anything related to cultural appropriation. E.g. it was before Mabo v Queensland (No 2) or Bringing Them Home. In other words, if your focus is on stuff so long ago, editors may wonder if the reason is because you know reception of Wongar has significantly changed since the 1980s.

Peter Handke is still alive, but not without extreme controversy themselves. While this is mostly about a different thing from what lead to Wongar to be controversial, at least on Wikipedia there seems to be some correlation between support for extreme Serb nationalism and Wongar. (Alternatively it's just one editor.) In other words, Handke doesn't lead much credence to the suggest Wongar's work isn't extremely controversial either. BTW, as a further sign of how long ago the 1980s is, the stuff which ultimately resulted in Handke being controversial largely happened after 1980s.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:22, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Nil Einne As earlier, I'll ignore all that nonsensical rant you dropped here. Still, your "knowledge" about the four Nobel laureates support deserves some response since you are of the same "regulars" as the three responders above: people reading nothing, knowing nothing but with strong opinion about "rights" and "wrongs".

J.P. Sartre, Wongar's friend, helped Wongar to publish the French translation of Track to Bralgu (1977) and Babaru (1982) in Les Temps Modernes, Paris. S. de Beauvoir, Sartre's life partner, wrote the foreword for Walg for English and Serbian editions of this novel.

In 1981 Wongar sent the manuscript of his Walg to H. Böll. Böll's wife Annemarie translated the Walg into German and Heinrich wrote foreword for the German edition of this novel in 1983 (Lamuv Verlag, Germany).

Per S. Beckett recommendation, Babaru was published by University of Illinois Press, in 1982. The same book was rejected on political grounds by every Australian publisher; Babaru won the American Library Association Award after being originally published. S. Beckett's recommendations finally broke "political unacceptability" hurdle in Australia and Macmillan Australia published "nuclear trilogy" (Walg, Karan, Gabo Djara).

Now you are trying to disqualify P. Handke's literature ("Handke doesn't lead much credence to the suggest Wongar's work isn't extremely controversial"), don't you? By putting Handke's literary greatness in a dirty envelope of politics?! In his foreword to the German edition of Babaru (Edition Esele, Germany, 1987) Handke completely ignored Wongar's "literary hoax" and "cultural appropriation" as it was "explained" by T. Kenneally and likes (just two of them). By no means Kenneally is a voice/representative of Aboriginal culture. Australian Aborigines accepted Wongar as a true representative of their culture: Wongar was a writer-in-residence at the Aboriginal Research Centre at Monash University in the late 1980s.

Not only these four Nobel laureates ignored any idea of "literary hoax" and "cultural appropriation". We have at least three dozens essays and appraisals/reviews of Wongar's literature ignoring or explicitly rejecting (M. Dolan, S. Gunew, T. Beebee, L. Dobrez, among many) T. Kenneally's disqualifications of Wongar. In his Australia and worlwide, Wongar won the most prestigious literary awards.

Are you going further advertise Kenneally's nonsense about Wongar? BLP policy is clear: "the views of small minorities should not be included at all."

• Message to case handling admin. Please, dignify this discussion by forbidding uncivilty and personal attacks. Force people to demonstrate knowledge, not personal views and distortion of the facts.--Bocin kolega (talk) 18:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

As an outsider to this whole topic, but one who's been patrolling the BLP page for a long time, I thought for a moment that I would take a look at this with fresh eyes. I mean, what other reason could possibly exist for you to bring it here, right? Unfortunately, I read only a single paragraph of your most recent comment and was immediately turned off. "Nope. Don't want to get involved with this person." I will leave this advice, though. You won't get any support by being insulting, condescending, and dismissive. I hope that helps, and I wish you luck. Zaereth (talk) 18:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

@Bocin kolega. Do you have any connection with Wongar that should be declared under WP:COI policy? Xxanthippe (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2021 (UTC).

@Xxanthippe Please, avoid further personal attacks! --Bocin kolega (talk) 23:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see that this a personal attack. I am happy to declare for myself that I have no connection with Wongar. Xxanthippe (talk) 01:15, 2 October 2021 (UTC).

It's not. I think people sometimes get confused, or occasionally may have disorders that cause them to take any form of criticism --real or perceived-- very personally, but in most cases I find it's simply a passive-aggressive deflection tactic. A real personal attack would be more along the lines of, "Jo Schmo is an ugly, disgusting pig who beats his dog." It's literally attacking the person, and is also a form of deflection. Either way, aggressive-aggressive or passive-aggressive, it's a way to distract from the point. ("Look, over there!") Asking pertinent questions, pointing out flaws in logic, giving opinions, or even giving advice and constructive criticism, these things are not personal attacks, and in fact are quite necessary in the course of any productive discussion. Zaereth (talk) 02:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Bocin kolega, if you have a conflict of interest with the article subject, then you need to declare it or stop trying to make any changes to that article. Repeatedly attempting to attack others and misrepresent their comments is not appropriate either. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:57, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not attacking nor misinterpreting anyone. The others do it. No conflict of interest on my side at all. --Bocin kolega (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

@User: Bocin kolega I find your answer to be equivocal. Do you have any connection with B. Wongar Yes or No? If you do, other editors, not you, will judge if it gives rise to a WP:COI. Your attitude in this[6] edit inspires little confidence in your willingness to adhere to the norms of collaborative Wikipedia editing. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC).

I note that you started editing in April 2019, right in the middle of the period when a vast battalion of sockpuppets, that edited in fields similar to those that you edit in was being closed down. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC).

@Bocin kolega: There's no such thing as a "case handling admin" at BLP or pretty much anywhere. (There are clerks at arbcom.)

As for the rest, you seem to be re-affirming my point. You're using 3 people who died prior to 1990, and therefore have not had a chance to re-assess their position. The fact you continue to focus on these 3 people supports the idea that you know Wongar's work has been extremely controversial and therefore are clutching at straws choosing people who never had the opportunity to re-assess their views in light of new evidence etc. Note this doesn't mean any of them would have come to a different conclusion now in 2021, simply that we can never know. And given that there are plenty of living Nobel literature laurates and I suspect also some who died less than 10 years, the only reason to focus on these 3 who died so long ago, would seem to be because you cannot find anyone else. Frankly, I personally find it distasteful you're try to taint the legacy of these 3 Nobel laureates in such a manner so won't engage further. (As for Handke, the simple fact is that his views on a number of related things don't represent the mainstream view. This in itself suggests caution, but when added with the apparent overlap between his controversial views and those that tend to support Wognar on Wikipedia, this compounds the concern his views on Wongar are far outside the mainstream.)

I'd note that in addition, you've criticised David Eppstein for providing a source on the talk page without properly reading it. Yet if we look at the discussion all that happened is David Eppstein listed two sources they came across which they felt could be used to improve the article. Whether due to time or lack of interest or whatever, they didn't do so themselves. They made clear in their comment they had only read the abstract. This is entirely reasonable and perfectly normal and often useful since not all editors are as good at finding sources especially about somewhat obscure figures. If they are wrong about what the source contains as you allege, it doesn't matter much. Any editor who uses the source be that David Eppstein or someone else will read the source and not just the abstract. A few years from now, maybe that could even be useyou.

Finally as with others, I'm happy to declare I have no COI. Frankly I'd never heard of Wongar before one of the many "new" accounts brought it to BLPN. Asking someone to declare whether they have a COI is not a personal attack, the fact you claim it is further supports the view you should be ignored IMO. (Continuing to insist someone has a COI without much evidence when they've declared they have no COI may be, but that wasn't what happened here.)

Since you don't have a COI as you've finally declared, I stand by my view that if you want someone to look into this, you need to establish that you are not one of the large number of socks we keep getting by sticking around constructively contributing elsewhere. Since we're sick of wasting time on socks who want changes that are never going to happen. (See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vujkovica brdo/Archive noting that while of the identified ones, I think only the master ever edited B. Wongar but plenty of IPs with similar editing patterns did.) One thing which maybe wasn't clear earlier, once you have sufficient experience you may not need a BLPN thread to improve the article, since you could use that experience to improve it without needing much help from others, unlike your failed recent attempts. (You will quickly learn for example that the views of people who died so long ago on something that remains a significant issue tend to count for very little and so will probably yourself be embarrassed by the examples you used.) Definitely I've come across old comments of mine which I now recognise reflect a lack of understanding of our policies or guidelines or whatever.

Nil Einne (talk) 08:25, 2 October 2021 (UTC) 05:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Isabel Webster‎

Isabel Webster‎ (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) succession of IPs that think a third party saying "happy birthday" on Twitter confirms a birth date. FDW777 (talk) 12:07, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misbah_El-Ahdab

Misbah_El-Ahdab or link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Misbah_El-Ahdab This wiki page contains fake news and false information. The two sections of Drug involvement and Lebanese protests are fake news. The ministry of interior of Lebanon saw these two fake articles and denied them by declaring that these are fake news. Source: https://www.lebanese-forces.com/2012/07/30/229714/

Please can you remove these two sections. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodolophesaad (talk • contribs) 14:56, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Ron Gant

1. I made the following edit to the BLP article for Ron Gant.

   In January 1994, Gant was sued in Victoria County, Texas and accused of conspiring to encourage, aid and assist a friend in having sex with two teenage girls.

2. User:BilCat reverted my edit because, he argues, "adding notice of a suit like this with no follow-up on what happened to the suit violates WP:BLP."
3. I undid his revert and pointed out that "There is nothing here that violates WP:BLP unless you can point me to a specific provision or a consensus buried in a talk page somewhere that I'm overlooking. I would certainly add further information about what became of that lawsuit if I were able to find it but that information is in no way required."
4. He again reverted my edit and said that the edit "tarnishes his name needlessly" and violates "the spirit of WP:BLP."

I was just hoping a third party could weigh in on this. I can't see any reason that it should be removed from his article. It's certainly notable in that it was widely reported in newspapers at the time and it was implied in many of those articles that it contributed to his eventually being let go by the Atlanta Braves. I'm thoroughly unconvinced by the "spirit of" BLP argument and don't think something so vague and abstract should be a factor here. --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 16:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

References

Seems a grand jury declining to indict would be equally, if not more relevant. [[7]]

BLP leans heavily to protecting the subject of the article so a one-day story with little follow up doesn't come across as WP:DUE Slywriter (talk) 16:42, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Agree with Slywriter here: this is not a BLP violation, as it is well-sourced, but in the grand sweep of time, it feels undue, especially given the NYT article. Then again, I am often wrong. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:46, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I hadn't been able to find the NYT article in my own research. I think if I add that bit of information then it will resolve the edit war. I won't be accused of "tarnishing his name needlessly." --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 16:47, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

With all due respect, this would not be my preferred outcome--in essence you would be enlarging upon an undue section. I think it should be removed, but consensus may well go against me. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 16:50, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Dumuzid. Accused and not indicted seems pretty WP:UNDUE, unless there was a huge amount of coverage to establish the importance. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

I also agree that this seems undue, especially given that the sources are all from the same month period and there does not seem to be any coverage of this accusation since. I think it also may be a BLP violation based on the sourcing given that there was no indictment and the reporting is only on a lawsuit that was filed without reporting on its resolution. Starting a conversation on the article's talk page before BLPN probably would have been helpful, but at least for now I have removed the contentious content until some sort of consensus is reached per WP:ONUS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:09, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

No, there was wide coverage at the time given both AP and UPI coverage[8], being syndicated to thousands of newspapers. A quick check on newspaper.com shows 485 articles covering this in 1994. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:01, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Multiple articles reported that the lawsuit was dropped in April 1994 by the accuser due to stress. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:31, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree, there was a lot of coverage, but of a flash-in-the-pan nature; the reliable sources seem to have pretty quickly concluded that there was no "there" there. As such, it still seems undue to me, but if consensus is against me, so be it! Happy Saturday, all. Dumuzid (talk) 22:12, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Which just means 485 papers picked up a syndictated story. That's not wide, nor is it sustained coverage. That's just the newspaper model of 1994. Slywriter (talk) 22:14, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

You don't understand that's how the majority of newspaper coverage works and still works. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:33, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

I understand quite well that syndication means ONE story gets printed in multiple places. It also makes it ONE source, not 485. It also doesn't make the coverage sustained or widespread as it's a ONE day story. No newspaper appears to have done their own follow up nor did the AP feel the need to keep its syndicated customers informed on the topic. And let's keep it about the topic, thanks. Slywriter (talk) 22:38, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Multiple articles across dates published in multiple newspapers. When the lawsuit is filed, articles appeared Jan 29. When the grand jury reviewed and declined to indict, articles appeared February 9. When the lawsuit was dropped, articles appeared April 14. You can run that check on newspapers.com Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:45, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

So three stories with none of them appearing to justify that this is due or appropriate for a BLP. No biographer, no retrospect on his career has been shown to cover this matter. An accusation was made, it was not found to be criminal and was ultimately not litigated civilly. Slywriter (talk) 23:05, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, please keep moving those goalposts. What biographies are out there of Ron Gant? What career retrospect would cover non-career stuff? WP:PUBLICFIGURE is satisfied. As for DUE, this is no less due than his bar fight, fatal car accident, mortgage fraud sting operation from his personal life section in terms of the amount of coverage. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:47, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Those are all verified incidents that happened, though I think the bar fight is gossip. This is single allegation that had no lasting impact on his career or how media covered him. No notoriety, no fame, no sustained coverage, not even a mention found upon his retirement. That's not moving the goalposts, it is exactly what is required of an encyclopedia covering a living person. Slywriter (talk) 00:16, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

What part of WP:DUE requires lasting impact, notoriety, fame, or sustained coverage? None of those other incidents would seem to meet that. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I apologize for invoking WP:DUE, though that is still the best description for me, but this claim certainly received coverage. Given the policy at WP:BLP of avoiding tabloid-style stories and exercising editorial judgment, I still think this should stay out. None of us know what actually happened here, but we have in essence, is two sets of stories: "claim" and "claim went away." If you can can form a consensus to override me, I won't complain, but I remain a no. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:20, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:NOTNEWS is part of the content policies related to NPOV and DUE, and it seems pretty common sense that as information becomes more contentious, the importance of the lasting impact and sustained coverage becomes more important. If only one source reported on some non-controversial activity a person did as a child, then that has a much lower bar to be DUE. However, for a serious criminal accusations, if the only sources that discuss it are news reports that appeared only briefly right when it was a news topic, then that seems to be exactly one of the types of situations where we should not simply be reporting unsubstantiated allegations that merely made the news. If this lawsuit has never been mentioned again in the many news stories about the article subject since, then I don't see how it is relevant to the article or DUE. The other examples given by Morbidthoughts are all based on actual verified incidents, and no one disputes that the fight, car accident, or sting operation occurred. I really don't see how they are comparable situations at all. The only one of those that even concerns an allegation related to Gant is whether he was responsible for the other person's injuries in the fight, but that case both went to trial and was also reported on 15 years after it happened, and so it is far more relevant and DUE than a lawsuit that was filed and withdrawn without any actual resolution on the merits and a grand jury that never led to an indictment. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 08:06, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

BLP protection for this type of situation is explicit in WP:SUSPECT. I do not read any requirement in WP:DUE nor WP:NPOV nor WP:NOTNEWS that the underlying incident be verified. The lawsuit did happen just like his breaking his leg right afterward and being let go by his team. News articles about his leg break mentioned the lawsuit because they thought it was pertinent to do so. WP:WEIGHT is an issue of weighing the coverage while NPOV requires it be stated neutrally; not hiding WP:ITSIMPORTANT/WP:WEDONTNEEDIT behind pseudo-BLP inferences. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, breaking his leg appears to have been a significant part of his life and career that has been covered in many articles about him since it happened. That situation also did not involve any allegations against Gant, especially not allegations of serious criminal conduct, and so similar to the other examples you gave above, I am not sure how it is relevant to the situation under discussion. Can you find any reliable sources in the past 20 years discussing the sexual assault allegations against Gant? – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the significance of the leg break. Read the original complaint on the context of the lawsuit with the leg break. Again you're inferring a time significance test that does not exist in any of the policies you cited under the guise of common sense. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:19, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Donald C. Bolduc

Hello. Please note this page is being updated and any edits to it is <in use> Please refrain from removing the text or updated as was are trying to put in citations but cannot when you revert. If you have a <diff> then contact me directly but this information is coming directly from General Bolduc. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bronxslicer (talk • contribs)

• We have evidence that this person is being paid to edit Don C Bolduc. Block him. Thank you, Pyramids09 (talk) 17:30, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Aside from any paid editing concerns, I understand what you're saying and why you are saying it, but you're running up against a pretty hard and fast rule on Wikipedia, encapsulated in WP:BLP. Namely that everything that is likely to be challenged must be cited. If someone comes across such a thing in an article about a person, and there's no citation, they would be doing the "right thing" to remove it. I would humbly suggest that for any contentious claims, you add the cite at the same time you add the claim. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:32, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

• Dumuzid Look at his edit summaries, there is some evidence there. Thank you.Pyramids09 (talk) 17:39, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  So, I am about the farthest thing from an admin, but having had a look, I understand the concern. I am not sure paid editing is necessarily the issue, but there is a clear and openly declared WP:COIN. Bronxslicer, at this point I think it is incumbent upon you to declare exactly what your relationship is to the article's subject and/or any of his political campaigns. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 18:01, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

  Pyramids09, if the unsourced promotional edits continue, the conflict of interest noticeboard may be a better place to get the attention of interested admins. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:04, 30 September 2021 (UTC)

Stel Pavlou

Raising issue of notability and possible the subject of the article WP:BLPEDIT editing it, which is getting close to an edit war re: templates for WP:AUTHOR and WP:BLP. This user(s) already has claimed that the templates equal harassment and vandalism, which come from IP addresses in subject's city. IMHO, the guy has so little written about him in detail to achieve notability.

He wrote a few books (nothing special there), wrote the screenplay for an unexceptional movie, and recently hosted a pseudoarchaeology show on Discovery Channel. There are just a few third-party sources covering these activities, but none provide comprehensive coverage for WP:BIO or get passed the threshold for WP:N. I added the a recent piece from The Daily Beast, which covered a but of the criticism of this pseudoarchaeology show got on Twitter and a "Twitter Storm" that erupted when subject and his wife insulted professional archaeologists. Even with this WP:1EVENT, this guy does not achieve notability. More experienced eyes are welcome. Qt.petrovich (talk) 10:28, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I checked the IP address of user. That city has a high pop. and other famous peeps. User could be Dog the Bounty Hunter for all we know! He lives there too. Your edits do appear to verge on vandalism, as most of your edits are aimed at this dude, his work, his show, his hosting partner. Looks like you have a personal grudge. User:Sj you created this entry and now the subject has his own TV show on Discovery. That good enough for you? I recommend Qt.petrovich be banned for antisocial activity. Madvark talk

A ban for anti-social activity? That seems a bit much for someone inquiring about notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:10, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Look at the post activity. Dude came here for one reason and is on a tear. Not cool. Madvark talk

If you're going to post under a username, please create an account. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:23, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Have account. Got logged out.Madvark talk

And instead of typing out a signature you can use ~~~~ at the end of your message to sign the post. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

There is now an AfD for this page: WP:Articles_for_deletion/Stel_Pavlou_(2nd_nomination). Since this also deals with WP:FRINGE issues, I would ping @Roxy the dog and @Alexbrn. @jps may also have a fair opinion. Qt.petrovich (talk) 10:47, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Read WP:CANVASS. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 11:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, and I am sorry for possibly having inappropriately done this. I was informing editors who may be interested in the topic, which I thought was appropriate. Qt.petrovich (talk) 11:23, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, better to use noticeboards rather than pinging specific users about discussions where consensus is trying to be reached. However, I am not altogether enthusiastic about the WP:SPA active in this thread. It's making it difficult to actually do the job of evaluating sources. Back to the subject of this thread, you have identified some good sources here, so WP:GNG may have been reached. jps (talk) 13:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Melanie Rawn

The link to Melanie Rawn's official website is no longer correct. Clicking the official website link (http://www.melanierawn.com/) listed in the External Links section of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melanie_Rawn now takes you to a gambling website. Clearly the author has allowed the domain name to lapse. Only viable solution: remove the link. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.238.162.43 (talk) 17:34, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Feel free to remove it. Qt.petrovich (talk) 17:40, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Fixed it. Should have been .org. Schazjmd (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the fix, but honestly, it wasn't worth the effort. -Roxy the sceptical dog. wooF 11:15, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Katherine Pooley

Raising issue of notability and possible the subject of the article WP:BLPEDIT editing it. The sources cited in the article do not meet the criteria to merit notability of this living person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.30.55.114 (talk) 17:50, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

William Patterson Dunlop

There is a discussion on the talk page. My position is that we should not be saying this person is dead without a reliable secondary source stating this information. I am also concerned that none of the biographical information can be sourced to a reliable secondary source. Most of the information there was posted by anonymous IPs who are ostensibly family and friends making the article shortly after the actor's death. What reliable secondary source that can be found amount to a list of films and tv shows the actor has worked in.

User:4meter4 is of the opinion that we should not be saying he is alive either, which I agree with. In fact if we cannot find such sources we should not have an article at all. The user also says that we should apply WP:COMMONSENSE and accept what family and friends are posting here, and that we should accept the primary source findagrave.com as a reference. The findagrave entry was written by a volunteer to the website and includes text from an earlier version of our article.

The article is currently at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Patterson Dunlop

We are an am impasse and would like further community opinions on the matter. Thank you. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 02:54, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Correction, I may be wrong about findagrave using Wikipedia text. It may have been the other way around. I still don't believe it qualifies as a reliable secondary source as it was written by a volunteer to the site much in the same way the Wikipedia operates. HighInBC ^{Need help? Just ask.} 03:04, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

Patrick Maher (writer)

Patrick Maher (writer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) There are several problems with the article.The article has full of false/misguided information about books that he wrote and published. Which is damaging his impression and he doesn't want to be on Wikipedia. Most of the citations were promotional articles and now only 2-3 of the links are live, all others are deleted. And there is no such notability.I would like to delete the article on behalf of the person. Is that possible? I have delclared COI. Simplewikipedian (talk) 18:52, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

I nominated the article for AfD. Qt.petrovich (talk) 09:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Julian Assange

Fresh eyes would be helpful at the Julian Assange article -- a troubled page frequented by various self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media. There is an RfC here regarding a Yahoo News article relating to Assange. Prior discussion of the issue is found here in a long thread that gives some background on the issue and the preceding edit war]. SPECIFICO talk 20:45, 3 October 2021 (UTC)

This is not neutrally worded. I think you need to lay of accusations of fandom, implying bias.Slatersteven (talk) 09:52, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I think the part that needs to be looked at is the venue shopping for this dispute. Talk:Julian_Assange#Notification:_Discussion_at_BLP_noticeboard;_NPOV_noticeboard;_RS_noticeboard shows that this dispute has been put on a handful of locations for simultaneous discussion and this appears to be WP:TE of the ijustdontlikeit kind. Jtbobwaysf (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It looks like SPECIFICO is asking for participation in the RfC not simultaneous discussion in multiple venues. Neutral notification at appropriate locations is not generally considered venue shopping although I'm not sure if there was need for so many. However I do agree with Slatersteven that the notification clearly wasn't neutral which is clearly an issue as it violates WP:CANVASSING. Nil Einne (talk) 20:38, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Please. Canvassing relates to soliciting editors with a POV on the question, not to my having stated the circumstance that the talk page is a mess and needs help. SPECIFICO talk 21:33, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:APPNOTE what you posted here should be neutrally worded. It’s not. It would have been had you omitted “a troubled page frequented by various self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media.” Strike it. DeCausa (talk) 21:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, I would add that canvassing like this harms the stated caused. I don't think I would have participated in that discussion but my chances went down significantly when I saw the canvassing as well. I'm not the only one as plenty of editors detest canvassing. Nil Einne (talk) 17:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, I did not state any cause, which I take to mean a position on the content issue. The talk page discusion is about article text and sourcing, not pro- or con- Assange. You may find my words repugnant, and they may have been gratuitous -- my bad -- but this is not what we call "canvassing" and I feel that's an undue characterization of what was at most an overly detailed statement that there is an impossible editing impasse on the page w/o new editors coming to have a look. SPECIFICO talk 18:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Please review the text under "Campaigning" link at the canvassing page. Describing editors as "various self-described fans of Assange, opponents of the US, and disparagers of mainstream media" gives the false implication that these are the editors participating at the RFC you are linking to. You call this an "impossible editing impasse" when it's almost entirely been driven by you. You should accept the feedback here and elsewhere that what you've done is inappropriate and drop the stick. Mr Ernie (talk) 19:16, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The point is that new editors may disagree with you whereas your message indicated a very cold response from you to such editors. Your introduction to me at User talk:86.20.127.101 was not exactly what I'd call a welcome to a new editor. Canvassing is supposed to be a call without selection. NadVolum (talk) 11:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

It's quite simple really. Either SPECIFICO's description of contributors given above was written with the intent of influencing the discussion, which is canvassing, or it wasn't, in which case it was an an entirely unmerited personal attack on them, made for no legitimate reason whatsoever. AndyTheGrump (talk) 11:55, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Parm Sandhu

Parm Sandhu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article is a biography of a living person. It makes a number of claims about that person. Those claims are referenced, but the claims are not supported by the references given. For example there is mention of an award, and the reference leads to https://www.awaawards.com/, but that web page does not mention the individual that the article is about.

There is also mention of a medal - which is supported by a news article that does not mention medals.

There is mention of an audience with the Queen - which again is supported by a news article that does not mention an audience with the Queen.

The information above was removed in line with the BLP policy - "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that: is unsourced or poorly sourced;" However that edit was classed as vandalism and has been restored, in voilation of BLP policy "Restoring deleted content". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.97.13.110 (talk) 12:45, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for cleaning up the article. As you said, it does not appear any of the content you removed was supported by the cited sources. I do not know why Pachu Kannan restored the material, but I have reverted their edit until adequate sourcing can be provided. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:35, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Katie Price

Katie Price (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is an intractable dispute going on at the Katie Price article. WP:NOTNEWS states: Even when an individual is notable, not all events they are involved in are. For example, news reporting about celebrities and sports figures can be very frequent and cover a lot of trivia, but using all these sources would lead to over-detailed articles that look like a diary. Not every facet of a celebrity's life, personal details, matches played, or goal scored is significant enough to be included in the biography of a person.. WP:BLPGOSSIP states: Avoid repeating gossip. Ask yourself whether the source is reliable; whether the material is being presented as true; and whether, even if true, it is relevant to a disinterested article about the subject. and WP:PROPORTION states An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject, but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and impartial, but still disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Two attempts to trim the personal life section of this BLP to remove laundry lists of gossip and overcoverage of her personal relationships has been stale reverted. The first time by @Escape Orbit: and the second time by User:Okay,okayhshshs, who was not involved in discussions previously and is a borderline SPA. Attempts to discuss on the talk page [9], ended last week with no further response to me, so today, I began trimming the material in question. @Martinevans123: began a new discussion, decrying the changes [10] The policies I've cited are pretty clear and loading a BLP down with all of this trivial tabloid gossip seems at best a violation of the spirit of WP:BLP. Discussion has gone nowhere, so here I am, looking for help. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 19:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

In terms of removal, the easiest way to identify gossip is to look at quality of the sources and remove anything that is reported by questionable sources. Since this person is a celebrity, even high quality sources may report on the most mundane thing but determining correct proportion or appropriateness is best done through discussion rather than unilaterally. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:20, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

For example, Daily Record (Scotland) is a tabloid and should be excised and The Argus (Brighton) looks somewhat questionable due to the headlines on its front page.[11] Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:57, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"WhatsApp, Facebook and Instagram down in massive outage"? Yeah, that looks just totally made up. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:05, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

No, surely it’s the blatant sensationalism of “Slow traffic reported along Old Shoreham Road after collision near Shell station” for which The Brighton Argus is so notorious. DeCausa (talk) 22:11, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

omg. Martinevans123 (talk) 22:14, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Headlines like "Two boys arrested after police investigate burglaries at children's play centre", "Council leader rubbishes claim that an extra bin collection was ordered to his area ahead of strike", "Man hit in the head with hammer during aggravated burglary" do not inspire the greatest of confidence in the weight of its reports beyond ho hum WP:NOTNEWS. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:25, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

I've restored the catalogue of driving issues (whch are all impeccably sourced, and for which she may well end up in prison) whilst removing the extraneous issues. Black Kite (talk) 22:29, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The driving issues seem relevant to some extent, but the amount of detail in the article seemed pretty excessive. I've tried to trim them down some to remove extraneous details [12]. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:28, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The itemized laundry list of incidents and penalties are excessive and the initial 2010 incidents are sourced to the Daily Record (ref=paparazzi) and Argus. I would not call those impeccable sourcing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:30, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The Evening Standard citation link (an April 2012 article) does not seem to verify or align with the stated Dec 2010 ban? Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:44, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, that article is from December 2010 [13]. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I delved into the archives after posting and updated the link so that there would be no confusion. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:55, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Summoned here by a surprise ping. Accused of "playing games". Ooh, that's a lot of bold text above. Why should the "dispute" be "intractable"? The article may need trimming. It's the unilateral onslaught method to which I'm objecting. Martinevans123 (talk) 20:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

"lack of any coverage now is why we can omit it now" - I'm pretty sure that's not how things work. What constitutes as "now"? Are you saying that if something hasn't been published in the last 10 years about something, it should be removed from Wikipedia? Erased from history because people don't publish about it anymore? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 16:27, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

That's not what "enduring" means. If, ten years ago, there was several months of coverage of this event, that would be enduring coverage and likely a sign that even now, we'd keep it (but there are other factors too, keeping in mind we don't regularly republish celebrity gossip-type news) But a short term burst of coverage that may be in the news for a day or two and then never covered again is something that is not considered enduring, and thus we would not include it. --Masem (t) 16:33, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Summoned here by stalking Martinevans123's contributions. I think Black Kite's version is probably the one to go for, it's compliant with BLP, balances the opposed views here and is hopefully a suitable enough compromise. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 23:32, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Everything on this BLP is sourced, but always happy to see the sources improved. While some of it may seem trivial and personal, I'm afraid that this is the nature of the article subject. Her notability almost entirely revolves around the events in her personal life. That is "proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject." So I do not see any issue with the article reflecting that. If there is anything factually questionable in the article then EnPassant should challenge it, and it will of course be removed immediately, rather than taking the approach of removing paragraphs on no other basis that they don't like it, and referencing policy that doesn't apply.

I also don't see how information about being bankrupt, or claiming to be raped, could ever be considered of no note or "irrelevant". --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 13:03, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

1) She filed for bankruptcy, which is not a unique or particularly important event. She is not notable for her financial acumen. Please explain why bankruptcy is relevant in this BLP. 2) In 2009, she claimed to she had been sexually assaulted at some point, but there was no police investigation, the police declined to pursue it, she declined to discuss it further and no chargers were brought. The claim came to nothing. Please explain why it should remain in this BLP, especially in its own section. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 13:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

"Please explain why bankruptcy is relevant in this BLP." - It was part of her life, for which she is notable.

"Please explain why it should remain in this BLP, especially in its own section." - Because it would be a very important part of her life, if it happened. And if it didn't, it would be a very important indication of her life. Are you suggesting that the fact she said she'd been raped should be ignored? --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much this. Editors have to remember we're writing an encyclopedia, and biographic articles should be covering events about a person that have enduring coverage. So for example, the sexual assault claims never went anywhere, including herself, after they were reported, so that's a clear lack of enduring coverage and thus should not be in the article. Same with the bankruptcy, and I'd argue the same with the drug problems. I'd also be further careful on assuming that just because of having several driving issues that represents a large issue altogether, as that's a bit of SYNTH potentially there. Basically, unless we're talking a situation that involves a major career impact, all these little bits of gossip-y stuff shouldn't be part of our documentation. --Masem (t) 13:55, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

"never went anywhere, including herself" - and you know how she feels about this how?

"Same with the bankruptcy" - part of her life and lifestyle for which she is notable.

"just because of having several driving issues that represents a large issue altogether" - multiple reliable sources have suggested that this is part of a larger issue. Members of her family are quoted as saying it. There is no SYNTH here. If anything, the article avoids this. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Sources sources sources. First point: lack of any coverage now is why we can omit it now. If she still feels it is a major factor in her life, it should be easy to prove out sourcing that shows she still talks about it now. Same with the bankrupcy. As for the driving factors, if there are RSes that frequently talk about these as a whole, these should be leading off this section to avoid the OR potential. --Masem (t) 17:12, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that without some indication of enduring coverage, it is hard to argue that these personal issues are due. If the only sourcing for a personal life detail is contemporaneous news coverage, then it is probably not something that should be covered in an encyclopedia unless it had a significant impact on their life, which is hard to determine without retrospective coverage. The rape accusation may be a more difficult situation because there are many people who speak out about being survivors of sexual assault who do not want to say who did it and have never gone to police. However, if no sources have discussed it since it was a news topic, then we should probably be guided by them and the fact that they do not consider it a significant part of her life (and vice versa if it has been covered retrospectively). – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Someone has to somehow "justify" a well-covered report of rape by "having it discussed" by the media in the following 12 years? If media have not thought this a good topic for discussion, and/or Price herself has no more to say on it, that's hardly likely to happen. Isn't the fact that it happened at all, and she claimed it was perpetrated by a "famous celebrity", the notable aspect? Or do we not believe her, as she didn't go to the police? Martinevans123 (talk) 17:41, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Yes, Wikipedia editors do have to justify their content additions with relevant sources. Also, the question is whether the content is WP:NOTEWORTHY, and not whether it was "notable". It isn't helpful to make unsupported accusations about other editors' beliefs either. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:52, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I was asking if the victim somehow needs to justify it in that way. Not a Wikipedia editor. Sorry if that was unclear. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

What the victim needs to do is not germane. This is an encyclopedia, not an activism forum. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 21:50, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Ah right. Let's just call it "inconsequntial gossip". Then we can sweep it under the encyclopaedia carpet. Perhaps it never happened? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:25, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

If no one talked about it outside a window of a few days or weeks when it was brought up, then in WP's eyes, it absolutely is considered inconsequential gossip. That shows that the media decided it may not have had any corroboration to really follow up, for example. If it was a truly severe issue in her life, I would have expected her to bring it up more and demand more justice, which would have been reflected in sources. But that's not what seemed to happen. --Masem (t) 23:14, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that rape is necessarily that simple. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

You don't need to be convinced. The reliable sources do, which is part of our core policies. To say otherwise implies non-neutrality. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 14:58, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• General comment If she had done nothing else but get arrested for drunk driving (and related issues), been hospitalized for an accident, filed bankruptcy and had some surgery would she have a Wikipedia article? The answer to that is no. So then, what is she notable for? EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 13:51, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

She is notable for all these things, and others. Such is the nature of her notability and the coverage she receives in reliable sources. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 17:02, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

A person is not notable for anything that is merely covered in a news story. Regardless, the more important question is whether this content is WP:NOTEWORTHY, as not all verifiable information is important enough for inclusion. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:18, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Exactly, as also covered in three policies (WP:NOTNEWS, WP:BLPGOSSIP and WP:PROPORTION) I've quoted up at the top. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 17:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

These are all great addendums and modifiers of the real policy that covers this, which is NPOV, and in particular, BALANCE and WEIGHT. This is how we normally keep trivia and gossipy info out of celebrity articles. It is more than a bit mundane and ridiculous to write about things like speeding tickets and traffic stops, or even drunk driving charges and the like --unless it can be shown that the incident has had some lasting impact on the subject's life and career, and for any celebrity, politician, or public figure, the coverage of such a life-altering incident would surly be very wide. As a matter of balance and weight, the question I would often ask myself is not whether it deserves inclusion, but how much weight (weight meaning space) should we give it? A full section? A single paragraph, or is the weight so small it deserves no more than a sentence? Maybe it deserves no more than a single letter? If the answer is anything less than a sentence, then it doesn't merit any mention.

The thing about weight and balance is that they are dimensionless numbers, being a proportion of both sources and the size of the article. Not all reliable sources carry the same weight, so it's not simply a matter of sheer volume either. What I would suggest would be: the proper way to handle this, per BLP, is to not include until consensus is achieved to include, and then work this out on the talk page to achieve consensus one way or the other. At the end of the day, we don't want info that makes us read like a tabloid or gossip column, which is why these policies exist. It what we do. Zaereth (talk) 22:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you really think edits like this one are most helpful? Do you really doubt any of the items in that list? Some people might look for sources, or even ask on the Talk page, rather than just delete the entire section? Martinevans123 (talk) 22:37, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I tend to agree that wiping out things like filmographies - which are non-contentious aspects even for a BLP - is not an appropriate step since that is more a matter of going out and verifying the sources (as an WP:ITN/C this is a constant problem we urge people to do for recently deceased). This info is far different compared to any of the above issues which do involve contentious info. --Masem (t) 23:11, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The section was tagged as unsourced since July. The template says unsourced material may be challenged and removed. WP:BURDEN says "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution." Do you feel that comments like these [14] [15] are most helpful? EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 23:47, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I found the front page of The Argus very amusing and the comments from other editors moreso. You'd have to ask them if they were helpful. Martinevans123 (talk) 07:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The thing about Wikipedia policies is that they all not only work with each other, but modify and augment each other, making them flexible to account for different situations. You could say BLP is the highest policy, but it too works with, augments, and is augmented by all the other policies such as NPOV. If this were a case of, say ... someone using court documents to support a claim of speeding, then it would be a slam-dunk BPL case. But it's not. I find it best not to nitpick at different parts of policy, but try to think of it a one giant equation, where to include something it must satisfy every single part of that equation. If it fails any one of these hurdles, then we shouldn't include it.

But one part of this policy is that we shouldn't delete material that is self-evident simply because it doesn't have a source. We might want a source verifying that water is wet, but that water is indeed wet is easily self evident. (Better is to explain why it is wet, but that's another issue.) There's a point when it is simply better to tag it as needing a source, but otherwise there is no need to remove it unless some evidence exists to show that water is not wet, or whatever the case may be. For one thing, it helps attract new editors when they read it and realize, hey, they have a source right there.

But then again, there are other instances where it most certainly is better to remove unsourced info until consensus is reached for inclusion, such as info that may be harmful to a living person. It's important to know the difference, and that why there is danger in viewing policy in the same way a lawyer would argue law. I agree with you on many of your deletions, but not so much on this particular one. At some point, either way, it needs to come down to consensus, and consensus itself can be difficult to judge. It's not a matter of counting votes but weighing arguments. Zaereth (talk) 00:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

That's a fair point. Herein lies the problem: It was tagged as "unsourced" by someone else in July. Tags should not remain indefinitely and it's not necessarily incorrect to tag that part as unsourced. If I remove the tag (and I mention this because similar instances have happened to me several times in the past), whomever placed it will inevitably revert me because the "issue is not resolved". Then I can either spend days arguing with them over whether a stupid template should be left in for a list of uncontroversial guest appearances, or simply give up and move on. Guess which one I usually choose now. There are articles here with templates like that which have languished for over 10 years in some cases. This is a Wikipedia process that simply does not work correctly. And on the other hand, don't even get me started on the cynical snark and stonewalling I get when trying to enforce core policies. EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 14:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd also add, to clarify for those who may not know, an encyclopedia's purpose is to provide a summary of all knowledge, not all knowledge. Just the nitty gritty. This by definition means trimming out all the fluff and getting down to the bones, and is what separates us from other types of sources. It's not censorship or anything like that. It's summarizing. It's all a part of the NPOV part of it. It's just what we do, and consensus is how we do it. Zaereth (talk) 00:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• I do think there are some BLP issues here. For example, the extensive details on her son, who is a private person and a child, seems to have minimal relevance to the BLP of Katie Price. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:42, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• "Price gave birth to her first child, son Harvey, in Brighton in May 2002." So he's now 19 years old? There's one paragraph, of four short sentences, about him. He's a central part of Price's life and a TV documentary Katie Price: Harvey and Me has just been aired about him? I don't see that as "minimal relevance", more like "minimal coverage". Martinevans123 (talk) 17:46, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

• (outdent) So is the consensus that the current version conforms to the policies I quoted at the top of this discussion? EnPassant♟♙ (talk) 15:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

It beggars belief that anyone seriously even considered this latest crash, given all the gory and shameful details, somehow fell under any sensible definition of gossip, trivia or harmful. What would she have to do for it to merit a mention in Wikipedia? Kill someone? Because who is to say given the facts as established by the highly trustworthy BBC that it was anything but luck that she didn't? She drove drunk and on coke at speed down a dark country lane and lost control so badly due to perhaps nothing but her own intoxication, that she somehow put her large and heavy vehicle on its side. It brings shame and embarrassment on Wikipedia that the person who tried to whitewash this article is still trying to suggest he is in the right, and that somehow it is other people who don't quite get what he is saying. I do, and I am offended by it. Basic common sense should tell anyone there is no plausible scenario where Katie Price having to go to rehab after nearly killing someone won't ever somehow be forgotten in any future summation of her life. Unless of course, it becomes a footnote to her actually killing someone. Not least because she's more than likely going to want to exploit it for her own personal gain down the line, her future books and TV shows being all about her noble struggle with drink and drugs and mental health issues, and not, more's the pity, any attempt to persuade young girls that hers is not the life they need to emulate. Cameron Dev (talk) 20:20, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Ignoring WP:NOTFORUM concerns, that seems like a pretty disingenuous comment, considering that the article says, "In September 2021, Price was taken to hospital after a car crash near Partridge Green, which is located close to her home in Horsham. Later that month, Price pleaded guilty to driving drunk without insurance and while disqualified." It also seems bizarre to argue that content is not gossip by appealing to "all the gory and shameful details". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:47, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

The problem with that line of reasoning is that it is based upon your own beliefs and system of values of what constitutes trivial information. Everybody has a different value system. Me, I couldn't care less about any of this, as it's not related to any science, physics, or technical info. But Wikipedia doesn't care about our individual ideals. We determine what is trivia or not by a preponderance of reliable sources. It's not, "Do I care?" In the case of celebrities and the like, it's, "Do enough people out there care to publish about it a lot, and for an extended amount of time?" Is it widely reported in RSs, and does the story have any staying power, like the case of Charles Manson did? (Note: Manson's story mainly blew up because it happened in Beverly Hills.) Or are people just going to loose interest and move on to the next shiny object? Who really knows why some stories bloom and some just fade away, but that's how we differentiate the gossip and trivia from the really important things. It's what balance and weight are all about, and why articles on people like Kim Kardashian are well-read and not just a bloated messes. The best way to determine balance and weight is to discuss the sourcing on the article's talk page. Zaereth (talk) 21:05, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I recommend an RfC for the very worst of it and work from there. The article is a huge BLP and NOT violation as it is. Sanctions apply, and disputed content should not be restored until there is consensus to do so. --Hipal (talk) 21:09, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Charles W. Mills

I and Caribbean Philosopher disagree about the appropriate nationality to use (per WP:CONTEXTBIO) in the lede of Charles W. Mills, a biography of a recently deceased philosopher. Any input is appreciated. Perhaps the best option is simply to omit nationality entirely as sources including this NYT obituary studiously avoid describing him as American, Jamaican, or Caribbean. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:04, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

It should be whatever his citizenships are. Did he have Jamaican citizenship through his parents? Did he lose his UK (and possibly Jamaica) citizenship upon becoming an American? The lead can expound on his Caribbean background later if it is important to notability as a philosopher. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

He put his Jamaican citizenship in the past tense in 2014, "I was a citizen of a small Third World country, Jamaica...", while he described himself as an American citizen in 2020.[16] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:51, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for doi:10.4324/9781315857299-20 - hadn't seen that. Based on my WP:OR from British nationality law and Jamaican nationality law, he would be a British citizen by lex soli and a Jamaican citizen by lex sanguinis. He stated in an interview that he acquired US citizenship. So he would have held three citizenships unless he renounced one or more or they ended by operation of law. But, of course, none of this can go in the article without statements in sources. As far as the sources go, following WP:ABOUTSELF, he called himself "Caribbean-American": see this page (page 172), in an essay republished from JSTOR 26770019. And in the interview I mentioned below, he explicitly called himself an American citizen. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 22:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

The whole point of Contextbio is to de-emphasize ethnicity or background in favour of actual legal status (nationality or citizenship). It would be nice to learn when he became an American citizen so that we could put it in its proper context later. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:09, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

If his nationality/nationalities are not an important part of his identity or are more complicated than a one-word country designation(s) in the lead would suggest, then I think it may be appropriate to leave his nationality out of the lead. The additional context in the personal life section seems more helpful to readers. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

This is my view as well. I think Caribbean-American, perhaps with accompanying {{efn}}, is the best fit, since it (1) was Mills's self-description, at least in one publication; and (2) accounts for his childhood in Jamaica and most of his adult life in the US (minus an interlude in Toronto for his PhD). But the matter is complex enough that it's probably just best to leave out. AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 23:50, 4 October 2021 (UTC)

Abdulrazak Gurnah

A very similar controversy to the one on Charles W. Mills is happening over at Abdulrazak Gurnah, only this time it's Zanzibar, Tanzania, and the UK that we're having trouble settling on. Sources are a bit more explicit this time; Guardian and WBUR (NPR affiliate) say "Zanzibari"; Reuters says "Tanzanian"; CBC has the inelegant but more fulsome "U.K.-based Tanzanian writer". Any thoughts? AleatoryPonderings (???) (!!!) 16:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Tanzania's nationality law: https://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b5734.html

Every person who, having been born in Mainland Tanzania or in Zanzibar before Union Day, was immediately before Union Day a citizen of the Republic of Tanganyika or of the People's Republic of Zanzibar shall be deemed to have become, on Union Day, and, with effect from Union Day, subject to section 30, to have continued, and after the commencement of this Act shall continue, to be a citizen by birth of the United Republic.

"Union Day" refers to the date 26 April 1964, when the countries of Tanganyika and Zanzibar were merged to form Tanzania. Abdulrazak Gurnah was born in 1948 as a citizen of the Sultanate of Zanzibar, before it was overthrown in the 1964 Zanzibar Revolution to establish the People's Republic of Zanzibar. If the People's Republic of Zanzibar recognized him as a citizen, then he would be a Tanzanian citizen according to Tanzania's nationality law. However, Tanzania doesn't allow dual-citizenship, and I'm assuming he gained British citizenship after escaping to Britain. Zolarpunk (talk) 23:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

So, what if due to such law he would prefer his birth citizenship and never obtained British citizenship? And all these major news outlets such as the BBC, NYT, the Guardian keep on saying he is Tanzanian. I believe if he only holds British citizenship this fact would have been known. So by default he's Tanzanian - this is how he should be referred until anything to the contrary is known.Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 01:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

No, and it's a simple matter why. We don't call Perseus or Xerxes Iranian kings, because there was no Iran back in those days. Even most Iranians today refer to themselves as Persian (not Arab!). It's a bad idea to go and try interpreting law too, unless you're a lawyer (which most of us are not). It seems pretty obvious that if you flee the country just before the revolution, then you were never a citizen of the new regime, so it's more appropriate to use the former name (although you could clarify with a parenthetical saying (modern day Tanzania)). Zaereth (talk) 02:03, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Zaereth, your understanding about how someone's nationality is determined actually baffles me. First, laws are what determine nationality. If it's clear in a country's laws who is a citizen and who isn't, then there is no much argument regarding this. If the Tanzanian constitution states that anyone born in Zanzibar before Union Day (as this applies to our subject of discussion) automatically becomes a Tanzanian citizen when Zanzibar became a part of Tanzania, then what reasonable argument do you really have against this? Second, Someone born in country "X" and lived until their death, and before country "X" merges with country "Y" to form country "Z" will not be listed anywhere as a citizen of country "Z" (the newly formed country), but rather will be known as a citizen of country "X". However, if someone was born in country "X" and lived until the day country "X" merges with "Y" to form country "Z", that person will become an automatic citizen of country "Z". This is a universal truth, and we've seen it in history. Someone born in Istanbul during the Ottoman empire, but didn't live to witness the formation of Turkey, will not be referred to as Turkish, but rather Ottoman. But if someone was born in Istanbul and lived during the formation of Turkey, he will be known as Turkish. An East German who lived during and after the reunification of Germany will be referred to as a "German". But if such an individual didn't live up to reunification, they will be referred to as "East German" and not German. So now apply this to our subject, who was born in Zanzibar and lived up to the day and after Zanzibar united with Tanzania to form the new country known tody as Tanzania. He should therefore be listed as Tanzanian, except there is clear evidence that shows otherwise.Hassanjalloh1 (talk) 19:29, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

What matters most for Wikipedia is what reliable sources says. If they frequently conflict or dispute each other, then they should be presented in a way that provides that context. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:04, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

'Tanzanian novelist Gurnah wins 2021 Nobel for depicting impact of colonialism, migration', 'Tanzanian novelist Abdulrazak Gurnah wins Nobel Prize in literature', "The Tanzanian writer, the first Black winner since Toni Morrison, was honored for his “uncompromising and compassionate penetration of the effects of colonialism.”" - need I go on? He is in Category:Tanzanian novelists and should be described as such. This is not difficult or controversial. GiantSnowman 21:06, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I'll buy that. It's better than trying to interpret laws, especially laws from other countries. Just go with the sources. Zaereth (talk) 00:23, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Sophie Labelle

Sophie Labelle is a Canadian cartoonist that, in February 2021, was exposed for doing diaper fetish furry art. She has admitted doing so, proudly in fact, and, in a Facebook post, has described the drama as a "coming out again at 32". I wanted to add this information to her page, but the editors there are too biased (there's no other way for me to put it) and won't allow any mention of this event there, despite none of the claims I wrote being even remottely disputed (therefore, not controversial), and despite she stating that this event is very important to her life. How is it that a "coming out again at 32" of Labelle is not even mentioned in her article? This event has already been refered to by a secondary source, even though most of the information about it is in the form of primary sources and unreliable secondary sources (though I didn't reference those). I ask for any independent editor to read my edits in her article, read the talk page and, hopefully, solve this issue. -- RafaelJC12 (talk) 00:59, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't think this issue is that controversial for an artist that published Dating Tips for Trans and Queer Weirdos. (strikethrough after reading how she crafts the art) French is not my first language, but La Tribune Numerique seems to be a reliable source to demonstrate whether it should be included. Perhaps you can find more coverage of this in French or French Canadian news media? The only English coverage I could find was [17] but I do not know how reliable the site is. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I doesn't matter whether the event itself is controversial, there's no doubt it is, what matter is whether the claims I wrote are disputed. They're absolutely not. -- RafaelJC12 (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, the issue is that RafaelJC12 is proposing using self-published links (except for that LA Tribune article) to show this event is notable and I'm just not convinced. I'm not sure whether womenarehuman.com is reliable either, but if this issue is as important as the OP is saying, then there should be adequate reliable sources, as has been determined by editors on here, to back that up. That's my thought at least.Historyday01 (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

There should not be any primary links unless it is referred to in a secondary reliable source. Whatever is written about this must use a reliable source. I can't tell if the La Tribune Numerique link is a news article or an opinion column. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:35, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I can't tell either, but it might be an opinion column, which would significant lower its reliability. I agree completely with what you are saying about primary sources as well. Historyday01 (talk) 03:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

RafaelJC12, As I said on Labelle's page, if you can find more reliable sources apart from that one LA Tribune article, then is notable to include on the page. All the other sources you include here, specifically a meme website named knowyourmeme.com, two facebook links, and Tumblr link, all of which are self-published sources, don't prove that this event is notable, as it is a social media controversy, and your claims to add it are inherently controversial. Due to the fact that unreliable sources are noted here, the claims are inherently thrown into question. The talk page is a fine place to discuss issues and sources for specific pages. With that, I look forward to hearing what other users have to say here. --Historyday01 (talk) 01:29, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The article in La Tribune Numerique looks more like an opinion article than a news article, while the Women Are Human website looks like a self-published group blog with volunteer writers. Neither of those seems particularly reliable for a BLP, especially not regarding contentious material. Without being reported in multiple reliable sources, I do not see how that type of personal aspect of someone's life is relevant for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Being true and being encyclopedic are different concerns. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:40, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

It's yet another example of a brief twitter "controversy" which some enemies of the subject briefly tried to make a big deal out of, then everyone (including most of them) promptly forgot about it. The lack of substantive coverage reflects that. The subject of this article is a chronic harassment target as well, and this is barely a blip on that radar... though RafaelJC12 – with his personal attacks ("biased", "lying"), edit-warring, and general incivility – seems intent on changing that. -Jason A. Quest (talk) 01:53, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I'll let any intelligent reader decide whether or not you're proving my point about the bias of the editors. -- RafaelJC12 (talk) 02:01, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I have to agree with Wallyfromdilbert and JasonAQuest here. It is a Twitter "controversy" which seriously has a lack of substantive coverage. RafaelJC12's actions remind me of what I once said on the Twelve Forever page, sticking to a claim about the show's ending, in what was called a "contentious area" by one editor. I later reassessed, having a discussion on this very forum back in July of this year, and realized that the editors saying that the sources were unreliable were right. I would hope that RafaelJC12 does the same thing, reassesses, and moves on with editing elsewhere, as they have done before coming upon Labelle's page relatively recently, and realizes that editors on here are only trying to approach this rationally and with good faith. Historyday01 (talk) 03:24, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Shyam Sunder Das

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

He passed away in 1981. No longer a living person. Also the name of the page is Wrong, canmot change it — Preceding unsigned comment added by EduNence (talk • contribs) 02:05, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Do you own the copyright to all of the images that you posted on that page by the way? Some look like screencaps of video and others look like scans of photos. If you do own all of the copyrights, how do you know this person? Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:43, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dave Goulson

I am the subject of this page. I note that a recent edition says "Goulson has been criticized as alarmist regarding his predictions of insect population decline and for undisclosed conflicts of interest via his leadership roles with anti-pesticide NGOs.[8]"

Since the recent publication of my book Silent Earth (about the causes of insect declines) I have been targetted by various representatives of the agrochemical industry with attempts to undermine my scientific credibility. This would appear to be part of this. It suggests that I ave undisclosed conflicts of interests (I do not), and provides no reliable evidence to support this. I think this may be libellous. I ask that it be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:7127:DD00:8131:CF94:DBA9:BE32 (talk) 08:23, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I removed the claim and citation. Quillette is not a reliable source. Qt.petrovich (talk) 09:44, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Watchlisted, in anticipation of further mischief. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 10:45, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

Regarding I think this may be libellous: Please take a look at Wikipedia:No legal threats. Kleinpecan (talk) 23:26, 5 October 2021 (UTC)

I don't see a legal threat here, just an observation that may well be correct. Xxanthippe (talk) 23:38, 5 October 2021 (UTC).

J. K. Rowling

Comments from editors uninvolved with the topic are needed at Talk:J. K. Rowling#Lede sentence rewrite. At issue is a proposal to label her as "widely considered transphobic" as well as whether opinion articles are usable for support of this. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:13, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The text that Crossroads removed had stated that not Rowling, but her views have been widely criticised as transphobic, sourced to a list of RS-published pieces labeling her views as transphobic. But apparently factual accuracy in a noticeboad post is too much to expect of Crossroads where gender issues are concerned. Either that, or he fails to grasp the difference between labeling published views as transphobic and labeling a person as transphobic. Sigh.

Anyway, uninvolved editors' perspectives are most certainly required. Newimpartial (talk) 04:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

This same editor engaged in a personal attack against me at the article, and despite the fact I warned them not to, is continuing to do so here. BLP-wise, this is hardly a meaningful distinction, though I probably would have put "views" had I done this over. Since this is no longer a neutral notice with this comment, I'll elaborate: the so-called "RS-published" articles are opinion articles and/or cherry-picked, as I demonstrate there. These same editors are insistent that no reference be made to support Rowling received in the lead - making it seem like it was all negative responses, which is POV.

Anyone who wishes to comment should do so there so it can't be ignored. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

It wasn't a neutral notice to begin with; I was merely drawing attention to the fact. As far as the supposed personal attack on Talk:J. K. Rowling, as far as I can tell that is a simple ASPERSION, or even an empty gesture of an ASPERSION. I certainly have no idea what Crossroads is talking about: that he has a POV on gender-related issues is a simple fact, as those reading his Talk contributions can most certainly see for themselves, so that can't be what he means. Newimpartial (talk) 04:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS are personal attacks, what you mention here isn't what you said at the talk page, and as for saying I (and apparently uniquely I?) have a POV, readers can judge for themselves where the POV issues are. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:28, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

You are the one with the empty ASPERSIONS, AFAICT, but readers will indeed judge for themselves. Newimpartial (talk) 04:34, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Off topic for the BLP/N board, but the few comments I see on that talk page by Newimpartial do not seem like personal attacks since they do not touch anything about Crossroads as a person, only their contributions. Perhaps a bit heavy-handed in considering civility. I make no judgement if these comments are right or wrong in context of BLP, just that they are very far cries from being personal attacks. --Masem (t) 04:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

They twice said I was "twisting" policy, even admit to ASPERSIONS here [edit: they were accusing me of aspersions], and have continued to assume bad faith throughout. That is an accusation about me as a person. Repeatedly talking about "my POV", as though they lack one, is also inapprpriate. I'm sure they'll feel quite emboldened now though. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC) Edited Crossroads ^-talk- 05:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

They didn't admit to aspersions. You misread the comment. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 05:04, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Accusing another editor of personal attacks, without specifying what you mean or providing evidence, is an ASPERSION. That is what you have done - repeatedly - not what I did. Newimpartial (talk) 05:37, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I get what you meant now by ASPERSION, but no, it's very clear in each discussion which comments contain the attacks. Whatever. Wikipedia never does a thing about these unless it's an SPA or to nail people who are already disliked for often-unrelated reasons. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:49, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not going to get into talk of who is right or who did what. As a piece of advice to all, from a purely tactical sense, personal attacks and aspersions serve one purpose: they distract from the real issue at hand. Mostly, it's a sign that your opponent is right where you want them (in a debate sense) up against the ropes and feeling cornered, with nothing of substance to riposte with. The idea, however unconscious, is that lashing out in such a way will hopefully get you to focus on that and neglect the real issues at hand (or the fact that you are likely winning the debate). It's an extremely effective tactic, albeit a flawed one, because it is an appeal to emotion, and these are some very big, strong emotional-buttons to boot. But it is an extremely flawed argument that only has an effect if you give in and let yourself fall for it. As an example, just look at how many words have been wasted on it in this very section. What happened to the original point? Lost in the pointless fray.

The problem with personal attacks is that it is a last-ditch effort that only works when the attackee responds in kind. The best defense against them is to simply ignore them and keep right on point. Then it totally backfires on the attacker and they are the only one looking like an asshole. Don't let them distract you. When it gets to a point of being disgusting, others will stand up for you, and tactically that is to your advantage. If you give in and get all defensive or offensive, you both end up looking just as bad, and the point of it all gets lost. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 07:00, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Saint Vincent, California

Anonymous IP has made edits to Saint Vincent, California three times, adding increasingly detailed charges of child abuse/molestation at the school. Last two times, names of the alleged abusers were included. No sources were provided. I've reverted all edits and warned them on their talk page about policies regarding biographies of living persons. Perhaps the article ought to be protected and/or the IP address blocked. Glendoremus (talk) 04:08, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Some of the recently added material was serious unsourced allegations. Another recent addition, by a different IP, was a copyvio. I have revdel'ed those additions and semi-protected the article for a week. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:48, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

David Miller

A newbie User:Ozmulik, with a spare 90 edits since January, hence in violation of ARBPIA3, several days ago posted that Professor David Miller had made 'multiple antisemitic comments' on the StandWithUs talkpage. This is of course not a fact, but a claim that Miller's comments on Zionism are antisemitic. Despite his firing, there is no proof, or court conviction to date, stating he is such, and the investigation's QC external report stated that Miller had broken no British law.

I alerted the editor here to remove it as a BLP violation. I gave them a day to do so. Two days have passed. The editor refuses to adhere to policy, of which he has been fully informed. The violation is serious.Nishidani (talk) 13:07, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

FTR that seems to be OzMulik (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The editor seems to be writing on the talk page which I guess makes it not a violation of active ARBPIA sanctions (ARBPIA3 is, of course, repealed). If a reliable source (or an RSOPINION in a reliable source) has made the claim, then I think it's reasonable enough for someone to make the argument on a talk page, irrelevant of whether the individual has been convicted in a court of law or not (noting also that most instances of hate speech, criminal or civil, do not result in convictions). A skim of thejc link the editor provided suggests the implication was made there. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:01, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

he is not making an argument about Miller'sd putative anti-Semitism on a talk page. He is asserting that Miller's remark are factually anti-Semitic. I have been have been reading for 1 and a half decades that it is an ironcast rule that an allegation or claim regarding a living person must be presented as such, and not as a fact. OzMulik ignores all sources that state this is an accusation (to present an accusation as a fact is defamatory in law), and posted it as a fact that his controversial statements were antisemitic.

As to the other issue, which can be disregarded here. On the talk page the Ozmulik was persisting calling on editors to alter the text according to his suggestions, which is rather like asking qualified editors to be meatpuppets, since he cannot edit there.here here here here herehere and here

Comments are one thing. Persistent fishing for someone to edit on their behalf is gaming arbpia's rules about 500 edits/30 days.Nishidani (talk) 17:35, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Similar to ProcrastinatingReader's comment, WP:BLPTALK allows leeway in discussion on talk pages related to content choice. OzMulik believes Miller's remarks are antisemitic, which is indeed an OPINION not a fact and provided a citation that supports his OPINION. If his opinion can not be inserted into the article because it's not factual, so be it, but don't try to excise his OPINION from the discussion page by presenting it as a factual assertion when it's not. Ignore it. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:02, 6 October 2021 (UTC) Strikethrough because I realised after a thorough read of that article talk page that OzMulik is trying to impeach Miller as a biased source because of his previous comments on Zionism. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:54, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Citing one individual (David Hirsh)'s opinion about another person/colleague as a fact is a fundamental breach of wiki core policies. I'm not worried about the discussion page. That is a distraction. At AE one editor is being hauled over the coals for momentarily writing that, according to secondary sources, a living person is suspected of being associated with a blog. WP:BLP violation demanding a sanction. Here we are saying that someone saying a living person is an anti-Semite is okay because he cited a source with that opinion. Where is the coherence? The only difference I can see is in in this case, with OZmulik he is arguing for a pro-Zionist position, whereas the other editor whose right to edit after an impeccable 16 years is being challenged, happens to edit also from a pro-Palestinian position. In other words, double standards. Identical case, but okay on one page, reprehensible (even if retracted) on the other.Nishidani (talk) 19:25, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I think BLPTALK should be enforced more frequently and rigidly, but I don't think this is a case for it. OzMulik's comment was:

• Contentious material about living persons ✓
• that is unsourced or poorly sourced✓
• and not related to making content choices ✗

I think the poor sourcing makes this argument poor, but not a BLP vio. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 19:51, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Okay. That three independent judgments that state it is not contrary to wiki policy to call a living person an anti-Semite, because of his views on Zionism, even if it's only a personal opinion. A decade ago, people were banned for calling me that here, so things have changed. I'm getting old. Nishidani (talk) 20:20, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

But your wit is as sprightly as ever. I do think calling editors antisemitic, or calling living persons the same in article space, is a more restricted behavior. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:36, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks. But in the AE case, the BLP violation was on a talkpage, just as is the case with Ozmulik's remark about Miller. At AE it is recognized as a violation, and the remark was removed from the talk page. Here the identical behavior is acceptable, and the remark stays on the talk page. The cases are virtually identical. I once translated a treatise on paralogic, so I can feel comfortable with exceptions to the law of the excluded middle in the Aristotelian tradition, but still . . .this looks more like an included muddle :) Nishidani (talk) 20:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

If it helps (and I don't know that it will), the Arbcom case you cite was an unintelligible mess, with none of the arbs seemingly able to make sense of it, and was eventually closed by the filer. This whole discussion and the one at the talk page seem equally unintelligible. I don't see anything being presented as fact. As the editor's opinion, most certainly, but you can really never call a subjective statement factual. For example, if I say so-and-so actress is ugly, that is my opinion. No one who is a native speaker would take that as a factual statement, even though no qualifier (like "in my opinion") was used. There is just no way to infer a subjective opinion as ever being fact. My best friend over there may think she's the most beautiful woman in the world. It's the same with this, in which case it's a drive-by response by a person with a pronounced bias. That is completely unrelated from the Arbcom case, in which case the revdelled material may have been more egregious (we'll never know), or where any "raking over the coals" were more about the attitude, repetitive behavior, and continually crossing the lines. (Often it's not about what a person did, but how they act that is the deciding factor.) But that's neither here nor there. We don't want to go around trashing people, but to a certain extent we can get away with letting out an opinion once in a while. I wouldn't make an issue of it unless it becomes an ongoing thing, but just move on. Zaereth (talk) 22:45, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

The analogous case against ZScarpia has not been 'closed by the filer' (that happened with the indictment against Selfstudier below it, nothing to do with BLP). It is open. Agreed that it is a total mess, though. I'll clarify. if someone calls me an 'antisemite' on Wikipedia (there are internet attack sites that call me such) they cannot be asked to withdraw the remark. That's what the discussion above is saying. Wikipedia has changed decisively in the last decade. Editors doing that used to be hit with a ton of bricks.Nishidani (talk) 22:59, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Whoa there. If someone calls you an antisemite on here, that violates Wikipedia's separate rules on no personal attacks on other editors. An editor discussing and dismissing the merit of a source because of what they feel is bias or the source's previous "anti-semitic" comments is a separate issue. Not being able to distinguish the difference and complaining about it is WP:POINTy. Drop the WP:STICK. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:14, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

A humorous essay which, in non policy terms states: 'You lost. Stop beating the dead horse of your buried viewpoint. Shut up.' All this in a few hours of desultory and focused debate as I expressed my perplexities, focused on each occasion, with several interlocutors?Nishidani (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Whatever. The point is, the Arbcom case is just confusing the issue as you are trying to present it. Likewise, your clarification is really not helping. Are you now saying that OzMulik's remark was directed at you personally? Because that would be a different matter entirely? I am more confused than ever. What is this really about?

Oh goodness me. You really imagine that the analogy between two cases I draw, and a personal illustration of the difference between how wikipedia acted (in the past) against defamatory charges and what happens now, is motivated by some obscure hidden sense that OzMulik's attack on David Miller is an attack on me? Really. That's reading way between the lines. I have no idea whether Miller is guilty as accused. Ozmulik on a wikipedia talk page attributes anti-Semitism to a living person because some sources make that claim, and that's fine. ZScarpia momentarily linked a living person dedicated to combating anti-Semitism to an anonymous website doing the same on the basis of (poor) sources, and several editors are sufficiently outraged to call for severe sanctions. I see a strong overlap con joined to a marked difference of treatment. No one agrees with me, and I can't see a serious attempt to rebute the analogy. Okay. Stiff shit, Nishidani. I retain my sense, nonetheless, that the application of general rules, very often, on Wikipedia is not coherent, often because editors fail to address the details, but read between the lines of what various disputants argue. Perhaps that's not the case here. I've made my point, and accept that no one can see it. So, back to work.Nishidani (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Look, if I were to call you ugly, that would be a personal attack, which is something we have rules against. (Of course, that is merely an example, because I don't know what you look like or anything about you.) On the other hand, if we go around banning everyone who has expressed an opinion about Donald Trump we'd lose 90% of Wikipedians. I've been here well over a decade myself, and the changes I've seen have been mostly for the better, including to BLP and policy in general. Zaereth (talk) 23:22, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

I'd never take being called ugly a personal attack. To be offended at anyone who did so would be to deny them the right to state the obvious. I've just read Al Franken's Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot and Other Observations, (1996). The only thing I saw there worth adding to wikipedia, from a huge mass of descriptions of the personal lives of Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich et al., most grounded in verifiable incidents or remarks, was this. It's not my perceived role to scour muckraking sources to add derogatory, even if well-founded, attacks on living persons. I take BLP very seriously (and I'm someone who in the past was occasionally careless in this regard on talk pages) as I do the fact that the consensus here is I am wrong. I don't think so, but if this is the consensus, I respect it. Nishidani (talk) 06:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

As many sources connect Miller to antisemitism and that he was even fired by Bristol University due as a result (Bristol University sacks professor accused of antisemitic comments in the Guardian and David Miller: Bristol sacks professor accused of antisemitism in Times Higher Education) assailing the use of Miller as a source on Jewish topics appears entirely reasonable for a talk page discussion.PrisonerB (talk) 08:15, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Just for the record, talk back accurately, do not shift the goalposts. Nowhere did I say, or imply, that Miller should be used 'as a source for Jewish topics'. And in any case, the critical literature on Israel's human rights record over 74 years of occupation of another people has nothing to do with 'Jewish topics' ((most of its serious and most trenchantly analytical critics are, as one would expect from history, Jews). It has everything to do with human rights principles. To confuse the two, -Jewish ergo Israel, Israel ergo Jews' - something that is now endemic among both anti-Semites and pro-Zionist militants alike, is to foreclose all discussion Finally, note that the Times HES source uses 'accusation'. I state that without wanting to open up a discussion beyond that regarding this specific wiki issue, which, in any case, appears to have a solid consensus that it's fine on wikipedia to accuse any public figure of being an anti-Semite if some commentator can be cited who holds that opinion, and state that opinion as a fact regarding the (in my view, defamed) person.Nishidani (talk) 09:22, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Confuse the two? U.K. Professor Who Called Jewish Students ‘Pawns’ of Israel Fired Over Comments, in Haaretz and Sun Sentinel. Coverage is overwhelmingly negative, well except the likes of Press TV [18] which is run by the ayatollah regime.PrisonerB (talk) 13:39, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

We need to wait for things to settle down a bit, the Bristol Uni statement on Miller nowhere says anything about antisemitism, just conduct unbecoming. So Miller is fired (termination of employment) is true, that's reported on by rs but it is also true that Miller has not been found guilty of any crime afaik and he has the right to appeal. As pointed out in the currently running AE case, we need to careful about BLP vios even on talk pages and even about people whose activities might not be seen as top drawer necessarily.Selfstudier (talk) 13:56, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

What follows is not a defense of Miller. One should be wary of walking into strong judgments about anything complex like this, -evaluating what a scholar specializing in the I/P conflict thinks based on two newspaper accounts - without familiarizing oneself with the literature. Miller apparently is referring to what he perceives to be efforts by Israel to influence student opinion. if he subscribes thereby to a Jewish(Zionist) world conspiracy, he's anti-Semitic. If he is stating that huge efforts, financial and otherwise, are poured into influencing Jewish students on diaspora campuses to be more active in defending Israel, he is stating a documented fact. The literature on this is massive. Kenneth S. Stern, The Conflict over the Conflict: The Israel/Palestine Campus Debate, University of Toronto Press 2020 ISBN 978-1-487-53610-7 is fundamental. For over a decade, campuses have been the object of a battle, a politicization war, with hasbara groups and Palestinian activists fighting over either the representation of the I/P conflict, or what Jewish students should think about it. I don’t have an opinion about Miller. I simply haven’t read his work or studied his statements in context. But I read newspaper reports of his sacking or antisemitism cum grano salis, because I have over the years composed a list of over 40 university lecturers who have been accused of antisemitism for their views or teaching about that conflict, and often these are standard smears. Perhaps his case will prove to be the exception. Stern is a lengthy read. But a glance at Hillel International, StandWithUs, Canary Mission, will give one an inkling of how much Jewish students are being stressed by the conflicting claims on their identity and intellectual loyalties. That concerns me. To have a minimal grasp of the context in which reports of Miller’s remarks are to be assessed, one should read at least 3 of scores ofarticles on the issue of campus ideological battles.

• (1)Dervla Murphy Hasbara in Action Irish Pages Vol. 9, No. 2, Israel, Islam & the West (2015), pp. 181-212
• (2)Judy Maltz, The Commander Behind the pro-Israel Student Troops on U.S. College Campuses Haaretz 15 March 2016 (Of all the pro-Israel forces active on U.S. college campuses today, none has poured as much energy, resources and sheer audacity into the battle for the hearts and minds of young Americans as StandWithUs) .
• (2)Anshel Pfeffer, Israel Is More Focused on 'Hasbara' Than It Is on Policy Haaretz 2 May 2012 (Two weeks ago, the National Information Directorate in the Prime Minister’s Office held an unofficial gathering of hasbara organizations. “Members of over 30 private organizations came,” said one of those present. “It was incredible, there wasn’t enough room for everyone.” Each of these groups has heavy-weight donors, offices in Israel and abroad, a strong presence on the Internet and social media and a steely determination to conquer the battlefield of ideas — for Israel and the Jewish people.) That last statement is very similar to several remarks by Miller that have been spun as anti-Semitic.

As an empiricist, I can have no opinion on the accusation either way. I have only a fairly informed sense of historical context about the general topic, and all this tells me to be very wary of reports that this or that person is anti-Semitic, unless proof is provided that someone goes out of their way to harass Jewish people, as opposed to arguing, even fiercely about human rights in Israel. Most critics of the area have had that thrown their way, and it sticks only if it is carefully and neutrally vetted, in courts, or university tribunals (or indeed at wiki arbitration, in my view. We have identified and rid ourselves of several anti-Semites on very strong evidential grounds here) It can destroy lives just as McCarthyism did (and just as 'Jew-baiting' can grievously harm Jewish people) and caution is required. I'm disappointed with the result here, but, if the consensus goes the way it has, stiff cheddar. Nishidani (talk) 14:34, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Chris Rabb

Whatever one thinks about the person and his policies, adding some negative trivia sourced to primary Instagram and Facebook sources doesn't belong in the article[19]. WP:BRD became WP:BRRRR instead, so it would be nice if someone else interfered here. Fram (talk) 15:11, 6 October 2021 (UTC)

Sanjeev Sanyal

The complete Views section of Sanjeev Sanyal is sourced from a single article published by The Caravan and reflects author Meera Visvanathan's views about BLP WP:BLPGOSSIP.

The same source is cited multiple times in the section. (Ref - is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see also Wikipedia:No original research (WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:BLPREMOVE).

Hence, entire "Views" sections of the Sanjeev Sanyal to be deleted as per WP:BLPGOSSIP, WP:GRAPEVINE, WP:BLPREMOVE, WP:AVOIDVICTIM and WP:BLPCOI

LTbharat (talk) 14:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I see that the editor who added that content has opened a discussion on Talk:Sanjeev Sanyal but you haven't participated in it. None of the editors who've been reverting the content have participated in it. Maybe try discussion on that talk page first? Schazjmd (talk) 14:37, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Donald McGuire (Jesuit)

New article about a Catholic pedophile. Looks pretty pov to me. Eg the lead " He held an illustrious career as a Jesuit priest, educator and global retreat director[1]. The Catholic church took several precautions and went to great lengths[2] to cover up the horrific crimes throughout the decades. Mother Theresa herself ejaculated in defense of him in 1994." Bit of a problem there about Mother Theresa also. I'm a bit concerned about User:Polska jest Najważniejsza. The Roman Catholic church has a lot to answer for but it needs to be written with solid sources etc. Doug Weller talk 16:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)]

So you're saying CBS Chicago, Meneo Law Group website and the Philadelphia Inquirer are not "solid sources"? WP:IDONTLIKEIT is not an argument.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 17:00, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Also, where is "POV"? Add the relevant tag to the article if you spot issues and point the issues out at talk, we can all fix 'em then. I'm an old user, but it's my first article and methinks the article is not bad. It is long, it is detailed, and it relies on mainstream sources.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 17:04, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

See WP:BLPCRIME - if he was non-notable beyond these allegations, we shouldn't have an article about him. --Masem (t) 17:03, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Read the guideline yourself. The guideline does no tell us minor scholar who pass the notability guidelines due to notoriety of their crimes but not scholarly input shouldn't have an article. Or did I misread it? I think you are wrong.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 17:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It’s not a BLP, the subject died in 2017. I think the main problem with the article is the unsourced statements about a Church cover-up, particularly the sentence quoted by Doug from the lead. That’s cited to a Philadelphia Inquirer article. But that’s not what the article says. It’s about the Jesuits being sued by a victim on the basis of an allegation that they didn’t move quickly enough to remove him from his posts. They’re not reporting that that’s what happened - only that’s the basis of the law suit. There’s certainly nothing about the Church “going to great lengths” to cover it up - it seems to be about inaction rather cover up. The whole section entitled “Back in America, cover-up, and support by Mother Theresa” has no sources at all. Definitely a case of improper sourcing from Polska jest Najważniejsza. DeCausa (talk) 17:57, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

no, it's not. It's more like a problem of "article is being edited at this very moment"/"work in progress" (there's even a tag for that but I cannot browse so quickly, as I haven't started new articles before that one): I haven't provided inline sentences yet for each para, but I have provided a general source - [20], that I heavily relied on.
In the light of your and my comments, Dougweller's reaction clearly seems excessive.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 18:05, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I can vouch that every single sentence I've written in the entry can be sourced to either of the aources currently provided. Why are people nitpicking on me?Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 18:07, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

You “vouching” for anything is not relevant. WP:RS is needed. I’ve edited the article to correct the issues. DeCausa (talk) 18:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

No you didn't. You just erased large swaths of texts 100% of which could have been formally "sourced" by just inserting a reflink to CBS Chicago, that I menioned. Also, you posting a "avoid edit warring" template on my talk whilst performing an unconstructive revert at this very moment yourself is pretty telling. It would have taken me no more than 10 minutes to insert an inline ref to CBS. A pure formality.
Now leave the article alone or just nominate it nfror deletion and let us see what folks will tell you.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 18:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something, but if it's so easy to insert refs, then why not just do that from the beginning? Otherwise people most certainly have not just the right, but duty to remove the info. It seems to me that complaining about it is a lot more work, if all you needed was 10 minutes. It's best to add your refs at the same time you add any info, and too easy to get into the realm of synthesis when a person writes an article from personal expertise, and then goes out looking for supporting refs afterward. (Not that it's the case here, I don't know, just sayin'.) Zaereth (talk) 18:36, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Not that I'd object to your comment per se (I'm used to writing college papers where rules are different and the cliffs where the ship can get damaged are different, too). You have to consider it was my first ever fully-fledge article, and I'd suggest (when you consider the OP; Dougweller has been too modest to return here) that blindly trusting (a Wikipedia) authorities is not always the safest way. That's why "I don't know" is usually not a very good argument: if anyone had actually read the CBS article that was there at the very beginning, I guess the reasonable editors here would have understood that apart from legalistic complaints and nitpicking, the article was fine as it was, except that the categories had to be removed, because they are red and now I'm quite sure no-one would create them as soon as I expected.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 18:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Ok, well, welcome to the School of Hard Knocks. You gotta understand that writing a college paper is a lot different than encyclopedic writing. It's a form of expository writing similar to journalistic style, but a lot briefer and way more formal. If you look at Doug's comment above, you'll notice his concern was that it looked POV-ish. Now, if you examine the sentences he quoted, you may notice what he meant. Phrases like "illustrious career" or "horrific crimes" are editorializing comments. If they came from you, then these descriptors are your opinions. If they came from the CBS article, then it's an opinion/editorial column, and thus not a reliable source. (Yes, every news outlet have their op/ed columns that are not reliable for anything but the author's opinion, even though their actual news articles are reliable.) This kind of thing we call puffing the article, and it makes it read like an op/ed column. Then there is the thing about Mother Teresa, which is just patent nonsense. It makes me think someone didn't bother to look up the definition of the words before using them. It's not hard to see why that would cause some concern. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 19:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree with Dough Weller's concern about the sourcing in the article, as well Masem's concerns about notability. There appears to be only two reliable sources cited in the article, CBS Chicago and the Philadelphia Inquirer. A law group's website is definitely not reliable and should be removed along with the other sources, especially as they are being used to cite contentious information. With only two recent news articles about the subject's alleged crimes and no other sources providing any substantial coverage of him, that would not make him notable. 108.48.200.185 (talk) 19:18, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Wow! The US state and fed courts convicted him several times and this is "alleged crimes"! I mean, Wikipedia is not censored but some decensy is warranted vis-a-vis pedophiles' victims!

@Zaereth: What is "nonsense" about Mother' Teresa's role? I will try to fix it immediately, it's just 21:32 here.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 19:32, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

You don’t seem to be able to use sources properly. The crimes are not alleged, what is alleged is the Jesuits failure in managing him. You need to pay careful attention to what you write and make sure you have a citation which matches what you have written before you click on “publish changes”. Also, the IP above is right - you’ve only used two sources that comply with our WP:RS requirements: the Philadelphia Inquirer and CBS. Law firms websites etc are at best WP:PRIMARY and can’t be used for the purpose you want to use them - I’ve taken them out of the article. DeCausa (talk) 19:35, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article as it was written at the time cited sources, a lawsuit alleges that McGuire abused over 1,000 children, but it appears he was only convicted of abusing 3 children. The sources also do not use the term "convicted pedophile", and so I replaced that with "convicted child molester", although changing that into prose (e.g., "a Jesuit who was convicted of...") is probably better as it would provide context in the lead. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Oh, come on. "Ejaculated in defense"? Seriously? That looks like something a first-grade student would write while doing a little vandalism. It's actually quite humorous in that childlike way. "Everyone duck! She's loaded!" But you can't tell me that it has any real meaning, thus patent nonsense. "Words that are assembled with correct grammar and syntax, but together convey no meaning." Zaereth (talk) 19:43, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Zaereth:Dude, don't get emotional. The antiquated meaning of 'ejaculate' was a pun intended and I fixed it immediately when other concerns were raised. Don't use it as a red herring, discuss the issue. Mother Teresa's role is well-documented and if you want to have it erased you gotta have way more serious objections than complaints over a (clearly humorously meant) antiquated use of a word in lieu of some common expression like "spoke out in defense of [him]". Serious objections, too?Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 19:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Polska jest Najważniejsza, you inserting patent nonsense is a serious concern regardless of how you attempt to justify it. Also deeply concerning is that you are plagiarizing material from the sources, which is a clear copyright protection violation. I removed that plagiarized content from one paragraph, but I unfortunately do not have the time to check the rest of the content you had added. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:09, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

It is also deeply problematic that you inserted the sentence "The number of victims of the illustrious Jesuits is reporterd to be at least 1,000." [21] when that is not accurate at all, as the cited source was about the abuse of one person over the period of many years. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:57, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Don't ask questions if you don't want the answer. Encyclopedia's are not the place for puns. I had a free minute so I checked out the CBS source, and it is most definitely an op/ed column. The author is giving his narrative rather than reporting news. I wouldn't use it for the same reason we don't use those Chris Hansen To Catch a Predator episodes. The other source is reliable, but one, or even two, sources do not make for general notability. I'd recommend sending it to AFD unless some good sources can be found. Zaereth (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

feel free to nominate it for deletion, this would be much more constructive than tagging it with notaqbility tags or what not and initiating endless discussions (you didn't even read the sources and didn't believe Mother Teresa had a significant role, hence you bergan nitpicking on a use of ONE antiquated word that no-one, with the possible exception of English scholars or clergy would use). Feel free to nominate it for deletion, but try to give the thread some time before you or anyone else counts the votes or whichever way the outcome is determined. You gotta understand that he is a notable criminal, but just one out of very many. Regrettably... Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 20:16, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

This isn’t the place to right great wrongs. You have to understand that this isn’t about whether there should be an article about this person - it’s about whether you have done a good enough job on this article. And sadly, you’ve done a poor job. I suspect there’s sufficient notability there to justify an article but t’s got to be supported honestly by reliable sourcing. The validity of the article is only about the quality of the editing. DeCausa (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Well this is a surprising change of argument, because large swaths of the initial text have by now been erased anyway and I stopped making any major edits to this article 3 hours ago. so if we are now raising the issue that "[t]he validity of the article is only about the quality of the editing" then the current supposedly dire state of affairs that provoked many an editor's "threats" to AfD it, cannot be only due to the author of the initial version? Again, feel free to AfD it, I'd only appreciate some community input as there is no doubt in my head what the outcome would be. I'll leave it as it is (in fact, already did so 3 hours ago). Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 20:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

PS. The discussion here is futile anyway as the OP (complaint here) was invalid for the mere reason that it doesn't fall under WP:BLP (in Germany it kinda would, ironically, cf. [22]).Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you're twisting our words or simply misunderstanding them, but "you make your own position seem worse than it is when you mischaracterize the position of your opponents". Wikipedia is all about the nitpicking. We're a very formal source, so it's what we do best. (Of course, some may confuse giving advice with nitpicking, and sometimes people take constructive criticism or an offer of help as opposition, but, what can you do.) I agree with DeCausa. There is likely enough info out there to make a decent article. It probably just requires some legwork and decent wordsmithing, and maybe taking things a little more seriously. But my advice is: find out what the words mean before using them. "Ejaculated" is far from an antiquated word. Zaereth (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Well perhaps times are achangin' in my case, too, then? Sometimes they change with utter celerity. Cf.
I'd recommend sending it to AFD unless some good sources can be found. Zaereth (talk) 20:11, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
There is likely enough info out there to make a decent article.Zaereth (talk) 20:45, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 20:49, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Is that supposed to mean something? Is there some reason you're quoting my words back to me as if I'm too stupid to know what I said, or are you simply taking them out of context to derive a conclusion otherwise not intended? I'll put it this way: if you want to do the work then fine. If not, then it should be deleted until someone comes along who does. In it's current state, it's a poor job. If you do, then I think the best solution would be to move it to draft space, and take it through the AFC process. Zaereth (talk) 20:59, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

@Polska jest Najważniejsza and DeCausa: when I looked at the article it said "Donald McGuire is a Jesuit and a convicted pedophile." although at the end it mentioned his death. I'm afraid I didn't read that far and thought that the lead was correct. I wish I had brought this elsewhere now that I'm discovering even more problems, from unsourced material to even more copyvio than User:Wallyfromdilbert mentions, as this editor is having an argument over copyvio with User:Hut 8.5 over more copyvio. @Zaereth: I think that your suggestion that it be moved to draft space is a good idea. Doug Weller talk 12:14, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

I've just substantially re-written the article with much more sourcing. Could you take a look at it before doing that. DeCausa (talk) 12:20, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: - if you move it to Draft, pls. not to my space. I'm done with this article. To some extent it was improved, but to some extent dis-improved by other editors (unexplained erasure of his thesis, for example, then erasing source from the claim that the victim count was >1,000 and claiming later "but this is not sourced!" - of course it was no longer sources after all these erasures. Keep me away from this. Or even better, AfD as some of you "threatened" (as if I, rather than wikipedia), needs more article. As a sidenote, I'm still waiting for Doug Weller's reply to this. An experienced admin presumably knows much more than me about WP:V and CN tags, so i'd appreciate some further input. Thanks.Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 13:33, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

((od)) I'm not touching it. As for Polska's question, he added a cn tag to something obviously sourceable, all I did was point him to two articles that had sources, only to be told that articles can't be used as sources and pointed to WP:V and telling me that material needs sourcing. I've replied saying that it's always better to source something and tag it. Doug Weller talk 15:09, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

@Polska jest Najważniejsza: I don't understand your antiquated point. I would actually agree that using the word in the manner you use it is antiquated, which makes your dumb pun even worse. I don't think we should be making puns like that even where the usage is still sometimes recognised and occurs outside of a pun, but it's definitely a bad thing when the usage is now basically unheard of as is the case here since the ejaculation meaning predominates. Nil Einne (talk) 15:45, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

• Polska jest Najważniejsza, you need to stop repeating your false claim about the number of victims. That was a widely false statement that is not supported by any source, and the source you cited for it was never removed from the article [23], which is another blatantly false statement by you [24]. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 15:53, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
  • Polska jest Najważniejsza has just misread the source, which says that one victim claimed to be abused 1,000 times, not that there were a 1,000 victims. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of the Jesuits gives a figure of 28 victims, which is the number I’ve used in the article. DeCausa (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
    • Polska jest Najważniejsza continued repeating their misrepresentation after I corrected them about it above, and they also lied about the edit summary removing the content as well as the fact that the cited source they introduced was still in the article. That is not acting in a honest manner, and it needs to stop. I also changed the article to clarify that McGuire was alleged to have molested 28 children, rather than stating it as fact based on the single encyclopedia source. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:37, 8 October 2021 (UTC)
      • Actually, the two convictions covered some of the 28. I’ve re-worded slightly to avoid the problematic impression that those of the 28 that were the subject matter of the convictions were only “allegations”. DeCausa (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Doug. I thought moving to draft space would be a good way for PjN to fix the article issues at their leisure, but at this point I am beginning to think it's less about the article and more about just stirring up crap. So that leads me back to just thinking it should just be deleted. Zaereth (talk) 17:17, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Having now worked on the article, I believe it’s now reasonably sourced and clearly notable. DeCausa (talk) 17:35, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Well, either way, this conversation seems more about the attention we're giving PjN rather than the real issues, so I don't think there is much left to say here. Zaereth (talk) 17:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

David Hurles

This is an article about a man involved in the pornography industry. It contains (among other things) his amazon.com shopping list, reproduced in whole; instructions for accessing copyright-violating copies of his pornographic photographs; and unsourced commentary on his alleged sexual encounters. I would really appreciate any help in cleaning it up (and revdelling if you think it necessary). Cheers, gnu57 22:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

A sidenote: does an encyclopedia that some claim has exceptionally high standards as to sourcing, notability (sic!), style &c. (just see the immediately preceding section) really permit entries on random "pornographers"? What makes them notable? I apologize in advance, I don't want to sound rude or anything (this ain't my intention at all), but just wonderin'...Polska jest Najważniejsza (talk) 23:17, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

We're the encyclopedia run by random volunteers that anyone is allowed to edit. That leads to a lot of crap articles slipping through the cracks. In general, notability is determined by reliable sources. See: WP:General notability guidelines. We deal with each on a case-by-case basis. We don't want articles on every jaywalker or wife beater who ever made the papers. An encyclopedia article should be about a subject large enough to write a decent article about, who people are likely to be interested in. The deciding factor is always how much coverage they got in reliable, secondary sources. One source does not establish that. If this porn guy has received enough coverage, then that means he's notable by Wikipedia's definition of the word, although it may just be another vanity article created by the guy himself. (I don't know, and am not going to look, because I'm at work when I edit.)

If you seriously want the article you created to remain, then I think taking it through the WP:AFC process would be a good learning experience for you. Writing a good article is not easy, per Zinsser's Law ("Easy writing makes for hard reading"). But I don't want to clog up this section with comments unrelated to the OP's concerns, so probably best to take it up in the section above. Zaereth (talk) 23:38, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

No position on notability but I have removed the wishlist and book reviews, Amazon.com is not a reliable source nor do I see the relevance to an encyclopedia entry. Slywriter (talk) 12:49, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

Brad Beyer

Someone has inserted a claim that Brad Beyer (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), the actor that has a Wikipedia article is the one who filed paperwork, running for the US Senate, both in the article itself and in 2022 United States Senate election in Wisconsin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). However, I have a feeling that the person who filed the FEC filing and the actor are two different people; the municipality where the person resides in the filing doesn't match the one in the article either. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 03:18, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Looks like their source is primary and the content should be removed pending confirmation by a reliable, secondary source. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 03:28, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

David T. Beers

~~The subject of David T. Beers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is trying to get the attention of editors via the article's talk page. He feels that the article grossly misrepresents certain aspects of his life and work, but has not yet made it clear precisely what is wrong. --Salimfadhley (talk) 20:15, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I removed a paragraph[25] because of its liberal use of synthesis. The Reuters article verified only Moody's fee structure change in the 70s. The paragraph extended this fee structure to the other companies and its eventual impact to the subprime mortgage crisis. The Reuters article also did not describe how Beers was complicit with this history at Standards and Poors. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:45, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Elizabeth Haigh

On Elizabeth Haigh, there has been persistent adding of allegations of plagiarism in her newest book. Most of the edits have attempted to source to the Facebook or Instagram page of the person making the accusation. As of yet, I have been unable to find any secondary independent source which is not a blog.

An editor has also tried to "source" that the book's link on Bloomsbury going dead as a claim. As I am at my three revert limit on the page, it would be best to have more eyes on the page. Seloloving (talk) 23:28, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

Watched. Hopefully your RPP will be granted soon to reduce the disruption. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:06, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Sexual allegations at Bombargo

I came across the article while correcting cite errors, which I fixed and made some corrections. However as I thought about it I went back and checked the references for a quote in the section. The sources reflected part but not all of the quote, and so I shortened to what appeared in the sources. Could someone with more BLP knowledge cast their eye over the section? Thanks 89.241.33.89 (talk) 20:53, 11 October 2021 (UTC)

Nury Vittachi

Subject of endless additions and removals of unsourced material ranging from seemingly innocuous biographical details to allegations about the subject's journalistic ethics. Can it get more eyes, or does it need long-term protection? William Avery (talk) 11:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Dag Heward-Mills

Recently a huge amount of information has been added to the article as a "Controversies" section. It appears to be referenced but I don't have time right now to pore through it or make sure the references are reliable. Can anyone spare some time to look through it? Notfrompedro (talk) 13:40, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

So one of the URLs added in the edit appears to be from a website with "gossip" on the name, which certainly doesn't seem like a good start. —twotwofourtysix^{(My talk page and contributions)} 13:46, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Holy crap, the article has HUGE copyvio problems as well. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

I trimmed that whole controversy section as copyvio, as well as about 90% of the article, and 95% of the article on his church due to copyvio. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:13, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@ScottishFinnishRadish: Thank you for looking into the article and fixing it. Notfrompedro (talk)

I'd hardly call it fixing, I just went at it with a hatchet and removed all the copyvio, which was most of it. Thanks, though. I appreciate it. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 18:54, 12 October 2021 (UTC)