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.

Elon Musk (2)

Wikipedia says Elon Musk is a “polarizing figure”, in the following excerpt from his BLP lead: “Musk has made controversial statements on politics and technology, particularly on Twitter, and is a polarizing figure.”

Aside from poor writing, lack of inline attribution, and thin sourcing, there’s also a possible conflict between our Musk BLP sentence that I’ve just quoted, and this part of our WP:BLP policy: “Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.” Also see WP:LABEL.

I don’t think anyone would dispute this observation by Professor Thomas Zimmer: “‘Polarization’ is almost always used as a pejorative term: it is meant to invoke dysfunction, instability, conflict.” That’s how it’s used in the Musk lead, in wikivoice. Anythingyouwant (talk) 05:15, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know about this Zimmer fellow, but polarizing in this context simply means that some people really like him and others really don't. Not much to it. Well documented in sources as well: NBC labels him polarizing, Bloomberg says Musk is on a polarizing mission, Inc. calls him a "polarizing figure", Yahoo News calls him a "polarizing figure", Variety calls him "polarizing". ~ HAL333 05:33, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Per WP:LEDECITE, it appears some sourcing (though more could be included) is present for that claim in the body. --Masem (t) 05:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

You're quoting Professor Zimmer out of context, he is speaking in the sense of political polarization not in the context of polarizing people[1]. That being said though WP:RS coverage would suggest that invoking "dysfunction, instability, conflict" would not be undue. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 05:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

To say that someone is "polarizing", when reliably sourced, is hardly contentious or loaded, you act like we're calling him a supremacist. Let's save BLPN for serious issues. Zaathras (talk) 05:51, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

This is the same context as Zimmer referred to, per the Yahoo News piece cited above: “Musk has become an increasingly political — and polarizing — figure….” A handful of the thousands of recent news articles about Musk say he’s “polarizing”, but none as far as I know employ the redundant one-two punch of “controversial” and “polarizing” in the same sentence. Anythingyouwant (talk) 13:08, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Regardless of sourcing (which would need to be near-universal, but isn't), "polarising" is far too fuzzy and subjective to be encyclopaedic. It's an empty word for an empty thought. Beyoncé and LeBron are empirically among the most polarizing personalities (according to one study with significant WP:RS coverage, anyway). So is Justin Bieber. It's noise.

The spirit of Wikipedia is that we are here to (reliably) document the world, not to change it. Psychology research on social proof tells us, with high certainty, that if we imply someone is controversial, we are directly and actively lowering readers' opinion of that person, no matter their starting point.

It's very inappropriate to include, especially in wikivoice, especially in the lead, especially in a BLP. Let people read the verifiable facts, and come to their own conclusion. DFlhb (talk) 17:37, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Well, if that is what the spirit of Wikipedia is, then...I still disagree and think the description is not only supported and appropriate but apt. Happy Holidays to all. Dumuzid (talk) 17:44, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Your opinion is controversial, and on top of that you are polarizing. 😝 Anythingyouwant (talk) 17:46, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

And I would have it no other way! Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 17:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

That lede sentence is honestly way more neutral than I would have expected and likely more neutral than necessary in regards to what reliable sources actually refer to him as in that manner. Silverseren^C 18:09, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

What if we leave neutrality aside, and just consider precision? What does "polarizing" mean, in what context does it apply (US? worldwide? media/celebrities/left- or center-left people? environmentalists? everyone?), and is it encyclopedic? When a term has been used by multiple WP:RS to refer to Stephen King, Hillary Clinton, Beyoncé, and Musk... does it have any meaning? People are focused on sourcing when that's not the issue at all. DFlhb (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Polarizing simply means "divisive". "To divide or cause to divide into two sharply contrasting groups or sets of opinions or beliefs." It simply means he has a magnetic personality; either you're attracted to him or repelled by him. Personally, I think it's pretty silly to even try to say that this adjective doesn't describe the subject, or that it is somehow a pejorative term. It simply means he's no Mother Teresa, who's loved by all, nor is he an Aleister Crowley and hated by everyone. Good or bad, those people were unifiers, but ultimately rather boring. The subject is definitely divisive and that makes him interesting.

That said, is it really necessary to point out the obvious? That's just bad writing in most cases. If I were to use this term I would do so in dialog, as in "So and so has called him polarizing." or something like that. Just my 2 pennies. Zaereth (talk) 20:56, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

My take is: "a polarizing subject" is neutral; "a polarizing person" is negative, since it clearly alludes to specific criticisms or controversies while being nebulous about what those controversies are. We could avoid a BLPvio entirely, by being more precise about what was criticized. DFlhb (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Really? Because I view it as being more of a positive term, or a little plus of neutral if anything, and we're not here to stroke his ego. But if there's one thing I've learned it's that anyone can find insult in something if they look hard enough for it. (Usually it has more to do with their own self perception than anything else.) The term is well-defined in the dictionaries, and it's not like it has any other meanings, except in physics (which is about the same as in other contexts).

I just think that's a stretch to try and play semantics like that, and that argument is rather circular, so isn't likely to convince. The premise is just as much in need of proof as the conclusion. It's a longer and more pedantic route to the same goal. Franklin Roosevelt was polarizing. Kanye West is polarizing. Bill Gates is polarizing. The problem I have is that it's so damn obvious that it doesn't need saying. It's like the old writer's axiom, "Show, don't tell." You don't need to tell me Darth Vader is evil. I can see that for myself, so pointing it out just comes off as condescending to the reader. (It's what separates the humans from the Vulcans... besides the pointed ears and bowl haircut of course.) So I say just leave out the unnecessary adjectives and show me how he's polarizing. Same goal, just a different route to get there. Zaereth (talk) 22:07, 20 December 2022 (UTC)

Right, it should be removed. It would never be tolerated in the FDR lead, because it’s vague, imprecise, unilluminating, and also derogatory in that divisiveness is not a popular trait. Moreover, it adds absolutely nothing to the sentence in question which already says he made controversial statements on Twitter. Anythingyouwant (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd say it's an unpopular trait, but, rather, it's often a trait that makes one popular, so more often than not the people who are notable are those who are polarizing. "Popular" is another one of those terms that can be positive or negative depending on how you look at it. In fiction writing we're taught to make characters that are polarizing, because those are the ones that are really interesting and life-like, and keep people interested. It's practically a job requirement for the office of President. (As Douglas Adams said, "For this reason the President is always a controversial choice, always an infuriating but fascinating character.") Of course, we live in a very polarized society these days. It's almost like watching the events that led up to WWII playing out all over again. But, I digress. At the end of the day, telling people that such and such a person is polarizing is just poor writing. Now I know this is non-fiction, but many of the same principle still apply. People who are total saints or evil just for evil's sake come off as one-dimensional and boring in general. But if I'm reading a book and the writing is so bad that the author actually has to tell me someone is polarizing, then it leaves me thinking, OMG this is awful. Zaereth (talk) 01:56, 21 December 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with the sentence in question. The man is polarizing, not only because of his actions but also due to his (perceived) ideology and even certain personality traits he possesses. QRep2020 (talk) 21:57, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Collapsing comment by admitted block evading IP.

First of all I'm Jatlin1, and I was banned recently. In the spirit of WP:BRAR, I write this. I want to point out that all the reliable sources that call him polarizing seem to be from 2022 30. april and to be spread in the events of the Twitter-takeover. So I think those labels have issues with regards to WP:RECENT. Mind, for example "Articles should be written from a neutral point of view, with attention to the long-term significance of the information included[...]" The information in the Elon Musk Wikipedia article is also a statement of opinion, not a statement of fact and should therefore follow the policy outlined here WP:WIKIVOICE "Avoid stating opinions as facts. Usually, articles will contain information about the significant opinions that have been expressed about their subjects. However, these opinions should not be stated in Wikipedia's voice. Rather, they should be attributed in the text to particular sources, or where justified, described as widespread views, etc. For example, an article should not state that "genocide is an evil action" but may state that "genocide has been described by John So-and-so as the epitome of human evil." Mind also Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. from WP:NEWSORG 213.237.89.41 (talk) 18:48, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

IP, your honesty is admirable but you are evading your block which is not permitted. I have blocked your IP address. Cullen328 (talk) 20:24, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

• This revert pretty well establishes that the lead in this BLP is simply name calling. The editors who firmly control this BLP want to label Musk in the lead as a “polarizing figure” without saying in the lead why they think he is a polarizing figure. Bad editing, IMHO. It’s also telling that no one in this BLPN discussion has been willing to directly state this stuff in the Musk lead is consistent with this BLP requirement: “Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking.” Musk is *rarely* called a “polarizing figure” in RS’s, and never in the same sentence where he or his statements have already been called controversial. Anythingyouwant (talk) 23:23, 17 December 2022 (UTC)

Cherry-pickers gonna cherry-pick whatever "feels right". --Animalparty! (talk) 18:04, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I think saying Musk is polarizing is an important claim in the lead. However, I also agree this is the sort of thing that perhaps can be taken out of a first sentence and instead put slightly later and provided with more detail. I don't mind attributing as I think that is generally good practice in cases like this. I think "polarizing" is far nicer that some of the terms that I believe could be applied to him (even before he abandoned the left to court the right). Still, this is a BLP so we should be careful with how we describe people and err on the side of bland or excessive attribution when saying negative things. (Disclaimer, I think during some TSLAQ discussions I was accused of having a bias against Tesla) Springee (talk) 04:19, 23 December 2022 (UTC)

We follow the sources, and if many high-quality sources describe someone as polarizing, it is appropriate to follow suit, unless there is some countervailing reason why we should not (for example, equivalently reliable sources contesting that someone is polarizing). That's just Due Weight 101: we explain the biographically significant material about a person, and we do so in context. Descriptive material, including characterizations, are often perfectly fine, if well-sourced and appropriate weight. I also agree with Zaathras that "polarizing" is not a particularly contentious label if well-sourced (here, it is amply so). Surely "polarizing" would likely not be the only way we describe a subject, but we do not exclude it merely because some editors have a distaste for it. Neutrality^talk 18:39, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

"Distaste" has nothing to do with it; MOS:LABEL explicitly lists "controversial" as a contentious label, and indicates that it should be attributed if "widely used" (which is objectively not the case, since 5 sources is not "ample", here, it guides us to avoid the term altogether). (Speaking of cherry-picking, User:Animalparty, would you support that descriptor for Beyoncé and LeBron, where there's actual empirical data? I wouldn't, for the reasons I just mentioned.) The only basis for including this is WP:IAR; if you want the guidelines changed, then start an RFC. DFlhb (talk) 14:34, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

For me, the question simply comes down to editorial sense, and while I don't think being "polarizing" is a key part of the notability of LeBron or Beyoncé (although maybe getting closer in the former case), it has become so in the case of Musk, especially recently. I don't think there is a way to arrive at an iron-clad ruling on this one, and so, as with most things, I think it comes down to consensus. As I have said, I think the word belongs in the lead and that the article would be worse without it. If consensus should determine otherwise, however, that's fine. As I like to say, reasonable minds may differ. Cheers and Happy Holidays to one and all. Dumuzid (talk) 14:39, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

Indeed, very happy holidays to you! DFlhb (talk) 14:55, 19 December 2022 (UTC)

• First, there are seven sources, not five; to say that he is eg. on a polarizing mission is to say that he is polarizing. But even five sources are more than ample. We usually stop at three unless there's a reason to believe that other sources dispute the claim; five high-profile WP:RSes using the exact same terminology to refer to someone is overwhelming. Since a wide variety of sources have been produced supporting it, at this point you're the one who has to demonstrate that it is disputed somehow by finding sources that disagree with them. --Aquillion (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  Strange that there is only one source in the body of the article. The lead is supposed to summarise the body of the article, not just showcase opinions taken from passing mentions in cherrypicked sources. IntrepidContributor (talk) 23:19, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

  We usually violate MOS:LABEL, yes, and it annoys me. The main concern I bring up throughout this discussion, is that it's not encyclopaedic material. You want to make it purely an issue of sourcing, which it never was; it's a tone, POV and dueness issue. The content is encyclopaedically inappropriate. The same label has been applied to Hillary, Beyoncé and LeBron, with better sourcing, yet no one could consider it reasonable to put that in the lead of their BLP. We don't even call Trump polarizing! Why? Because it's terrible, substance-less writing, and, if it had any substance, would be phrased far differently. Fortunately, we already do! We say: Musk has made controversial statements on politics and technology. What does "polarizing" add to that? You really think a Featured article would have fuzzy language like "is a polarizing figure"? It would insta-fail criteria 1A. DFlhb (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

• As I've said on the article TP, this label should not be made in the voice of Wikipedia, and should instead be attributed to reliable sources. There are clearly some reliable sources that call Musk polarizing, but the highest quality reliable source mentioned by HAL333 only says he is on "polarizing mission" and stops short of calling him a polarizing figure. There is an argument against including it in the lead as undue according to MOS:LEAD and WP:BLP, but I don't really have a strong opinion on this. IntrepidContributor (talk) 13:40, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I echo DFlhb. "Polarizing figure" is just an otiose addition, especially when we consider WP:GLOBAL. Who has become polarized? Twitter users? Americans? Nigerians? It also weakly implies that many people hold strong opinions about him. True for Twitter users! But for the world, or even just the West? Most people are either amused or don't care. I'd remove. Ovinus (talk) 20:23, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

I could see something like "polarizing figure among commentators and politicians" or ideally with a "Western" in there, if either can be sourced. Ovinus (talk) 20:30, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

But the sources describe him as a polarizing figure overall, not just "among commentators and politicians." Attributing it the way you want would be misusing them and would run afoul of the WP:NPOV requirement to not state facts as opinions. If you think it is contentious that he is polarizing (ie. you think there's serious disagreement among the sources about it), you should present sources disputing it in some way. I don't think that any sources like that exist, though, since it seems practically WP:BLUE at this point that he is a polarizing figure (it would be a reasonable summary of large swaths of his article, even if we didn't have sources backing that description directly.) --Aquillion (talk) 22:27, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

@Aquillion: are you opposed to attributing altogether, or just to "commentators and politicians"? This noticeboard is the last stop before a RFC, so it would be good to get all opinions here. IntrepidContributor (talk) 23:17, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

This is the very problem that MOS:LABEL attempts to address. Every source is written from some point of view, in this case that of the media. Unless who is becoming polarized is made explicit—Twitter users? the American public? anyone who's heard of him?—it's still inappropriate. Opinion polls may help the case, though. (Also, considering lead follows body, the one mention of polarization found in the body should be strengthened.) Ovinus (talk) 23:28, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

"Avoid stating facts as opinions." The problem is the opposite. "Avoid stating opinions as facts." It's not a fact that Elon Musk is polarizing. I suggest you to look at the DIKW pyramid https://www.researchgate.net/figure/The-data-information-knowledge-wisdom-DIKW-hierarchy-as-a-pyramid-to-manage-knowledge_fig6_332400827. Facts are supposed to be something that is different from fleeting theories and to be something definitive, permanent and independent of the individual researcher's subjective interpretation. Facts, by their very nature, hold back and evade consensus and the nature of interpretation of the labile or fluctuating. Instead, they form the base in which every rationale, philosophical or in other cognitive respects, every human consideration, calculation and conclusion takes its starting point. It's independent of scientific paradigms, and it's definitely independent of the latest Anglophone 2022 news. WP:NEWSORG "News sources often contain both factual content and opinion content. News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". Remember to extract the facts from RS News. RS News are not reliable for anything. 130.225.188.131 (talk) 08:28, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

Wow. It's not often outside of politics that I see that much double-talk and technobabble which ultimately says nothing. I'm not sure what your point is, but it's a lot more straight-forward than all of that. All information can be divided into two categories: fact and opinion. Facts are observable and, therefore, recordable phenomena. They are the what, where, who, when, and how of a subject. Everything else is opinion, which comes by many names, such as theories, judgments, conclusions, POVs, etc. This is the why of the story. The reason. By themselves, facts are meaningless data. It's only when you have a theory that can connect all the facts that some meaning can be gleaned from them. So, to convey any meaning you must have both, facts and opinions. This is not only the basis of journalism but it's also the core principle of the philosophy of scientific methodology. For more on the subject, I'd suggest:

Philosophy of Scientific Method by John Stuart Mills

On Writing Well: The Classical Guide to Writing Non-fiction by William Zinsser

Understanding Journalism by Lynette Sheridan Burns

Reading and Writing: Nonfiction Genres by Kathleen Buss, Lee Karnowski

Writing for Journalists by Wynford Hicks, Sally Adams, Harriet Gilbert

Zaereth (talk) 09:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I'll add to this a statement that many will find cryptic, except to a special few. What really separates the good writers from the bad is understanding of the great power of what is left unsaid. Simply put, if you have to explain the joke, it's not funny. Like I said, it comes off as condescending. Zaereth (talk) 13:21, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

2022 pregnancy of a 10-year-old in Ohio

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.

---

Good morning. Due to the urgency, I am posting this link on this site, as posting sources and URLs at 2022 pregnancy of a 10-year-old in Ohio containing the name of the suspect, who has never been famous nor convicted, seems to defeat the purpose of WP:BLPN. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The suspects name is now in the wiki-code in two places, both being urls of sources used in the article. Readers who do not look at the source wikicode will not see the name. I think WP:BLPNAME has been met, as the suspects name has been "widely disseminated". I think continuing to exclude the name from the article is wise, but am not overly concerned about the urls. If someone wants to replace the sources with equally reliable or better ones that do not have the name in the url, go for it! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree with FFF, given that a simple google turns up the name instantly we don't need to be policing URLs. BLPNAME here is satisfied by keeping the name out of the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

We have higher standards than the media here, since search engines will.pick up on WP info better than from media sources. Just because a name may be widely disseminated by some sources, we have to take steps to avoid things like names of non notable minors particularly around BLPCRIME aspects. There are ways to hide names in URL (like via link shortener or using sources that give the same information without including the name in the URL). Masem (t) 20:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Do we have to take such steps? I don't think we do... For example we wouldn't not use an article as a source because it had the subject's name in the title, that would be absurd and wikipedia is not censored. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

We can "[redacted]" a name in an article title should that be necessary. Masem (t) 21:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Has it ever been necessary? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen "[redacted]", but I have certainly changed "[name of person] was also charged with [crime]" to "A third man was also charged with [crime]". Herostratus (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Also this is not censoring. We strictly avoid mentioning non-notable, non public figures BLPs particularly when crimes are involved. Masem (t) 21:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not censored" is a mere slogan, like "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit!" This is censorship; we censor BLPs and other things all the time, for legal and ethical reasons. We censor things that go against the best interest of Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

BLPCRIME uses the language "editors must seriously consider not including", so we do have some leeway to use common sense. If a suspect has already been named by just about every reliable source covering the topic, I don't think that we're pushing them further into the spotlight or implying guilt by incidentally mentioning their name in a linked URL. –dlthewave ☎ 13:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think BLPCRIME is the sole issue nor a barrier at this point. I'd only ask if the suspect's name make the victim easier to identify? And if so, is there harm to the victim that would be a reason to keep it out of an article that will exist for the rest of her life? Slywriter (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I think it does make it easier to identify her. According to the tabloids the suspect is the live-in boyfriend of the victim's mother; I see no reason to suspect they don't have that fact straight. I don't know how we can prevent the name appearing completely, though. Even putting [redacted] into an article title just draws more attention to it. I dislike the idea of disingenuously rendering titles so the change won't be as visible. And once there's a conviction, is it even possible to keep the name out? Valereee (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  I think it's ultimately a losing battle, but I struggle with the fact that a 10 year old has an article that will follow them around forever when they did not seek attention. For them, this article is WP:BLP1E, but others have made it a noteworthy topic. For that and WP:DONOHARM, I'd lean toward never including the suspect's name in the article prose(even after conviction), but policing sources may be a bridge too far. Slywriter (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah. Also, arguments such as "simple google turns up the name instantly" and "If a suspect has already been named by just about every reliable source covering the topic, I don't think that we're pushing them further into the spotlight" and so on are bad, and of the order of "The other kids were beating that homeless beggar to death anyway, so what difference does it make if I joined in?". We can't control what other people do, only what we do. Introducing this kind of thinking into discussions is inimical to what we're trying to do here. Herostratus (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree. It's simply a matter of basic human decency. It's a 10 year old child! Just because the newspapers don't show any compassion doesn't mean we have to blindly follow their lead like a bunch of mindless automatons. Newspapers are foremost out to sell their product and make money, and if that means trampling over a small child then that's what they'll do, as disgusting as it is. We're not motivated by a system that puts financial gain over the well being of the victims, and especially children. As an encyclopedia, we're supposed to be better than the news outlets, not the same or worse. Zaereth (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

All this is basically the same logic we used on Star Wars Kid until the person themselves opted to state in a very public statement he was SWK as part of his reason to start an anti-bullying group. Prior to that, there were a fair number of sources that gave his name but we kept it out of the article despite the "ease" that it could be found. Masem (t) 13:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah and it's people like the Star Wars Kid and Brian Peppers etc. where BLP is most important. "We are not here to make people feel sad" was one of the guiding reasons we have BLP. A BLP violation on the articles on Barack Obama or Kim Jong-un or Jeff Bezos etc etc is bad ofc, but really we can't harm those people on that level. We're not going to hurt their feelings or damage their reputation or invade their privacy. Bill Gates doesn't care if we slant a sentence against him without an AAA-level ref. Private marginally notable persons, where we usually form their public face to a degree? It's punching down, punching way down, to give them anything but bending-over-backwards extreme consideration for them as people. We are a very big, much read, much linked to, much quoted, and therefore powerful, publication. Marginally notable private persons are helpless against us. I hate punching down. You all should too. Herostratus (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

According to the tabloids the suspect is the live-in boyfriend of the victim's mother we don't mention this in the article? Anyone who's read the sources to the point that they've ascertained that fact, also has probably seen the person's name by that point. All that digging has to be done offwiki though.

I don't see how the suspect's name can tell you anything about the victim, based on the info in the article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't mention it because it's the tabloids, and even if it weren't the tabloids I'd argue against mentioning it for privacy reasons.

The problem isn't that people across the country avidly reading the tabloids will know the name of the accused and connect it to the kid. It's that in her neighborhood, at her school, in her church, everyone will know because the name of the accused has been made public and in every one of those groups, someone knows that person is a close associate of the family, which means they can guess who the victim is. And likely some will judge her for having the abortion, even if at this tender age she really wasn't even sure what an abortion is, and even if they don't judge her many will whisper about her. School life will be unbearable. Valereee (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Don't use the source because it's a junk source -- local news -- so we don't need to use it. I wouldn't say always exclude a source that has a problematic name in the URL, but if the source adds nothing of value to the article, which is the case here IMO, then there is no good reason to use it, and the inclusion of the name in the URL is a good reason not to use it. That they put the name in the URL demonstrates IMO the low quality of their newsroom editorial staff: it's in the URL because they put the name in the headline. Poor journalism ethics there. As far as a general rule about names in URLs go, I would say we should determine that on a case-by-case basis, but this is yet another example of why not to use local news as sources (as a general rule). Levivich (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  I love local news for filling in early life details! The subject was a 2006 graduate of Perry High School, where they participated in 4 years of wrestling and musical theater. :D Valereee (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  local news is not a junk source... Buffs (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  Seconded. Curbon7 (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  Well...it can be pretty junky. If we can find better sources for anything that isn't noncontroversial, it's better if we do. As I said above, it's great for a source for the fact the subject graduated in X year from Y high school and was a standout at Z activity. But in this case we're using a local source for information that can be easily found from a much better source who likely won't be putting the suspect's name into the headline and therefore URL. Valereee (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  Anything notable is very going to likely have a local news source first. It is an opinion, not policy (and certainly not agreed upon by society at large) that local news sources are somehow inferior despite the fact that they follow the same journalistic standards as national publications. Either a source is reliable or it is not. Such editorial decisions (are we really being so picky as to be debating the choice of a URL?) have nothing to do with any of our pillars for inclusion.

  Now, I think including the victim's name is absurd and completely unnecessary (especially in the case of a minor), but it is widespread and in media worldwide. It is not a secret and is not something we can possibly exclude nor should we. It's best to give a neutral presentation of the facts. Buffs (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  What news reports include the victim's name? I see plenty that include the doctor's name, but not the victim's. Lobster from Maine (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  Let's just start with EVERY mass shooting... Buffs (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Lobster from Maine, I think Bluffs simply misspoke; as far as I know no news reports are including the victim's name. Valereee (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Valereee:, respectfully, please let me make my own points rather than assume my intent. My point is not whether names are included or not, but rather what reliable sources state. If they state the name of the victim, we should do so as well. Conversely, if they do not, we should not. It is truly that simple. The same should apply to URLs. While I feel for the girl in question, the responsibility lies with those who broadcast her name, not those who say "_____ broadcasted their name." Buffs (talk) 08:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Buffs, oh, my mistake, I'd made an assumption based on what was likely the policy-based opinion of an experienced editor who was saying something both incorrect and contrary to policy.

  Incorrect: AFAIK the media is not mentioning her name, which is why I figured you must have misspoken when you said I think including the victim's name is absurd and completely unnecessary (especially in the case of a minor), but it is widespread and in media worldwide. It is not a secret and is not something we can possibly exclude nor should we. It's best to give a neutral presentation of the facts.

  Contrary to policy: But even if it were appearing in RS, I would never in a million years think we should mention by name a 10-year-old rape victim. Our BLP policies would tell us to be extremely cautious with naming any non-notable living victim of any crime, much less a sex crime, much less a minor, much less one of tender years, much less one who has had an abortion as a result of that crime. I really am very surprised that an experienced editor like yourself would ever believe that was appropriate. Valereee (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  If widespread articles are using either the name of the victim or the alleged perpetrator, it's very hard to see how either name is "non-notable". I stand by my statement. If either's name is NOT widespread in the media, then they should not be included. It's best to give a neutral presentation of the facts. Buffs (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  No RS I know of is using the name of the victim. Even if they were, I would argue against repeating it here onwiki until I was blue in the face unless she herself came out in ten years. WTF are you even thinking here? This is a CHILD. Valereee (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• I've never seen us take extreme measures like link shortening to avoid a name in URL. In past cases I've seen avoidance of the name in article text, but it remaining in URLs, and sometimes the title of sources if applicable too. I think this adheres to the rule, as it's not overtly displaying the person's name. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  Shortening a URL is weird. Readers don't go looking through urls in wikipedia articles so that they might find a secret encoded name in them. Why is this an issue? Lobster from Maine (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Lobster from Maine, the issue is that the suspect's name is in some headlines and therefore in some URLs, and it is likely people who know the girl will recognize the suspect as someone who lives with the family and therefore can identify the girl as the victim. Which could make her life pretty unbearable. Valereee (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Just noting that I've trimmed detail and swapped sources so that the suspect's name does not appear in the article wikitext. I wouldn't say this was necessary, but I get this itchy feeling all over whenever I disagree with Valereee. Those that care should probably keep a close eye as the trial starts (scheduled for next week, but may be delayed). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  hahaha Valereee (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

"Alleged" rape?

Another open question on this article entails whether the alleged rape is "alleged" or not alleged at all. It seems that editors are claiming that they can objectively say in wikivoice that the child was raped even without benefit of a trial or conviction. This seems to be WP:OR, and WP:POV. It seems we should extend "innocent until proven guilty" as the law of justice in these United States, to any incident, no matter how heinous or how "obvious" a crime may be. Elizium23 (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

We're not stating that the suspect is guilty. We're following the sources, all of which label it a rape. 9 year olds can not legally consent to sex, so any such relationship is rape. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Until proven out by a court of law, we cannot make that assumption, per BLPCRIME. There's likely little wiggle room for anything but a rape charge, but until the court finds on this, we have to assume innocence. Masem (t) 03:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Any sex with someone under 13 in Ohio is rape, so regardless of someone being found guilty, she was raped. If a politician was shot in the head in front of a crowd we wouldn't say "the alleged assassination." The suspect is alleged to have done something, but the rape itself is a fact. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Until the court makes the determination (which is very likely to be that way), we have to assume that events are only assumed to have happened, not that they have happened. Absolutely we can say that this woudl be assumed rape (we're not questioning the girl's age and thus how it falls under Ohio state law) but there's still validity in court that needs to be worked out. Masem (t) 03:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, in order to call someone a rapist there needs to be a court finding. In order to say someone was raped we do not. Just as we can say someone was murdered without a court finding. Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered, yet no one was ever convicted. Does that make it not a murder? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

For Heavens' sake. Sex with a nine-year-old is not "alleged" rape. It is rape. Hell, I think it borders on a WP:CHILDPROTECT violation to suggest otherwise. In some states one could maybe get pedantic and say it's not, as a matter of law, automatically rape, because of one exemption or another, but it appears that the only exemption that applies in Ohio would be marriage, and there are no sources indicating that the victim was married to the alleged perpetrator or anyone else. BLPCRIME does not prevent us from calling a rape a rape, because BLPCRIME is only about how we describe people, not acts. How we describe acts is determined by WP:V and WP:NPOV. Are there any reliable sources that dispute that this was a rape? Any at all? The only original research happening here is the outrageous attempt to stick weasel words in front of what everyone on Earth, except a handful of Wikipedia editors apparently, agrees was a rape (whether it was perpetrated by the accused or someone else). This has to be the worst hill I've ever seen anyone choose to die on. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It is alleged rape as what the actual events are yet to be confirmed by trial. it doesn't matter what RSes claim, we are following legal principles here to not make statements of facts that have yet to be determined by the court of law. Masem (t) 04:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Masem: What legal principle says that you can only call something a rape if it has resulted in a conviction? Could you please cite a textbook or journal article that explains this principle? I'm no lawyer, but in years of following legal matters and writing articles on the law, I've never heard of it. If such a principle does exist, my next question would be what Wikipedia policy or guideline says that we should defer to that legal principle? It's nowhere in BLPCRIME, which is about how we describe the accused. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

BLPCRIME says "Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." which is the base principle here. Maybe it is about the accused, but like in this case, if we state in wikivoice it was rape, you've already accused the suspect of your guilt here. And from the law/media standpoint, this is what is known as "prejudging" which is something that is seen as unethical and can result in libel suits. Masem (t) 05:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Us saying she was raped is not the same as us saying that the accused raped her. Like, obviously. The only way we would be libeling him is if there were some way to have sex with a nine-year-old without it being rape, which there isn't. It's not the same thing as, say, calling a homicide a murder, where there's any number of reasons it might not be ruled that. Since you've acknowledged that BLPCRIME is about the accused, not the crime, I'll return to my earlier question: Do any reliable sources dispute that this was a rape? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

She could have undergone artificial insemination, in or out of a clinical setting. It's telling that you are here assuming she had sex when you should know that is not necessary to become pregnant. So you're making several leaps of logic and you're assuming events you aren't privy to.

Now it's unfortunate that the evidence of the crime has been destroyed and left in another state. I hope law enforcement held on to some DNA samples; moreover, I hope her child's baby's remains get a dignified burial and some human respect. (BLP violation removed) Elizium23 (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Elizium23: I... You're joking, right? You're coming to BLPN, to a thread about BLPCRIME, to accuse a different living person (or people) of a crime? That's so outrageous that it almost makes me forget you started this comment by suggesting that a fucking nine-year-old underwent artificial insemination. Given your blatant political advocacy in this comment, and, again, outright BLP violation against one or more people involved, I think you may need to accept that you are not able to participate constructively on this topic. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

What a truly bizarre argument, but oh well:

BLPCRIME keeps us from calling the accused a rapist until there's a conviction.

COMMONNAME is how we refer to the crime itself, absent consensus for something else. I don't believe I've seen any RS calling this anything but rape. So -- again absent consensus to call it something else -- we call it what RS call it: rape. Valereee (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I very much agree. The act leading to impregnation was a rape, and there is no source that suggests otherwise. BD2412 T 14:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

(EC) Especially with the trial due to start soon according to comments below, I feel there's no point trying to get this changed this but I'd note there have been plenty of times when we ignore RS calling something a murder etc until a conviction has been secured when the alleged preparator is still alive and IMO there is a good reason it's something we nearly always do no matter how damning the facts of the case may seem. We've long debates about this e.g. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive318#Stoneman Douglas High School shooting but also the RfC Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 58#RfC: Shooting or Death or Killing or Murder? which resulted in this supplement Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). Assassination given as an example is a fairly different case since it's not something that generally carrier a clear legal meaning. Indeed in the case of Talk:Assassination of Shinzo Abe/Archive 1#Requested move 8 July 2022 there seemed to be a clear albeit brief consensus that murder was not appropriate but assassination was fine. There are also cases where many sources may continue to call something a murder even though a conviction of the sole perpetrator has been secured for a lesser crime e.g. Killing of Rachel Nickell and Killing of Natalie Connolly (warning details may be distressing) and we have IMO correctly ignored these sources. While it may be true that the limited consideration of a perpetrator's state of mind means there's a difference between how rapes and murders are decided based on the facts of the case, IMO there's still enough doubt that we should take the same care. And actually I have vague memory we've done the same for rapes too where the facts seem fairly damning e.g. the victim suffered brutal injuries or it was recorded on camera although interesting enough with the case of Killing of Ee Lee we only dealt with the murder aspect and still simply say rape. I don't think Elizium23 is helping matters my giving unnecessarily complex scenarios although I'd note that it seems clear Elizium23 recognises artificial insemination of a 9 year old would almost definitely be at a minimum a form of sexual assault. The fact that a 9 year old cannot consent doesn't mean that any sexual intercourse is rape, for example for IMO good reason in many countries a 11 year old cannot be charged with rape. While the pregnancy makes this unlikely in this case, it's one of the reasons why we do not make assumptions based on flawed understandings of how the law operates and why. In many jurisdictions, again IMO for good reason, someone with a significant intellectual disability also cannot convicted of rape, even if physically they are capable of impregnating the victim. And I'd note that besides the weird artificial insemination scenario, it's possible even if very unlikely for pregnancy to result from sexual assault that doesn't fall into the definitions of rape that apply in jurisdictions a specific crime occurred in. Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

exactly, and as we cannot use our own expertise ("all situations under Ohio law would call this rape"), we can't state it as fact until the court agrees that the factual basis of a conviction. That's why it is important that until the court passes this decision, we have to assert that the rape is alledged. Masem (t) 16:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

But we can use our own expertise to assert that the rape is alleged? Why would we ever be allowed to do that sort of WP:OR? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

+1 Valereee (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Writing at a middle-ground/conservative stance (something was alleged to have happened) is absolutely should be our basis when including contentious or controversial information, as per WP:YESPOV. There's no OR involved in that, that's the writing style that a neutral encyclopedia must take, even if all the major sources - who are not legal experts here - claim must be true. Its the reason MEDRS (and to an extent, SCIRS) exist, to point out that there are only certain soruces that can make authorative claims. Of course, if the media was reporting on the findings that were given out of appropriate labs, and reiterating their statements, that would be different. Masem (t) 20:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

"Yes, ma'am, I understand you are saying you've been raped. We can't call it rape until someone has been convicted of rape. Oh, that 'rape kit'? Uh..." Valereee (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

By the way, if anyone wanted evidence that the judicial system indeed uses the word "rape" to describe incidents that did not result in a conviction, a lawyer friend pointed me to Wright v. City of Ozark, 715 F.2d 1513 (11th Cir. 1983) (plaintiff "was raped by an unknown assailant"), as an arbitrary example. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Was it uncontested by the city that she was raped? Maine 🦞 06:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Masem, can you explain to me the factual circumstances by which it would be inappropriate or false to say the child at issue had been raped? Dumuzid (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

What about "rape" violates WP:NPOV? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

WTAF are you arguing Elizium23 ... ?!?! Nonconsensual insemination of a child is still rape! Children cannot enter contracts or consent. Parents can consent on behalf of children when it is in their best interest. (unnecessary and dangerous medical procedures???? not!!) Any sexual conduct (see: insertion without privilege) with a minor less than age 13 in Ohio is rape. Not even the doctor in that disgusting hypothetical has medical privilege of insertion!!!! 2600:387:15:1C11:0:0:0:B (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it contested, whatsoever, that some sort of sexual act by the specific person being tried for it actually occurred? Of course any sort of sexual relationship between a pedophile and a child is rape. Maine 🦞 05:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Adult and child. Not just pedos. 2600:387:15:1C11:0:0:0:B (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with those editors above who are saying that, per WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP, we call it "rape" and not "alleged rape" because the WP:RSes call it "rape" and not "alleged rape". For example:

• NYT a 10-year-old Ohio girl who was raped not "allegedly raped"
• WaPo a pregnant 10-year-old Ohio rape victim and a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio not "alleged rape victim"
• WaPo2 a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio not "alleged rape victim" and a man would be arraigned that morning for the rape of a 10-year-old not "for the alleged rape"
• NPR A rape, an abortion, and a one-source story not "an alleged rape" and A raped 10-year-old Ohio girl's abortion not "an allegedly raped 10-year-old".

Aside from Wikipedia policy, this also comports with common sense: if a child is pregnant it's because she was raped, because she cannot consent and thus any pregnancy would be the result of statutory rape. The fact that a rape occurred is indisputable because a child is pregnant. It's just like if someone is stabbed many times, we (the world, the RSes, and thus Wikipedia) all call it a "murder" even if no one is ever convicted for the "murder", as has been pointed out above.

The bottom line is this: sometimes, a crime has occurred, and RS state that a crime has occurred, even if no one is convicted of that crime. In such cases, we can also state that a crime has occurred (although of course we cannot state that a particular person committed it). We do not have to state that a crime has allegedly occurred just because no one has been convicted of that crime. That's not what our policies, or common sense, require. Levivich (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

That statement "that comports with common sense" is a legal analysis beyond the abilities of WP Editors to make, and thus not a valid step. And we have to stay away from saying things that maybe all RSes claim is true but do not have the authority to do so - here we need the legal evaluation from the court decision, the only agency that can make the evaluation. Even in the case of a person that appears to have died from multiple stab wounds, we cannot call that murder under a court of law makes that statement (that's why there's a specific set of rules of how we name "Killing of..."-type articles. Masem (t) 16:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

We say JFK was assassinated even though no one was convicted of the assassination. And WP:DEATHS says that you follow the common name even if there is no conviction, which is why we say JFK was assassinated and Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered, even though there were no convictions. So no, saying that a rape occurred is not legal analysis any moreso than saying that a murder or assassination occurred... those may be crimes, but they're not legal concepts, they're words that describe actions, they're not legal terms-of-art. And our policies do not say that we can't call something <crime> unless there's been a conviction. This has been explained multiple times above, but you're still repeating the same talking points. Levivich (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Those specific rules are for when there both

1. Is no commonname
2. Is no consensus for something else

In this case we have a commonname:rape is what RS are calling it. And we don't have consensus for calling it anything else, including "alleged rape". If you really believe you can get consensus for calling this an "alleged rape", start an RfC. Valereee (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Masem, you are dead wrong here, and youre missing the obvious. We cannot say an individual is guilty of a crime until that is adjudicated. We absolutely can, and should, say that a crime occured when sources report that as a fact. WP:BLPCRIME is about calling some LP something that has not been established. Ie a rapist. It is not about the existence of a crime itself. You are taking the naming on killing vs murder to extreme lengths here, and you are wrong in how you are doing so. We can say a robbery occurred. We can say a rape occurred. We can say all sorts of things because they arent labeling a living person as guilty of that crime. There is no requirement that somebody be found guilty of a crime to say that said crime even occurred. The requirement is that they be found guilty before we say they themselves committed said crime. There is an alleged rapist, not an alleged rape. nableezy - 17:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Nope, this is a critical factor. The media themselves are not legal experts in any capacity so we can't their own conclusions as whether a specific crime occurred or not as fact. Further, let's take a less orenous example: Mrs. Smith is found dead from a stab wound; obviously we can state she was killed. The police likely will assume she was murdered after a preliminary investigation, and they may take in Mr. Smith as a suspect despite his pleas he didn't. In that scenario, even if the press asserted "Mrs. Smith was murdered" (prior to a conclusion from the courts) and "Mr. Smith is a suspect", that is implicitly says Mr Smith murdered her. It is why in those cases, the media actually very carefully says "Mr. Smith is a suspect in the alleged murder of Mrs. Smith", which is valid, and for us, why her page would remain at "Killing of Mrs. Smith" (if that iwas how it was to be handled) until the conviction happened. What if the real case was that Mrs. Smith committed suicide after all was said and done? That's why we need the careful language.

Same thing applies to other crimes - they all may be the named crimes, but they aren't actually those crimes until a conviction is secures against those that do it. It significantly affects any person that is tied as a possible suspect to the crime, and thus must be treated in an "innocent until proven guilty" manner. There are other things that are factual - "the victim was stabbed multiple times", "the store was overturned and the safe looted of all funds" that suggest a crime, but there are slim outside changes that there are other things going on that we should not take any absolutes of judicial truth until the actual courts make the assessment. Masem (t) 18:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Masem has apparently never heard of the concept of "unsolved crimes". In Masem's world, a crime without a conviction isn't a crime at all. In the preferred approach of overstretched police forces all over the world, the way to reduce the crime rate is then to make it difficult for people to report crimes.

In the real world, fortunately, we can simply rely on reliable sources to know (and report) what has happened in this instance. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This isn't WP:MEDRS, and you are seriously misinterpreting the difference between calling a person a rapist and calling a crime a rape. Someone ping me if there's an RfC. Until then, I do not think we have consensus for adding "alleged rape" to the article. Valereee (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

In Ohio, state statute for 1st degree rape has strict liability for "sexual conduct" (defined here) with anyone "less than thirteen years of age". The girl is a victim of rape in the eyes of Ohio law. There does not need to be a trial and finding of guilty of a perpetrator for a victim to be victim of a crime. For example, the Uniform Crime Report (now NIBRS) does not even require an arrest for a crime to be labeled as such. Unlike homicide, we do not need a medicolegal ruling to determine that a pregnant 10-year-old had "sexual conduct" (WP:BLUE). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thats nonsense pure and simple. Theres a reason not to say murder over killing, because that is an issue of intent and you can kill somebody without having murdered them. That simply does not exist here or in most other crimes. And beyond that, the real reason we need such a guideline is that because Wikipedians as a body are incapable of exercising discretion and understanding nuance, and it leads to some very fucked up anomalies. Like, in a topic I edit in, an Israeli soldier is almost never going to be found guilty of murder, regardless of the circumstances. So an unarmed autistic man shot in the back of the head is killed and not murdered, because the local jurisdiction will never charge much less find the perpetrators guilty of murder. But fine, we as a body need bolded lines to deal with edge cases, so we end up making this convoluted flow diagram specifically for when to use the word murder. But that simply does not apply here. And, as per WP:WEIGHT, the balance of reliable sources are emphatic that a rape occurred. We couch our wording for the living person accused of a crime. A crime occurs even if nobody is ever charged, even if nobody is ever convicted. And it does not require a court of law to say that some specific person is guilty of a crime to say that a crime even occurred. nableezy - 18:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Having a real hard time following your argument here Masem... It looks like you jumped the shark a long time ago and are now defending an undefendable position against overwhelming odds. You're wrong in both spirit and letter, drop the stick. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This is just...a bad argument. A really dumb, bad argument. The fact that you can't understand how claiming a rape didn't occur until someone is found guilty for it is the most ridiculous BS reasoning ever is just...bizarre. And a real WP:COMPETENCE concern for this topic area. Silverseren^C 20:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Now now, Masem is undoubtedly giving his view in good faith, and I dont think dropping a competence link is appropriate. I do think he is taking WP:DEATHS to extreme, and absurd, lengths here, and there is literally nothing BLP related in saying a crime occurred absent a conviction. There is in saying somebody committed a crime prior to a conviction, but thats not whats at issue here. nableezy - 20:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

eh, not sure competence is an absurd question. This isn't a one-off, there's been doubling down. It's actually pretty puzzling. Valereee (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I meant the BLPCRIME claim is absurd, not the competence link. Though I do think it is misguided. Some people have very myopic views when the letters BLP come even on the fringes of the picture. I obviously disagree with Masem on this thread, but Ive also agreed with him plenty of othee times, so cmon lets accept that reasonable can disagree on what our articles should say without lacking the competence to edit. nableezy - 02:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Masem I don't think it's appropriate to apply the logic behind the WP:DEATHS guidance to a clear-cut case of statutory rape. When it comes to the killing of a person or persons there are considerations; was it a lawful or unlawful killing? Was it manslaughter or murder? Was it premeditated or a crime of passion? The answers to those questions have implications, not only on the potential sentencing of the perpetrator(s), but also how we describe both the perpetrator(s) and the victim(s). To use your Mr/Mrs Smith example, while in all cases Mrs Smith is dead, how we describe her death and anyone accused of it is variant on the circumstances that caused it.

However in the case of statutory rape, such as the one that lead to this discussion, we have only a single way to describe the victim; that they were raped. Whether or not there is a known perpetrator, and whether or not that perpetrator receives a conviction, it does not change the fact that this child was raped. However that only applies to the victim. When it comes to a known perpetrator, BLPCRIME would naturally apply to that person, such that we (and the media) would describe them as an "alleged rapist", "suspect", or other similar terms. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

In America, this is not statutory rape. It's rape. U.S. Code Title 10 § 920b Ohio Revised Code Section 2907.02 2600:387:15:1C18:0:0:0:B (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Masem: to the contrary. A rape occured. Whether or not this person is found guilty or not of the alleged crime, it happened. If someone was shot down in a hail of indiscriminate gunfire, we would say the people killed were "murdered" regardless of whether a person is found guilty or not. Buffs (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'll say this. The fact that we even have an article about this is just sick. Sick. That we would take the trauma of a 10 year-old child and use it to forward some political agenda is absolutely disgusting. Zaereth (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Reply -

  1. This is an encyclopedia.
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022.

  --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely fucking disgusting. Zaereth (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Reply - @Zaereth:, why don't you renominate it for deletion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

disgusting or not, it happened. I see nothing furthering a political agenda here...it's a matter of how it should be described Buffs (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh please. Have you read the article? The rape is disgusting, yes, but that's not what I'm talking about. The only thing more disgusting than raping a child is using it for political gain. Now don't get me worng, because I am 100% pro-choice, and think the supreme court ruling is utter garbage. But this? This is a horrible way to go about trying to make that point. Typical mob-mentality, where an entire group of people suddenly begin to behave as a single sociopath. "The news agencies did it, so why shouldn't we." Hey, tell yourself whatever helps you sleep at night. Zaereth (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Reply - "Why don't you renominate it for deletion"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This is where my issue is. I am sure, buried within the sources, is confirmation from an appropriate police official or medical official with authority on this case that they are going to call it rape. That's fine if that source exists (and I'm sure it does) but the bulk of editors above are saying, instead, "all these RSes call it rape, so should we." We would never do that if someone made a claim of a cure for cancer without an authoratative source (MEDRS), or cold fusion (SCIRS), as this is 100% in the world of legal elements, which newspapers and other major media sources are not. Implicitly, there exists an equivalent "LAWRS" - that in terms of matters of legal aspects, there are only some bodies of authoritative nature (like police and courts) that would allow us to say "X is convicted of Y" or the like. Even in a case like this, where we know under OH law that young girls cannot consent and thus any sexual activity likely would be deemed rape, there are potential mitigating circumstances that may change that, and we should be working solely on what the police/medical examiner have determined, and not this non-authorative voice of the masses. (I don't believe there's anything else this specific case can be called, though, but it would be far better not to flat out say the girl was raped, but instead "According to officials for X, the girl was raped." or similar language)

Which goes back to Zaereth's point, is that this is another example of the media using accountability journalism to create empathic works that are designed to draw in readers and rile them up against abortion laws, rather than simply reporting what happened. Abortion laws like Ohio's are bad, but we have to write neutrally and dispassionately, regardless of how much attention that thet media may give this story, and my take (having written a considerable part of the Dobbs case article) is that the situation around this girl is something that is far more comprehensive within the context of the Ohio abortion law (to understand its timing and implications better) than as a separate article. But because editors want to create articles about every little news event which the media covers, we get situations like this. And that's why we have so much nonsense around BLP, because of the mob mentality "the RSes say this, it must be right!" We're an encyclopedia, we required to summarize RSes to build up articles, but we are not bound to mirror them exactly, particularly when other core content policies are at state. Masem (t) 13:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Masem, in general I would agree with you about coverage of news events, but I would respectfully suggest that whether there should be an article at all is something of a separate discussion. You say there are potential mitigating circumstances that may change a finding of rape. What are those? Dumuzid (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

On "may be potential mitigating circumstances", i do not know the full extent if Ohio law or how it is prosecuted, so there may be, however exceptional and near impossible it may be, there may be a chance that an underage girl got pregnant may not be called a rape. I don't claim to be the expert here and thus I would expect to be told the answer by the police and other officials investigating the case, those that have the expertise and authority to.make that call. Definitely not the mass media in.isolation.

And it should be recognized that having the separate article is. As Zarathustra points out, harmful to the unnamed girl. Clearly the story around her cannot be avoided within the context of the OH state law, but the creation of a separate article while she is still an unnamed minor can be seen as degrading. Maybe once she reached adult age she will pound the ground as a pro choice activist and make sure her name is well known, ar which point we don't have to worry about her privacy. But until then the more we cover about the story, the more problematic this can become, and BLP's essence is to do no harm, hence why the separate article is a problem. Masem (t) 14:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, with due respect, your "potential mitigating circumstances" boil down to an argument from ignorance. As David Hume pointed out long ago, we could apply the same sort of skepticism to the proposition that the sun will rise tomorrow. What we are left with, by my lights, is a situation in which the reporting in reliable sources agrees with a seemingly conclusive logical predicate, and you are asking us to be cautious based on the fact that you can imagine an unarticulated chance that things may not be as they seem. I hope you can understand why that is unpersuasive. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Well I suppose a mitigating circumstance could be that the accused was an unwilling participant in the rape, for example that he was forced to rape the girl at gunpoint. But mitigating doesn't mean absolving, and in the very, very unlikely event (it has not been mentioned in any RS as a possibility) that this was the case, it doesn't change the fact that under Ohio law a rape occurred (because any penetrative sexual act by an adult on a 10-year-old is rape in Ohio). But since we are not saying that the accused in this case is the guilty party in the rape that undoubtedly occurred, there are no WP:BLP violations - which after all is the point of this board. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a major difference between saying "all the RSes are reporting that the police have identified it as rape" and "all the RSes call it rape". Again, I would assume that in the early sourcing of this story in the Juke-ish time frame, we have reports from RSes that state the police or similar body of authority are treating this as rape, which is what should be used. If we only had the speculation of newspapers, even with the e Tremblay slim possibility of the situation being anything other than rape, we are still dealing with alegal and possible BLP situation if we jumped to the same conclusion that the media made. This slavish following of mass media in areas they are not authoritative is where problems can arise for BLP and other areas. Here, there's likely no other scenario possible, but it creates a slippery slope to other situations. We need to be more cautionary here. Masem (t) 15:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I will just say in closing that this strikes me as stretching the principle to an inapposite degree, but reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The RS are reporting what the police and prosecuting authorities are saying, which is that a girl who was 9 at time got pregnant. Under Ohio law, that can only happen as a result of rape, because any penetrative sexual act by an adult on a minor under 13 is classified as rape in that State. Unless you are claiming immaculate conception, a rape occurred. It really is as simple as that. Who is responsible for that rape has not been determined, so we would call anyone charged "the alleged rapist" until there is a conviction (to satisfy WP:BLP); but it's not an alleged rape, because of the age of the victim. It really is that simple and you need to stop flogging this dead horse. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

If Ohio state law says pregnancy can only happen as a result of penetrative sex that's against medical science since as I mentioned above it's possible even if incredibly unlikely for it to happen without. I don't think a flawed law, even a flawed law where the actions happened is particularly germane to anything especially since I'm not even sure why Ohio defines rape without considering perpetrator/s. Nil Einne (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

A 9-y-o cannot consent to sex, ergo the victim in this case - described in multiple reliable sources as a rape case - was raped. WP:SKYISBLUE and WP:COMMONNAME.Elizium23's comments above are reprehensible. And this would not be the first time that Masem has got completely the wrong end of the stick about a legal case, yet has continued commenting. (Assuming somebody was being charged with being 'Soldier F' rather than grasping that Soldier F is undergoing trial for their actions). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not the contributor. I asked a few questions and still didn't a full crystal clear answer for that Soldier F but still worked what I thought was how BLP should best be applied there. Masem (t) 13:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying (on your Talk page) that your questions were answered. I dispute that the situation was/is in any way complicated. Indeed, every other person who commented in the RFC was well able to grasp that Soldier F is being charged with murder; it was only you who persisted in stating that the upcoming trial is to determine if "Dave" is "Soldier F", as if there is a crime of being "Soldier F" that one can be charged with. I would respectfully suggest, given that issue and also your comments above, that you give consideration to staying out of discussions around legal areas. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not an "alleged rape", it is a rape by definition, so we should not mislead our readers that it is not a rape. Here, we most certainly do have a rape, but also an "alleged suspect" (not "alleged rape") to that rape. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not an "alleged suspect". There are not mere allegations that a particular person is a suspect. There is a person who is suspected of raping the girl. Maine 🦞 17:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The girl was raped. There is a suspect. The suspect is alleged to have committed the rape. Any use of "alleged" should be restricted to describing the charge against the suspect, not the fact of the rape itself. BD2412 T 18:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Maine 🦞 19:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, to answer your prior comment, that's what I said, the person is alleged to have committed the rape, thus, in short, an alleged suspect. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Refusal at WP:CR to close this discussion

Someone at WP:CR has refused to close this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Generally we don't need a formal close unless a lengthy period has elapsed and the participants in the discussion can't agree what consensus is. For me it looks like there's consensus not to use the term "alleged rape". Very few participants in this discussion are arguing it should be called an alleged rape. It also looks to me like there is no consensus to include the name of the suspect, and no consensus against removing URLs/headlines that contain the suspect's name. Anyone disagree? Valereee (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd say there's weak consensus to keep the suspect's name out of URLs/headlines for now. I didn't get a chance to say it earlier, but use of url shorteners is a no go; they're blacklisted. As long as it's possible to sub in sources that do not use the name in those spots, or trim info and refs that are unneeded, I'm happy to keep juggling. It might get harder as the trial begins, and more eyes on the article would be nice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

FFF, so in addition to 'no consensus to include' you think we can go with 'weak consensus to exclude'?

Oh, itneresting on URL shorteners. I didn't know that, but obviously it makes sense. Valereee (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not wearing my "uninvolved consensus assessor" hat, and I'm heavily weighing the "very sensitive BLP" arguments. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It's okay, we don't have to be completely uninvolved to close a discussion. We just have to do our best and not have anyone challenge the close. :D If someone believes a close has been affected by involvement of the closer, they'll challenge it. But if we try to be very fair, we may not need a formal uninvolved closer. Valereee (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:LPNAME & WP:CHILDPROTECT. To protect victim we should not include the suspect name. He can be used to identify victim. 2600:387:15:1C17:0:0:0:C (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. We should use the best source possible, even if that source contains the name of the alleged rapist. Maine 🦞 19:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

As I said earlier, "equally reliable or better". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Maine Lobster, when you find a better source that contains the name of the suspect in the headline/url, just bring it up, and we can discuss. Valereee (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

(redacted until discussion closes)

But is there any information in either of those that isn't included in sources that don't use the suspect's name in the URL? Valereee (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Maine 🦞 19:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you specify what information is included in those that isn't included in other sources? Valereee (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

(redacted until discussion closes)

It doesn't look like confusion about the suspect's name is included in the article, though? Is this literally not covered anywhere else, in the nearly three months since? Valereee (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't claim to have perfect knowledge, but I don't see it anywhere else. Local reporters are often more detailed on local issues than national ones, such as here. Maine 🦞 19:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Maine Lobster, and if there's something here that should be included in the WP article, that's an argument for including that source. But if literally no one else is even mentioning it, maybe it's just trivia, or never panned out. If the only information in this source that isn't included in other sources also isn't in the WP article, why would we use this source when it provides information that could identify the victim within her local community and possibly put her at risk? Valereee (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The hypothetical concern that the community does not somehow know and cannot find the name of the alleged rapist, despite the name being reported by CNN and by a major newspaper in the state, is odd. It probably should not be included in the article because of the lack of a conviction, but I don't see why we should ban it from being discussed on talk pages or linking to sources that mention it. Those sources are no less reliable than sources that don't include (redacted) full name. Maine 🦞 03:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

CR response

For the record; I declined to close this discussion (singular!) Noticeboard#2022_pregnancy_of_a_10-year-old_in_Ohio where the topic is about removing the URLs containing the subjects name and had concluded naturally. Quite honestly, I didn't realise that this entirely separate conversation was part of the same discussion you wanted closing. This new section about whether or not to use 'Alleged',in my opinion, should be happening on the article talk page, not here. But here it is, and it's ongoing so not appropriate to close anyway JeffUK 19:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is the name of the suspect listed in the discussion above?

If the goal is to remove the name of the suspect from Wikipedia, why is it listed on the discussion above at "19:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I've redacted. Up to an admin to go further. But it was added by a new editor. Slywriter (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I've undid your edit to my edit. I don't think there's anything like a consensus to ban mentioning the name of (redact) in internal discussions, even if we have good reasons not to include it in the article. Maine 🦞 03:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Because in order to have legitimate discussions about the use of sources and content we have to provide and discuss sources. We're past the point where providing a link to a source containing the name in a url should be forbidden. It's commonly discussed in sources, and project discussions and talk page discussions have different thresholds for BLP than articles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Reply - @ScottishFinnishRadish:, then why is "(redact)" now in that statement above? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Jax 0677 Because Slywriter edited my comment without my permission. Maine 🦞 03:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I think BLP applies no matter where you are. From WP:BLP: "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." 2600:387:15:1C1B:0:0:0:9 (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

BLP does not require that a suspect not be named, it requires serious consideration be given to not naming a suspect prior to a convention. That serious consideration is what is happening. And enforcing a blanket ban short-circuits that. nableezy - 03:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Name serves no purpose to discussion and I will redact again per BLP Policy. Anyone taking issue can head to ANI as the name is now being willfully and intentionally repeated. This is a high profile page. Anyone can provide the source if editors need it to assess. That does not mean the name needs to be on wiki until consensus is reached. Slywriter (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TALKO is also policy, and you know that. An amdin (@ScottishFinnishRadish) and others have said that this is not required. Please stop editing my comments for the sake of Censorship. Maine 🦞 03:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Slywriter, why did you delete my comment that WP:TALKO is a policy? How is that comment possibly a "BLP violation"? Maine 🦞 04:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Was wrong edit reverted. I have reinstated redact as the name is a BLP violation and this a 10 year old girls life that we are discussing, so let consensus decide if the name should be on wiki. Slywriter (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You are deleting the name of an alleged rapist from a talk page discussing whether or not we should have that name in an article. Stop editing my comments in violation of policy. Maine 🦞 04:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Maine Lobster But you acknowledge that Slywriter can redact or, if necessary, remove outright your comments if the violate WP:BLP? This includes, but is not limited to, mentioning the name of the alleged rapist. —C.Fred (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The alleged rapist has been mentioned in major newspapers in connection with the assault. To choose to not include the name in the article itself is fine, but to censor it from discussion pages is absurd. To paraphrase Ian Hislop "If that's a BLP vio, then I'm a banana". Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, edits that violate the BLP policy can be redacted. But these edits don't, and multiple people (including an admin) have said this. Just because an editor claims something violates the BLP policy does not make it so, and there is nowhere near a consensus that the comments do. Maine 🦞 04:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

No I will not. It's a BLP violation of the privacy of a 10 yo girl. If the community decides otherwise it can be written on-wiki but until then it serves no purpose in the discussion. As I've said in edit summary, any admin can directly and unequivocally tell me it is not a BLP violation. Slywriter (talk)

You need to read WP:BLPTALK. It's not a blank check to remove anything negative about anyone you want whenever you please. It's very narrowly-defined, stating that Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. Note that your removal here fails on almost every clause. First, the suspect's identity is not contentious, nor is it unsourced or poorly-sourced; it is widely-referenced and treated as uncontroversial in high-quality sources, eg. (redacted a whole big list of perfectly good sources - BK); likewise, discussing the name is clearly related to content choices (it is difficult to mention or search for sources without mentioning it.) The threshold for removing things from talk is higher than it is for removing them from articles, otherwise we wouldn't be able to meaningfully discuss whether to include things like this. --Aquillion (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Ding. It is not potentially libelous to say that some named person has been charged with rape and is facing a trial for the rape of a minor. That is verifiable fact. And the argument that you are protecting the child by not naming her accused rapist is one that still does not register for me. Especially given how widely reported that name is already. nableezy - 16:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

When did WP stop going by the sources? Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

If I was citing WP:BLPCRIME, your argument would be correct. I am not. I am operating under WP:DONOHARM and WP: BLPPRIVACY for the 10 year old victim who did not choose to be a public figure, who would fail WP:BLP1E, and the only reason she is stuck with an article about a deeply private matter is the poor choices of adult politicians, activists, and doctors to make her a political football in the US abortion debate.

The fact the issue does not register with you makes clear that a larger community discussion needs to occur about the privacy of minors especially victims as it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia to risk harm to a minor because editors feels well the newspapers and politicians are already doing harm so we can join in. Slywriter (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with Slywriter on this point. Naming the suspect in the article or in discussions basically draws a map to the ten-year-old victim, and is of de minimus benefit to our mission as an encyclopedia. BD2412 T 16:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, too, of course, we can have a meaningful discussion: "name of suspect" and the like, is just as meaningful for our purposes. And BLPTALK says to be circumspect in what you write outside the article. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I cannot seriously believe that it is harmful to the victim to name the person who is publicly charged with the crime. The idea that we are risking harm to the child and basically drawing a map to them is asinine. Otherwise all the reliable sources that have already named the suspect would be doing just that. You think CNN is putting a 10 year old rape victim in harm here? Should let them know that. nableezy - 19:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't run CNN, or any of the other outlets, all of which operate on a for-profit basis and are trying to draw eyes to their articles so they can sell advertising. More pointedly, as a matter of policy, we are WP:NOTNEWS. BD2412 T 19:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, we are a tertiary source that summarizes reliable secondary sources, like CNN and every other outlet that this article is relying on already. This argument about protecting the child makes zero sense. And I dont even give a shit about naming the victim in the article, but this virtue signaling redacting all mention of what is widely reported is stupid. nableezy - 19:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Nableezy, I do actually think it can harm the child further, even though media has already done that. A Wikipedia article follows someone around for a very long time. So I don't see this as an absurd discussion. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think it's worth discussing. Valereee (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

How? Every source of any repute will decline to name rape victims. But they will always name somebody when they are publicly charged for the crime. I am unaware of a single serious source that will decline to name somebody charged with a crime with the supposed justification that it somehow protects the victim. I dont even get the logical basis for the argument. The we are drawing a map to the child bit makes zero sense to me at all. Even Reuters has that he, by name, has been charged. USA Today, the Independent, ABC News, and on and on and on. I dont see how youre going to have an article on the crime and not cover the arrest, trial, and verdict and potential sentencing. And youre going to twist yourself in knots trying to redact any article with the name in the headline, much less not name him in our article. I would take the child protection angle more seriously if there was literally any support for such a stance in other sources. But none of them view that as a potential issue, and probably all of them have policies on protecting victims, especially rape victims, especially minor rape victims. But none of them see any issue at all with naming the person who has been publicly charged and will be publicly tried for the crime. nableezy - 19:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Because a Wikipedia article lasts a really long time. The other stuff might be less easily searchable over time. Valereee (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Suspect name now listed in links above and at Edit Warring Noticeboard

The suspect name is now listed in the links above [19:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)], as well as here. I have added a request at WP:AN to permanently delete such edits. --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

That is absurd. This goes beyond anything we've ever done with regards to BLP before. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

HEB, I think it may not be absurd considering the specific circumstances. We have a child of tender years who has been raped and had an abortion, and she is quite likely identifiable within her own community because of the name of the accused. We can't put the lid back on the box, but I think it's worth at minimum discussing before we decide whether it's okay to have the suspect named in discussions. It doesn't really help anything, so why not just avoid using it at all? Valereee (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We are required to edit in a detached manner, if the specific circumstances are overwhelming for a given editor then they need to find a different topic space to edit. The key point is that if we can't use the URLs can we actually have a discussion? If I can't post a link to a CNN article because someone is going to come through and redact it how do we ever get to WP:NPOV? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not overwhelmed in the least. I'm just pointing out that this is an unusual case and it's not absurd to discuss before we decide whether it's okay to use the accused's name in discussions. I'm not saying your point isn't well taken, but the argument has been made (and I think it's reasonable) that unless a source that uses the accused's name in the headline (and therefore URL) is telling us something other RS aren't telling us, can't we just use a source that doesn't iclude the name? And if the source is saying something no other source is saying, maybe we don't need it? It's just a discussion, HEB. Valereee (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

How can we evaluate whether or not that source is saying something different if evaluating the source is forbidden in the first place? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey, if you've got a good enough reason, go for it. Like the NYT or WSJ is using a URL with the suspect's name, and literally NO OTHER RS is giving us the same information...

Is that what's happening that you're worried about? Because I haven't actually seen that happen very often. But if it does, yeah, I'd totally support you coming in here and giving us that URL that is so crucial. Valereee (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

We can't put the lid back on the box That's the crux, we go by sources. If the sources write things we don't like (irritating habit of theirs, I know), it's not up to WP editors to make moral judgements in compensation. Selfstudier (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We might come to consensus to avoid sources that use the accused's name in the URL, or at least as much as we can. That's what's being discussed. Valereee (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You mean a consensus to exclude entirely on pain of rev-del? "Avoid" is not what is being proposed or done. Lets talk about reality, and in reality people are redacting URLs. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The reality is that people have presented good reasons for why we should omit this information. And since this is a BLP, until people can come up with better reasons (and consensus) as to why it should be included it stays out. Enforced by redaction if need be. BLP is built on the presumption of don't do unnecessary harm. If we can work around these URL's then we should. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

What is the proposed workaround? I must have missed it. It seems that the proposal is simply not to acknowledge their existence in any way, which clearly not a workaround. Also welcome back from wikibreak! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

For the name, the descrption "the accused" appears to be being used in this discussion without issue. For URL's it would depend on if the source is providing new content or not. And people could suggest content text and a note that the source includes the name of the accused in it's header. If a source isn't providing new content, why use the source, and if it is, is the content of sufficient encyclopedic value to include it. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

But how can we know if the if the source is providing new content or not if we're prohibited from posting links to it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

People can propose content on the talk page. Note they have a source and the source has the accused's name in the link so they are not currently linking it. And editors can determine if the proposed content is worth including enough to actually post the link on the talk page or in the article. Heck we could even do a description of the link as in published by and date of publishing for people who may want to look it up themselves. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

How can editors determine whether the proposed content actually reflects the source without reading the source itself? If they can't determine whether the proposed content accurately reflects the source its not possible for them to determine whether the proposed content is worth including. Also note that you can't just say you have a source if the discussion is BLP, you are required to provide a link to the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

If editors feel the content is worthy for inclusion if true, they could post the link to make sure that the content accurately represents the source. Note, content need only be sourced if it is actually challenged or likely to be challenged. So prior to challenging whether the content fairly represents the source you would have to see if the content itself is of sufficient encyclopedic value to include. So, as a process, first propose content and possibly some clues as to where it is sourced. If it's possibly acceptable to include, then post the link to verify that the content is an accurate representation. Assuming that meets scrutiny then the content can be added to the article. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

BLP content always needs to be sourced, even just to discuss it on the talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Contentious material always needs to be sourced. And again, we can include description as to where the content is sourced to even without including a link. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

BLP material always needs to be sourced, whether or not it is contentious. If it is both BLP and likely to be challenged then an inline citation is required. You are currently arguing that we are prohibited from using such an inline citation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

BLP material always needs to be verifiable. Inline citation (aka sourcing) is only required if challenged or likely to be challenged. And again we can include a description of the source to see if it's good enough to use for a citation. Creating limits is not the same as prohibition. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

How does one create an inline citation without the title or url of the source? As you said the inline citation is *required* in that context, so how can BLP both require the inline citation and limit the ability to create that citation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We already limit the ability to create citations. If sources aren't up to par we don't include content and thus don't include the citation. This can include talk page discussions. If you want to include something that is being limited you can provide a description of what you want, and a description of the source, and note it includes the name in the link as to why you aren't currently linking it. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

If the source is RS, it shouldn't be limited at all. Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

What is, and is not a RS is always contextual. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Correct, and why deciding upfront that every RS is contextually inappropriate is complete bs. Selfstudier (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

But it isn't deciding up front. If it were, no source would ever be appropriate period. It's only sourcing that names the accuser which has to go through this process. --Kyohyi (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Google it. I see both sides of the argument on this. But fundamentally it's just not that important to an encyclopedia to name the suspect at this stage. This is all rather overblown. DeCausa (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is much support for naming the suspect in the article, the issue is more about not naming them in discussions, or using URLs that contain the name. I'm fairly certain that anyone interested enough in the case to read the Wikipedia BLPN thread about it doesn't need our help to find the name in the media. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The crime is not notable and would fail WP:BLP1E. The notability comes from the actions of third parties unrelated to the victim. This is not a biography about her. This is not an article about the crime. If those points were not true, I'd be far more sympathetic to the NPOV position being staked out here. The notability stems from the denial of an abortion in one state and the subsequent politicizing of events by others. Slywriter (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

If the crime is not notable then nominate the article about the crime for deletion. nableezy - 19:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The issue is the use of the child as a political pawn has made the initial denial of her abortion notable. Though I am looking at options within our policies to minimize mention and focus of the crime, which has been sort of coat-racked into the article and may be undue. Slywriter (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The use of the child as a pawn? Im sorry, what? nableezy - 22:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You're going to need to supply a source for that claim. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This is quite likely identifiable within her own community because of the name of the accused bit is what makes no sense to me. The local news has reported the name. The national news has reported the name. You think the Wikipedia article not including it somehow alleviates any potential harm that may come to the victim? You think that the multiple unsupported premises that underlines all of this argument actually holds water? That a. the local community does not know who the suspect is, b. the local community does not know who the victim is, c. the local community gets their local news from Wikipedia and not the local news media or the national news media, both of which have included the suspects name. The possibility that all three of those are true is astonishingly small. nableezy - 19:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it alleviates it, no. It might make it slightly less searchable ten years from now. But I'm not actually arguing that we can never use any of these sources. I'm saying while we're discussing it, let's not. Valereee (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We're not talking about minor local news coverage here... we're not even talking about national coverage. The guy's name and photo is everywhere... This is an international event. I've seen his name in all the national newspapers here and I live 6,000 km away from Ohio... I'm talking about newspapers that are absolutely considered reliable sources, not tabloids.

This will absolutely be something that is talked about for decades to come, that books are written about, that TV documentaries are made about. The horse has long since bolted and the stable door is nowhere to be seen. By all means oversight the hell out of the article (I'd rather it didn't exist), but let's not pretend there is anything we can do for the benefit of the child and let's not pretend that mentioning the suspect's name in a talk page in any way violates BLP criteria. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

WP has much higher standards on the protection on BLP than the mass media. Just because they suspects name can be found "everywhere", we still must consider the BLP issues of the people involved who at the time are definitely non public figures. Masem (t) 20:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting naming the victim, and BLP is satisfied with respect to the suspect with the high quality sources that can be cited listing him as being charged with rape. nableezy - 22:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I would encourage editors to look at and note there are only two pre-teen rapes listed(I skipped any murder of... article). One with suspect and victim named,Kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard, as they have gone public and one where none are named, 2010 gang rapes in Cleveland, Texas where neither the convicted or victim are named. News reports will fade with time, Wikipedia is forever and readily available. Slywriter (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

As a comment, in the Durand case, that started as a missing child case, and when she was found they identified her rape and other abuse she received. The child's name is nearly always given in abduction cases to help find them, and in such a situation, it.becomes hard to avoid naming. In this case and the Cleveland case, there was no apparent abduction, so there was no reason to broadcast the name far and wide. Masem (t) 22:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I dont think anybody is suggesting we name the victim. nableezy - 22:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Ummm... Its not our job to help find missing people. There is no reason to broadcast the name far and wide on wikipedia in either situation. The exact same protections apply. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2023 (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.

Big Scarr

Big Scarr died three days ago. The official cause of death has not been announced, but his mother said it was an "accidental drug overdose". Mothers will say a lot of things, but not all of them are correct or encyclopedic. Should the cause of death remain blank until it is officially announced? Thanks. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:59, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

It's currently cited to WP:TMZ, which has no consensus on its reliability. If there are not any other reliable sources, WP:RSBREAKING is also a concern. I'd say keep cause out for now. —Bagumba (talk) 07:23, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

There are other sources, but they all seem to be referring to the TMZ 'report'. I don't think it's contentious or defamatory (there are no conflicting reports) so I think it's fine for it to be in the article as long as we're clear it's not been officially announced per the police statement but not in the info box. JeffUK 09:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Walter Benn Michaels

This [walter benn michaels] is a self- written auto- biography, not a biography. The subject is neither famous nor well- known; in fact, is not known at all. There are no actual sources cited for any claims. This subject has been guilty in the past of self- writing his "biography"; ought/ must be barred permanently from use again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pmacinerney (talk • contribs) 17:24, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

To 2-edit spa. He is very well cited on Google Scholar. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:13, 27 December 2022 (UTC).

The main author of the article appears to be guavabutter with this edit. I can find no particular reason to think that guavabutter has any connection to Michaels – of their 6000+ edits, that seems to be the only one that is about Michaels and they mostly edit articles related to Canada, whereas Michaels is apparently Californian. If you think that Michaels is not notable, nominate the article for deletion. If you think there is some editor who has an undisclosed conflict of interest, the conflict of interest noticeboard might help. I can't see any BLP issues with the article, and there clearly are sources cited, so I'm not sure what you want us to do at this noticeboard. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 17:15, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

As Caeciliusinhorto suggests, I have no connection to Michaels whatsoever. I actually don't even remember working on that page, as I often just fix up articles as I come across them (particularly when the subject is of relatively little importance to me). It may be the case that the subject has made their own undisclosed input to the article in the past, but upon a quick Google search, Michaels name does produce credible results from various academic/scholarly sources. Guavabutter (talk) 21:02, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I see you're not a fan of the subject: [2] and [3] Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The correct approach to have an article of this type removed would be to list it at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion with your rationale. It is not something I would necessarily recommend. The relevant notability guidelines can be found at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Pay particular attention to criterion 1a. The subject has an h-index of 32 and an i10 index of 67, which is reasonably high. He has two publications that have been cited over a thousand times each. I suspect it would be difficult to get consensus to delete. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 19:17, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Kim Seon-ho

See also: Talk:Kim Seon-ho § On Using Dispatch and Misleading Sentences

I have huge problems with this part regarding his abortion controversy.

This part---> "On October 26, 2021, a Korean media outlet published new evidence challenging the accusations of Kim's ex-girlfriend, citing sources from close acquaintances of both Kim and his ex-girlfriend. Screen-captures of chat conversations from acquaintances revealed that the ex-girlfriend had been the one to suggest the abortion, contrary to her claims. The pair then split up about a year after due to questionable circumstances surrounding the ex-girlfriend's personal life. Testimonies from acquaintances of both Kim and his ex-girlfriend continued to surface, refuting various claims previously made by the ex-girlfriend. Following the new reports most companies began resuming advertisements featuring Kim. The production team of the film Sad Tropics also announced their decision to proceed with their project and list Kim as the lead actor."

That parts are mostly using source from Dispatch. It's a Korean entertainment website which is quite notorious for their rumors.

Screen-captures of chat conversations from acquaintances revealed that the ex-girlfriend had been the one to suggest the abortion, contrary to her claims. ---> this part particularly troubles me based on the report from Dispatch which show anonymous sources from "friends". Moreover, that sentence is also blaming one of the parties here (the ex-girlfriend).

If we use official sources, the person (Kim Seon Ho) or the ex-girlfriend never said that the girlfriend pushed for the abortion. Yet that page is using a report with anonymous sources (not corroborated by either party) to suggest the girlfriend asked for abortion (abortion was illegal in South Korea at that time).

Just for context, Dispatch is notorious for their rumor news. In 2018, 200,000 people filled petition to have it banned. Some people are trying to use loophole because Dispatch has not been cited as either reliable/unreliable source on Korean wiki here. But I do not think Wikipedia should use gossip with anonymous sources to defend celeb. Please check. If Kim Seon Ho's fans are running that page, they can just keep evading the Edit War rules by reverting my edit with different accounts. This is my proposed edit:

On October 20, 2021, Kim's ex-girlfriend issued a new statement, stating that there were some misunderstandings between them and that she has received an apology from him. She also apologized for causing unintentional damage.[53] On October 26, 2021, a Korean gossip media Dispatch published testimonies challenging the abortion accusations of Kim's ex-girlfriend,[54] however no confirmation about this from either Kim Seon-ho or his ex-girlfriend. Following the new reports, two companies began resuming advertisements featuring Kim.[55][56] The production team of the film Sad Tropics also announced their decision to proceed with their project and list Kim as the lead actor.[57] In July 2022, Kim Seon-ho later apologized for the controversies.[58] TheWandering (talk) 16:02, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

I've fully protected the article due to the edit war but with the above from TheWandering I'd appreciate a second opinion on whether the wrong version (which was the stable version) is in fact the wrong version and should be modified. I've read through it so many times now that I can't see the forest for the trees. Thank you! Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 08:55, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Callanecc I have removed the following sentence "Screen-captures of chat conversations from acquaintances revealed that the ex-girlfriend had been the one to suggest the abortion, contrary to her claims" as it's failed verification and isn't mentioned in neither existing source from SCMP and Manila Bulletin. This sentence in question was added back in November 2021 via this revision (retrieved via WikiBlame) by inactive User:Lexipediagrey, however no updates to the existing citations were provided back then and the citations has remained the same to date. You as an admin is free to revert my changes if you feel the changes is inappropriate without needing my permissions. Fyi, I didn't participate in the edit war, only commented in the article's talk page pertaining to the usage of SCMP and Manilla Bulletin, of which there are no consensus on replacing and/or removing the SCMP and Manilla Bulletin source among the various editors that had commented on the article's talk page which is also one of the OP concerns. — 🎄🎆 Paper9oll 🎆🎄 (🔔 • 📝) 13:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Elisa Rae Shupe

Elisa Rae Shupe Diff [[4]] I removed the edit made by User:Historyday01 because it was poorly cited (Twitter post) and the subject Elisa Shupe had objected to the reference being made. Twitter has since suspended Elisa Shupe's account and neither the source nor the objection remain visible. Historyday01 reinstated his edit.

I believe the edit violates the biographies of living persons policies because

1 - Challenged or likely to be challenged - was challenged by the living person - in hindsight it would have made sense to take a screenshot of the cited tweet and the objection.

2 - Using the subject as a self-published source: 2. it does not involve claims about third parties - the citation makes references to TERFs which is not a neutral term. As Elisa Shupe formerly de-transitioned and has now re-transitioned she has detractors among both transgender people and transphobic people which makes her particularly vulnerable.

3 - Avoid gossip and feedback loops - Placing the entire tweet in the citation amounts to gossip and is irrelevant to the article. It could be construed as provocative to replicate it.

Furthermore

4 - Encyclopedic content must be verifiable through citations to reliable sources - Twitter tweets are not a durable reliable source and the account in question is now suspended. --Sandvika (talk) 04:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

@Sandvika, one of the other considerations here is verifying the authenticity of the accounts, both here and on Twitter. On the talk page of the article, there are editors both logged in and IPv6, who are claiming the identity of the subject of the BLP. As far as I can tell, this is an unverified claim. If Shupe wishes to authenticate the account then Shupe can contact WP:UTRS. Now, as for Twitter, they used to have a robust blue-check program to verify identity of notable people, but the new management has thrown a monkey-wrench in those works, and so potentially a blue check is rather meaningless, and Twitter itself has no way to vouch for confirmed identity of its users. That means that Wikipedia editors must verify Twitter accounts through out-of-band means, such as linking from another confirmed social media presence, or media interview. Elizium23 (talk) 13:16, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• For the record, if you want to re-verify a now-removed tweet, the Wayback Machine may have a saved version. Curbon7 (talk) 05:00, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Right, right, that's true. I use Wayback Machine ALL the time on here. But, often social media posts aren't saved on there, or are saved improperly, unfortunately. The Wayback Machine is much better when it comes to static webpages, rather than social media posts or YouTube videos.Historyday01 (talk) 17:11, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

I continue to believe that tweets can be cited in very specific instances (more in non-bios than bios). The account does appear to be suspended, but I would say that that in this case, it is a relatively minor claim, so I don't see the harm in including it. Often Twitter is a shortcut on bio pages, and sometimes that is more the case than others. But with Twitter possibly disappearing in the next year, it is possible that it will not be a "durable reliable source" as it once could be, even though tweets, like Instagram posts, are ephemeral, and sometimes they can be gone before anyone has a chance to capture them. What I am saying builds upon what Elizum23 points out, that thanks to new management on Twitter, Wikipedia editors may have to "verify Twitter accounts through out-of-band means, such as linking from another confirmed social media presence, or media interview". Historyday01 (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Comment. As I don't want to get in an edit war on this, but @User:Aquillion, as I understand from your edit here, you seem to agree with the arguments of Sandvika. Is that correct? I'm not sure I would call it "potentially contentious in a way that a twitter post probably isn't sufficient for", and am not sure I agree, it falls under WP:UNDUE, but am fine with leaving it out if it avoids an edit war between editors, and for that reason alone. As I have said above, I still believe that tweets can be cited on very specific instances, although that obviously has to be done carefully and encompass a minimum of the sources for a said page, as is my understanding.Historyday01 (talk) 15:40, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Peter Membrey

Peter Membrey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Posting this on behalf of User:Pmembrey who requested its deletion at the talk page. Jay 💬 13:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

That threats were involved is concerning. If admins don't go through with deletion using their tools, there's a good case for AfD.

[1] and [2] are what appear to be a non-notable recognition. [3] is only saying that the subject is a member of IT Professionals NZ, and was written by the subject (primary source). [4] is a Google Books link to a CentOS book that the subject authored and not exactly a good source for biographical information. [5] is a self-published university page for a research group and just mentions the subject name. Nothing about joining PolyU in Nov 2010 which is mentioned in the article. [6] is a link to the subject's thesis. [7] is a brief profile on a self-published site. [8] is the subject's GitHub account. [9] to [13] are links to websites that list the subject's published works. I don't know how much the subject contributed to the papers his name is on, but I don't think this fits the WP:NPROF#C1 and we don't have secondary sources to comment on the the influence and impact. This paper appears to be the most cited paper he contributed to, with 215 citations. Overall, the sourcing does a poor job for demonstrating notability and regardless of the subject's stated circumstances, there's a strong case for deletion. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 10:20, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

AfD link WP:Articles for deletion/Peter Membrey. Jay 💬 07:59, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Idaho Murder suspect arrested vs BLPCRIME

Could use help from experienced BLP editors viz-a-viz the specifics about the guy arrested earlier today in connection to the Idaho University murders last November. See talk and version history for 2022 University of Idaho killings; seems to me certain editors are ignoring WP:BLPCRIME Thanks

NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:58, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

NAEG, for me that's actually a difficult one to decide not to name. There's no danger to the victims, and the police are actively asking for help from anyone who knew the suspect. The NYT and WSJ are both naming the suspect. Personally I think because the police are asking for help we name him as 'a suspect' or 'alleged' or 'has been charged' or whatever, because we couldn't really report that fact otherwise. I do get the question is not easy, and I'm open to other interpretation. Valereee (talk) 23:27, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

Questions continue whether to add to lead/create redirects from suspect's name. I'm thinking the name in a section is probably okay, but in the lead and redirects, probably not? Valereee (talk) 03:31, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Unless there is strong precedence, I don't think redirect from suspect's name appropriate. Slywriter (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Kellie-Jay Keen-Minshull

Keen is a women's rights campaigner who feels that trans rights and women's right can conflict

This page is very biased. I will give a few examples

1 Tommy Robinson - Far right extremist. No good evidence is given to show Keen supports Robinson.

2 Keen posed for a photo with Edgar J. Delatorre. There is evidence she knows who this man is or that she supports the Proud Boys or that she supports their participation in the January 6 US Capitol attack. This is undue weight

3 Her work is described as "Anti-trans activism". It would be more neutral to call it "women's rights activism"

4 Pink News. Twelve of the references are to Pink News, which is very pro trans rights organization.

5 Mridul Wadhwa. She is a TRANSWOMAN who works at Edinburgh Rape Crisis. It is entirely legitimate to object to a AMAB person in such an organization as it is a question of putting the interests of traumatized rape victims, who require a genuinely woman-only space, first. This acknowledged in the United Kingdom's Equality Act 2010. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paddykumar (talk • contribs) 09:22, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Hi Paddy. What you've presented are conclusions, but not any sufficient argument to show how you reached them. 1) There are sources attached to the statement that Keen supports Robinson. What is wrong with those sources, or how they have been cited? 2) Do reliable sources mention that she posed in that photo? 3) What do reliable sources call it? 4) A reliable source is one that has a reputation for fact checking and accuracy. That it has a consistent viewpoint does not mean it's unreliable. 5) Everything you said here is completely irrelevant. A person's identity has no bearing on their capacity to produce relevant news or commentary on any other person. If there's a reason to think that Wadhwa's statements are unreliable or her opinions insignificant, other than her identity, present that reason. Someguy1221 (talk) 09:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your succinct summary. To clarify for #5, Wadhwa was not even sourced for statements, a source reported Kellie-Jay Keen Minshull made unfounded and un-evidenced accusations about Wadhwa. Paddykumar repeatedly tried to add articles that didn't mention Keen or her statements at all to add their above justification for Wadhwa's harassment, motivated by their very clear opinion that centers for women who've been sexually assaulted should exclude trans women. For further context, they opened this discussion while ignoring an ongoing arbitration discussion here, which was sparked by their edit warring on this article. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 12:01, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

I will develop points 3 and 5. I may come back to the others

3

I have found

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/kellie-jay-keen-police-were-wrong-to-call-on-feminist-3sb6wnzrk

Here she is described as

"feminist YouTuber"

https://www.newstatesman.com/quickfire/2022/06/gender-wars-trans-critical-activists-become-extreme

"savviest and most provocative gender-critical activists in the UK"

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-11185703/Womens-rights-campaigner-reveals-pro-trans-lobby-wished-CANCER-children.html

"Women's rights campaigner"

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/fury-i-love-jk-rowling-22862840

"a feminist blogger"

https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/08/why-the-woke-war-against-women/

"Feminist"

5 Mridul Wadhwa

My point is NOT that as a transwoman, Mridul Wadhwa is an unreliable source. My point is that a critic can object to a man or a man who identifies as a women, a transwoman, in a job at a rape crisis centre for a legitimate reason. That is, that it should be a female-only space for traumatized rape victims. It is not "harassment" to raise a legitimate point, recognized in the exemptions in the United Kingdom's Equality Act 2010.

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/women-only-jobs-are-allowed-says-ehrc-amid-trans-row-in-rape-crisis-centres-f85h9r2ng

Two sources are given in the Wiki article, Open Democracy and Eastern Eye

Interestingly, the EE article says, "Mridul Wadhwa, a former Holyrood SNP candidate, has been recently made

chief executive of Edinburgh Rape Crisis Centre (ERCC). However, the appointment is not taken well by some feminists saying that the role is reserved only for women-only candidates and Wadhwa has no gender recognition certificate and has not undergone gender reassignment surgery."

This point is not in the Wiki article. I would point out that EE says, "some feminists". Not one feminist or "one prejudiced person", but "some feminists", so plural.

Hence, it is entirely valid for Keen to ask why the exemptions in the Act were not used to exclude this AMAB person from the EERC job.

So, why does Mridul Wadhwa appear under "Harassment of transgender people"?

Why not "Feminist activism", "Women's Rights Activism" or just "Activism"?

Why is the focus on Wadhwa as victim of harassment?

Why is the focus not on the rights of traumatized women using the service of ERCC? Paddykumar (talk) 08:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I strongly suggest you engage in the DS case concerning you. As things stand, it seems a topic ban is being considered so unless you've already convinced someone there is enough of a problem that they will look into this on their own, there's no point any editor discussing this further when very soon you might not be able to take part. Nil Einne (talk) 14:19, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I also suggest you engage in the DS case, or don't as you seem intent to shoot yourself in the foot and I'm not particularly inclined to stop you. Responding to your points:

3) The vast majority of sources use anti-trans. Probably because it takes an olympic level of mental gymnastics to call someone who openly said they'd rather lose abortion rights and see a return to traditional family roles than allow trans people to have rights a "woman's right activist" instead of an "anti-trans activist". Also, see the reliablilty of WP:DAILYMIRROR, WP:DAILYMAIL, and WP:SPECTATOR. Funny to note that your other two sources, The New Statesman and the Times, have a reputation for being anti-trans.

5) Mridhul Wadhwa is a woman, (a "trans woman" not "transwoman"), and not a man. You screaming repeatedly that you think it's ok to discriminate against her is your opinion, not a fact. Your opinion that trans women should be excluded from rape crisis centers is bigotry, pure and simple. No one is threatened by our presence, no harm comes from it, and we're at higher risk of SA than cis women. Now then, the opinions of other "feminists" have nothing to do with Keen's own statements on the matter, as you seem unable to grasp that. Furthermore, we don't call harassment of trans people "women's rights activism" since harassment of a trans woman is still harassment of a woman, at the most obvious. It has nothing to do with traumatized women at the ERCC since 1) trans women are a part of that category and 2) the harassment received forced the center to slow down operations, which doesn't seem particularly helpful to those traumatized women, who you seem to think without evidence are traumatized by trans women particularly.

In short, your repeated insistence that Keen is a "women's rights activist" have no bearing on reality and you constantly trying to argue otherwise is a waste of time for everybody. TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 19:46, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

 Note: Paddykumar is now topic-banned. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:38, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not defending the subject, but it's probably prudent to take a good look at the sourcing in this article: heavy use of activist, far-left, and otherwise ideologically-biased organizations: Media Matters For America, Unicorn Riot, PinkNews, libcom.org, Workers' Liberty, It's Going Down, etc. There's a difference between summarizing the controversies that make a person notable and becoming a mouthpiece for opponents of the subject. Articles should not be whitewashed of criticism, but neither should they be laundry lists or running logs of every complaint someone has made or every event that watchdog orgs have made notice of (see WP:PROPORTION, WP:NOTEVERYTHING, WP:VNOTSUFF, and WP:RECENTISM). The "Let Women Speak U.S. tour" section is a particularly tedious and egregious example of WP:PROSELINE. There are also quite a few lengthy quotations in the article (probably too many, although they seem unfortunately to be in vogue on Wikipedia to mirror the newspaper/magazine sources Wikipedians cite): per WP:IMPARTIAL, "Try not to quote directly from participants engaged in a heated dispute; instead, summarize and present the arguments in an impartial tone." --Animalparty! (talk) 20:43, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Please note that PinkNews is not a notably biased source. Newimpartial (talk) 23:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm ignoring everything above Animalparty's comment here, but this comment does mention some serious issues that should be addressed. A lot of these seem to be WP:UNDUE sources, just the same if we were citing and quoting her supporters' websites. I don't know of any consensus that PinkNews is not a biased source, though "biased" doesn't mean "can't use". But PinkNews at least has a RSP entry and is used in other articles; these other sites don't seem noteworthy at all. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

The article in no way relies on these sources extensively so "heavy use" is an overstatement.

Of 48 sources:

12 are Pink News

Each of the following are cited twice: the Byline Times, the Los Angeles Blade, and Women's Place UK

And each of the following are cited once: NBC News, Media Matters for America, Vox, LGBTQ Nation, Unicorn Riot, Gay City News, Insider, Yahoo News, Delaware Online, the Times, Blasting News, the Telegraph, the Washington Times, Outsports, the National Review, Open Democracy, Eastern Eye, the BBC, Leeds Live, the Sussex Express, the News Tribune, the Indypendent, New York Daily News, People's World, Worker's Liberty, Libcom, and Fox News. As you may see, some right wing sources in there as well.

Now, the sources with issues raised are Media Matters For America, Unicorn Riot, PinkNews, libcom.org, Workers' Liberty, and It's Going Down. I checked, and all these sources are used often or generally considered reliable. Even without these sources, the vast majority of the article would remain unchanged.

Most of the sources valorizing Keen and calling her anything other than an anti-trans activist either have a reputation for being right wing or are generally unreliable, often both, (ie, the Daily Mail, Spiked, Fox, the Christian Post, The Epoch Times, etc) TheTranarchist ⚧ Ⓐ (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Minor right wing sources should be removed along with minor left wing ones. If it's not mentioned in reliable mainstream media (including reliable LGBT-focused outlets), it's very unlikely an aspect is noteworthy or due. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Minor right wing sources should be removed along with minor left wing ones - is this assertion backed by anything with more on-wiki authority than The Crossroads Book of Etiquette? Newimpartial (talk) 00:43, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're disputing here. Are you saying that articles should include tiny-circulation publications and websites? Or that only one side's sources should be removed? What is your actual disagreement with what I said? What makes, e.g., "libcom.org" WP:DUE? Crossroads ^-talk- 01:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The question in my mind is whether each source is reliable and whether its inclusion os DUE in the context of other available RS. There isn't a circulation threshold for inclusion/use on WP, at least my my reading of the relevant policies, but your formulation above seems to propose some such arbitrary threshold - presumably based on your personal view of "minor" vs. "mainstream". Newimpartial (talk) 13:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Newimpartial why are you attacking Crossroads personally? Maine 🦞 04:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Armita Abbasi

Serious BLP issues that I think I should not repeat further. CT55555(talk) 15:53, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

John Campbell (YouTuber)

I am concerned that this biographical entry violates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons policy. Even a cursory read will indicate that this article is neither balanced nor unbiased. It focuses primarily on negative aspects of Campbell's YouTube channel, selecting negative information and sources only, including reference to comedians (ie Jimmy Dore) and derogatory personal opinions (David Gorski) as sources. These are not balanced out by any of the multitude of sources available that have positive things to say about Dr.Campbell. The article also claims Campbell "was praised" (he still is) and has "veered into misinformation" (This is an opinion, not a factual statement: Campbell always lists sources for the information relayed on his videos thus placing the onus on the reader to research for themselves). The item focusses unduly on what Campbell has been criticized for, without recourse to what he has been praised for. An overall reading has the distinct feel of a smear campaign or attack piece rather than an objective biography.

Unfortunately, while I understand the concerns over potential vandalism of the page, it appears to have been locked or semi-locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.114.93 (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

If an individual is most well known for spreading misinformation, then their article will cover that. Wikipedia doesn't permit false balance between two ideas if one is more widely accepted by the medical community. Are there specific sources you feel should be included? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

While we can't create a false balance (we'd need coverage of position aspects to be able to do) I think there's far too much spent in the "critizing" space that is beyond necessary. We can exaplain in one section that his views on COVID, vaxxing, and alt cures are not supported by major medical experts, but the longish quotes to point this out are rubbing the salt in the wound. --Masem (t) 01:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between pushing a fringe narrative on things and actually publishing things that he must have known were false, like the videos on the UK Covid death toll, the deaths from the Pfizer vaccine, and the NEJM article. Examples like that are simple disinformation, and we should not hold back from stating that he has done this repeatedly. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Stating he has given out misinformation on various topic must be included, but "we should not hold back from stating that he has done this repeatedly" is RGW territory and we can't go there. Wikivoice cannot be judgmental like that. Identifying the criticism leveled at him is fair game, but we aren't layer it on too thick while trying to stay neutral. Masem (t) 23:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I'm concerned that this article opens WP to legal risk. This isn't a subject matter I feel strongly about, but I think that it is drawing so much attention (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myp1R6qa0fA&t=1s ) that it's unlikely to go without legal challenge. I'm not sure what safety checks and balances are in place to address such an issue. Altairah (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Such things should be ignored. Legal threats are both not to be engaged with and, also, should not be a consideration for how we write articles whatsoever. If an exception to that is made, it would be a member of the WMF themselves enacting an OFFICE action. Otherwise, legal considerations should be null and void. We should instead be following our own policies and standards for writing articles and following what the reliable sources write about the subject in question. Silverseren^C 22:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all 'applicable 'laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies [...]"

It would seem by our own standards that we are in fact required to consider any and all legal implications. Altairah (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

A youtube video by some random guy, where we get a great view right up his nose, grousing about a Wikipedia page, is meaningless. Zaathras (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The first paragraph states "but later veered into misinformation". This is someone's opinion, not based on facts. A review of Dr John Campbell's YouTube content would demonstrate to any reasonable person that it is well researched and provides important content for public discourse.

The article is quite slanderous and full of errors with political bias. Please open the page to editing so that these mistakes can be corrected. Zaddo67 (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Please not accuse other editors of slander (see WP:NLT) or bias. GiantSnowman 22:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

That random guy has nearly 300,000 subscribers, the video has over 200,000 views and 32,000 likes. I notice you are quite active on the JCY, and JCYT pages. Is this subject becoming a pet project for you? Altairah (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Views and likes are easily purchased and mean more or less nothing. It is unsurprising that antivaxer youtubers support each other. This link proves precisely nothing. MrOllie (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa has an RFC

Abigail Kinoiki Kekaulike Kawānanakoa has an RFC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you.. The subject is recently deceased (less than a month ago). Nil Einne (talk) 08:45, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

LEONCIE

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

Happy New Year As a Professional Singer, Musician Composer,I, LEONCIE would like to report Libellous Defamatory attacks on my good name. The defamatory attacks have been going on for many years now and it has become Intolerable.It is Destructive Negative and Damaging. Whoever started this page in Icelandic and English did not get my written permission to do so. A Biography must be written by a Professional Author who has talked with me eye to eye .This wikipedia,Defamation and hate Campaign of Terror to damage and destroy My Reputation has caused me a lot of Emotional distress,Job losses, Sleepless Nights,Anxiety and heart problems. Everything in this wikipedia ATTACK PAGES, in Icelandic and english Speading Malicious Rumours,Slanderous Assertions,and false Information has caused me Severe Mental Anguish and has also upset my Family. There is an article called GLATKISTAN and it is simply Lies,Libel and hate. On 18th March 2022,I complained to Wikipedia about this GLATKISTAN LIBEL, AND WIKIPEDIA REMOVED it from the ENGLISH page with my name on it. After finding that it is an UNRELIABLE SOURCE,which violates the date of birth, Style and Instrumentation wikipedia deleted that Glatkistan article. Please be kind to remove that article in Icelandic,And please let me know. Kind Regards..Leoncie,Singer Musician, Composer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.157.164.3 (talk) 13:20, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Firstly, please stop making accusations of defamation per WP:NLT, or you will be blocked from editing. Secondly, please confirm what information on the English-language article is incorrect. Thirdly, a 'professional author' will not be allowed to write your article per WP:PAID. Fourthly, if you have issues with the Icelandic-language article then you need to contact that website directly. GiantSnowman 13:58, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

On "A Biography must be written by a Professional Author who has talked with me eye to eye ." Not on this website, no. WP-articles are made by whoever feels like spending time on them. The aim for a WP-biography about you is to summarize WP:RS, independent of you. WP:ABOUTSELF sources has some use, but will be used carefully if at all. Like GiantSnowman said, you have to discuss Icelandic WP at Icelandic WP. English WP has no extra power over other WP:s.

Some recommended reading:

• Wikipedia:An article about yourself isn't necessarily a good thing
• WP:OWN
• WP:BIOSELF

Noting that I spent some time editing Leoncie last year[5], and the article is pretty much as I left it then. IMO, there's nothing WP:BLP-awful in it atm.

Btw, if you are interested in providing a WP:LEADIMAGE for the article(s), let me know and I'll try to guide you for the process. Gleðilegt nýtt ár! Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 18:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Noting also User talk:Leoncie. If that user is you, you should request unblocking per the instructions on that page instead of editing unregistered. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:01, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Previous discussion at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive336#Leoncie. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:11, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

FYI ping to @C.Fred if you're interested. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:13, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see anything in the English version that is destructive or unduly negative. The critics' descriptions of her are suitably sourced. —C.Fred (talk) 21:40, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Does/should ABOUTSELF extend to death confirmation via official channel?

I ran into an interesting situation recently at the article Fucking Trans Women, which contains a very brief biography of its author, Mira Bellwether. Bellwether died a few weeks after I wrote the article; this was officially announced by her partner through the latter's Twitter on the 25th, and on Bellwether's official GoFundMe (https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-mira-bellwether-survive-stage-4-lung-cancer) on the 26th. I saw no provision of policy or guidelines that would allow for citing either, and so held off (and reverted a few who added the death) until it was reported in Autostraddle on the 27th. This delay was significant enough that Autostraddle's editors mentioned it when naming the obituary among their favorite pieces of the year.

The Twitter post, that's solidly third-party, but should I have been allowed to cite the GoFundMe? That's not a rhetorical question. I see the case for and against. On the one hand, ABOUTSELF is about self. Once someone dies, they cannot make statements about themself (at least not in any way we can verify). On the other hand, if someone has designated something as an official channel of theirs, and that channel then says they have died, it seems reasonable to treat that as a moderately reliable source at least for that limited purpose, as an extension of their public persona. Hacks and hoaxes are a concern, but no more so than when the subject is alive—there's always a nonzero risk of either of those, which is part of the trade-off of ABOUTSELF. Furthermore, secondary sources reporting deaths of online figures are often just going off of the official statement anyways. (In this case, neither Autostraddle nor the one other RS obituary seem to have interviewed any family members or such.) And most significantly, I think, in some cases we just might never get an RS obituary. Eventually enough time passes that BLP (including BLPSPS and BLPPRIMARY) no longer applies... but honestly I think what happens in practice on such articles is people do cite the tweet or Facebook post or whatever, and no one notices or cares because these tend to be low-visibility articles.

So like I said, I really don't know, but would like to hear others' thoughts. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I can see a case for gofundme.com WP:ABOUTSELF per "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" in this case, but I'd consider that a local consensus issue (be bold and see what happens), sort of "place-holder" in the hope that a better source will appear. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Eric England (director)

The section "Sexual abuse and assault allegations" is supported by a citation to one reference, a horror site called "Dread Central. The website includes an update to its original post in the form of a rather lengthy statement by the article subject. I question (1) whether the website meets the reliable source standard and (2) whether such claims should remain in the article unless and until additional sources meeting the reliability standard can be cited. I would have simply removed the section, except for my question whether Dread Central is a reliable source under our standards and whether one source is sufficient. Instead, I brought the issue here for other eyes to view and weigh in on. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 15:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

• Dread Central has been discussed once at WP:RSN (here) and consensus there seemed to be that it was broadly reliable. Whether it is sufficient to establish that such a serious allegation be included in the article is another question entirely, however – I can't find any other coverage in reliable sources, and the article also cites a Medium essay and a twitter post for their discussion of the allegations, neither of which seem to be suitable. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  I removed the section. We can’t have such a serious crime on a BLP sourced to only a horror film review website. Thriley (talk) 18:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Keith Ablow

• Keith Ablow (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone keeps removing Dr. Ablow's "M.D." and referring to him as a "former psychiatrist." Despite Dr. Ablow's controversies, nothing removes his M.D. nor makes him "not" a psychiatrist. Many psychiatrists do not practice. Many surrender their licenses for many reasons. Dr. Ablow has NOT surrendered his license and has appealed the decision of the Board of Medicine in Massachusetts to suspend that license. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fact Fellow 111 (talk • contribs) 21:36, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I have no opinion on whether Ablow is a psychiatrist or former psychiatrist – I've never hear of him before now! – but according to wikipedia's manual of style we do not use postnominal letters for degrees, so removing the "MD" is correct here. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 22:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS and "staff" profiles on self-published websites

Hello. Very frequently on BLPs, I see "staff" and "affiliated" profiles on organizations' self-published websites used as sources for BLP subjects. WP:BLPSPS notes "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." which appears to prohibit the use of these sources for BLPs. A couple examples on one BLP, whose subject is affiliated with both Carbon Management Canada and National Research Council Canada [6][7]. I've asked similar on the Help IRC who multiple helpers likewise pointed out these sources shouldn't be used, but how do others interpret WP:BLPSPS? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this should be managed on a case-by-case basis. The website of a major, internationally recognized university that lists the person as a faculty member? No problem at all. The website of an non-notable organization that claims them as a member? Probably not. The National Research Council Canada has it's own level of reliability, so its membership lists should be so treated accordingly. --Jayron32 17:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Staff & affiliated profiles are almost certainly authored by/under the control of the subject. The BLPSPS prohibition should not be interpreted to forbid their use. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Further: the (uncredited) author and the publisher of [8] are clearly not the same, so it's not a self-published source in any sense. Nothing published by the NRC-Canada is "self-published" in the sense of BLPSPS. It seems that you (Saucysalsa30) completely misunderstand the point of BLPSPS -- it's about "don't use RandoDude420's blog as a source in a BLP" (because obviously), not about independence / self-serving stuff (that's separate, in the next section WP:BLPSELFPUB). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"Staff & affiliated profiles are almost certainly authored by/under the control of the subject."

Hi IP, interesting point, could you please clarify this statement or where this information derives from? Example: an organization I have affiliation with has a profile on their website of me and I have no control over it. This may be a misunderstanding of WP:BLPSPS on the basis of this assumption. Jayron32's view is more nuanced. Either way, such sourcing is primary. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Concepts like "primary" and "secondary" and "SPS" and all of that are meant to guide analysis of sources, not to determine an outcome of how one must proceed naively or blindly. Real humans still need to ponder and consider and think and weigh competing ideas and make decisions on how to weigh various factors when making decisions on what kinds of sources are OK for using with what kinds of Wikipedia information, all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in this area are meant to inform you not of what conclusions you must reach, but rather on the various factors that go in to making those conclusions for yourself. All reliability really means is "Can I trust this source to be accurate in what it says?" and ALL of the guidance Wikipedia gives us are various ways to assess that. The National Research Council Canada gives all of the hallmarks of a scrupulously reliable source for the kind of information in question. If all we're asking is "Is the NRCC's own website reliable enough to determine whether or not a particular person is a member or affiliate of said council", then yes, it certainly is. That's my assessment of it. The argument that the NRCC wrote its own website, and therefore cannot be trusted to accurately report its membership on said website, well, that's just silly. It's a highly respected organization managed by the government of a major world power. We can trust that when it says someone is affiliated with it in some way, they are. --Jayron32 05:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The word “profile” can mean two different things. In my first post, I was referring to short biographical sketches of the kind often labeled “our team”, or your first link (CMC), or the brief resumes found on university faculty department profiles. These are almost always written by the subject or based on material provided by the subject, and the subject can generally update them (by contacting an internal website person and saying “hey this is out of date, can you add …”). Such things are the subject of BLPSELFPUB, not BLPSPS. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. In contrast to these examples, there are many orgs that are little known or of no repute that would have to be taken at face value which would not be ideal. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• I think it's also worth considering whether it is WP:DUE if no secondary sources have made note of it. --Aquillion (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Great point! I hadn't considered that. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Ori Gordin

The information about (1) his parents and (2) his family is not cited. Since this article is about a living person, I believe that violates the Wikipedia rules for articles about living persons. The article was submitted for B class review and I have never encountered this situation. I'm not sure if I should remove the offending material. Djmaschek (talk) 02:30, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You should remove it. Per WP:BLPREMOVE, "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that ...is unsourced or poorly sourced;" (bold mine). --Jayron32 18:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

You could also highlight 'contentious' and I don't think his parents' names and the number of children he has are contentious. There are sources available for at least some of it, it does need better sourcing but I don't think it needs removing immediately.. JeffUK 15:27, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I mean, one is allowed to do either. If Djmaschek believes it to be contentious enough to require removal, they should remove it. If Djmaschek believes that it isn't contentious, they are allowed to do any number of things, including 1) doing nothing 2) tagging it with a cn tag 3) searching and finding a source for the material. There is no have to do anything. This is not a job, they are not being paid to do anything, there is no contract that compels them to do anything at all. If they want to improve the article, there are an entire menu of options, and we presume they are intelligent and thoughtful enough to make their own decisions regarding what is best. WP:SOFIXIT means "do what you think is best, and don't ask prior permission". It's up to Djmaschek how to handle the content, there is no requirement or mandates. My use of the verb "should" presumed that by they found the material contentious in some way; else why would they even ask the question. If they don't find the material contentious, then of course, there are any number of things they could do. --Jayron32 19:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Woah there, you're the only one who mentioned that anyone 'should' do anything, I'm well aware of NOTCOMPULSORY. Djmaschek only referred to the material as unsourced, so I assumed they came here solely because it was unsourced, I'm just saying I *don't* find it contentious so don't find immediate removal necessary. JeffUK 20:23, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear. When I said "My use of the verb "should" presumed that by they found the material contentious in some way; else why would they even ask the question. If they don't find the material contentious, then of course, there are any number of things they could do." what I actually meant was "My use of the verb "should" presumed that by they found the material contentious in some way; else why would they even ask the question. If they don't find the material contentious, then of course, there are any number of things they could do." I hope that clears things up. --Jayron32 11:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Asra Nomani

Your article contains this utterly irrelevant attack on The Federalist, to which Nomani contributes. The attack has absolutely nothing to do with Nomani, but it is clearly intended to reduce her credibility in a thoroughly contemptable manner. Given how much dishonesty public health administrators have engaged in while labeling all alternative views (often perfectly credible viewss) as "misinformation," to include this statement without any qualification is outrageous. Remove this paragraph:

"She is a senior contributor to The Federalist which published many pieces that contained false information, pseudoscience, and contradictions or misrepresentations of the recommendations of public health authorities.[31][32] While ballots were being counted in the 2020 United States presidential election, The Federalist made false claims that there had been large-scale election fraud.[33][34]"

I have contributed to Wikipedia before. But there is not a chance I will again if this sort of thing is to be tolerated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1702:39A0:4D30:494A:370D:4DA3:99B (talk) 02:46, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This appears to be an example of overzealous Wikipedians striving to ensure that every time The Federalist is mentioned, it MUST also be mentioned that The Federalist has also published pseudoscience and misleading content about the 2020 election. But unless the Federalist articles were authored by Nomani (and there is no indication they are), it has no place in her biography. And I have remove it. --Animalparty! (talk) 04:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yomi Denzel

Yomi Denzel This article was written by one editor only, throughout the year, and is clearly an advertisement article. Besides, the sources are very irrelevant or clearly orientated, with payed articles on unknown websites, most of the takes are unsourced... wikipedia is not a promotion platform

A cursory look at the article reveals that its sources include several mainstream French-language news organisations, including profiles of Denzel by Le Figaro and Radio Télévision Suisse. The text certainly looks as though it could do with some work, but if there are particularly problematic sources it would be helpful to point out which they are... Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 09:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Dmitri Nossov

Dmitri Nossov (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article about Dmitri Nossov seemed to be a badly-written mess full of unverifiable information, so I removed some of it. The result still doesn't look too well. I'm not interested in whitewashing it; finding a balance is tough. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm the one who brought this to attention of TBF. My understanding of Russian doesn't exist; that said, the criticism section struck me as at least going against WP:GRAPEVINE. Perhaps some of our more knowledgeable editors could weigh in?   –Skywatcher68 (talk) 20:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Joy Sunday

The article on Joy Sunday has incorrect biographical information. Her full name is Joy Sunday Okun (not Joy Okun Sunday as stated in the article). And her date of birth is September 25, not April 17. This information is not sourced, and therefore it is unknown where the original author got this information, but it is not correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Emm9213 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Emm9213: I've removed the middle name and the birthdate from the article as I agree with you that none of the references mention either of those things (all the references refer to her only as 'Joy Sunday). The birth date you've supplied can't be used either, I'm afraid, as it would also be unsourced. If you can find it mentioned in a reliable source, feel free to add it back in, citing the source. As an aside, at the moment the sourcing for the article in general is not good: of the six sources, two are interviews with her and so are not independent while another two mention her name as a cast member in a production but don't add any other information. If you can find any better sources which are independent of her and discuss her in detail rather than in passing, adding them to the article would help improve it. Neiltonks (talk) 09:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Ivan Katchanovski's "false theory" on Georgian snipers

Based on this source [9] the article Ivan Katchanovski claims that In 2018, Katchanovski promoted a false theory that Georgian snipers had orders from Maidan leaders to shoot Maidan protestors. This theory was also promoted by Vladimir Putin. The template:Failed verification I added has been repeatedly removed by two users [10][11][12]. Is this WP:OR? And is it compatible with WP:BLPRS? Note the following:

• The text of the source doesn't mention Katchanovski. It deals exclusively with the The Putin Interviews by Oliver Stone.
• However, the source contains the picture of a tweet by Oliver Stone, in which Stone re-tweets a tweet by Katchanovski.
• In that tweet, Katchanovski does not present a theory on the Georgian snipers. He writes Another #Maidan #massacre #Bombshell : In #Israel TV #documentary, two more #Georgians state that they had orders from Maidan leader to shoot both Maidan #protesters and police in order to boost protests and overthrow Yanukovych #government in #Ukraine + link to a no longer available youtube video.
• Is tweeting a video by an Israeli TV a sufficient ground for being reported on Wikipedia as the "promoter of a false theory shared by Putin"?
• For those who want to go really deep into the matter: Polygraph.info (a fact-checking website produced by Voice of America, not yet listed at WP:RSP) claims here [13] that they've debunked an interview made by an Italian journalist to three alleged Georgian snipers who claimed responsibility for shooting protesters in Kyiv at Euromaidan. In a 2022 self-published paper [14] Katchanovski mentioned 7 Georgian snipers; probably three of these snipers are the same ones who were interviewed in the allegedly debunked report by the Italian journalist. So with a nice WP:SYNTH we are combining the tweet re-tweeted by Stone and published by Polygraph.info, the "debunking" investigation by Polygraph.info and the 2022 paper by Katchanovski to state in wikivoice that Katchanovski, by presenting his paper at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, has "promoted" a theory concerning 7 Georgian snipers, three of which according to Polygraph.info had lied in an interview; and we are also stating that that theory is shared by Putin.
• Final note: the article on Katchanovski presents a controversial theory of his under the heading "False flag theory". That theory has supporters and opponents, it may be WP:FRINGE or not. In any case, that theory is not the Georgian snipers theory. The two theories are different and possibly even incompatible (according to the first one, the massacre was made not by Georgian snipers but by far-rigt militants).

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you seriously disputing that he promoted this conspiracy theory [15]? His entire researchgate page is devoted to this garbage. Volunteer Marek 01:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. If you want you can open a thread at WP:FT/N and we discuss there about that. Because here we're discussing something different and the source you just shared is not helpful. The source you shared says something about the Georgian snipers that is incompatible with the thesis we are now attributing to Katchanovski through the nasty WP:SYNTH I explained above. The source says:

A retired Georgian general claimed that Georgian snipers linked to Mikheil Saakashvili, ex-president of Georgia, and senior members of his party and the government were involved in the Maidan massacre.16 Janusz Korwin-Mikke, a Polish presidential candidate alleged that Maidan snipers were trained in Poland.17 However, none of these politicians provided any evidence in support of their claims. And no such reliable evidence has been provided by the governments and the media in Ukraine, Western countries, and Russia

So if you want to support the nasty SYNTH on the article and make it somehow more compelling, more justifiable, then you need to find a different source. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• That "theory" was discussed already in this section of article talk page. It was debunked according to Polygraph and BBC publications (cited in the linked discussion). Yes, according to Polygraph.info that theory was promoted or supported by Ivan Katchanovski. But this is easy to check. As quoted in the linked discussion, Ivan Katchanovski himself recently presented this "theory" in Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Montreal, September 15-18, 2022. My very best wishes (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Gitz, we are either doing a WP:OR or a WP:SYNTH. We need a source that clearly states that Katchanovski's research was debunked (and especially how it was debunked).

Also, I don't understand that allusion to Vladimir Putin, if there are contacts between Katchanovski and Putin let's bring in the sources, otherwise we are just reporting allusions on a BLP, which is a very serious thing. For example, John Mearsheimer, like Putin, thinks that the reasons for the conflict in Ukraine are due to NATO's enlargement to the east.[16] Would you dream of writing in Mearsheimer's article that he thinks like Putin (and imply that there is complicity between them)? Please, let us try to maintain some professionalism and care in the BLP.

I am in favour of removing the whole sentence. Mhorg (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Since @My very best wishes says according to Polygraph.info that theory was promoted or supported by Ivan Katchanovski. But this is easy to check, could he please provide a quotation from Polygraph.info (or from any other reliable sources, really) saying that Ivan Katchanovski promoted or supported the "Georgian sniper theory"? By "Georgian sniper theory" I obviously mean the theory that was allegedly debunked by Polygraph.info and the BBC. If the BBC publication MVBW refers to is this one [17], then it doesn't mention Katchanovski. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Using multiple sources to verify statements, such as that Ivan Katchanovski authored, supported or presented the false flag theory which includes "Georgian snipers" is not WP:SYN or WP:OR. To the contrary, we must use multiple sources to properly summarize views by living people per WP:BLP. Also, if someone promotes a theory, there is nothing wrong with using 3rd party RS (such as BBC analysis in this case) that say the theory was debunked/supported/whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Combining multiple sources to support unverifiable statements is the definition of WP:SYNTH. Your claim that according to Polygraph.info that theory was promoted or supported by Ivan Katchanovski. But this is easy to check is groundless. I've therefore removed (again) the contentious and unsourced/poorly sourced material per WP:GRAPEVINE [18]. If this removal is inapporopriate, any uninvolved editor can revert it and explain their reasons here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I don't understand why you, Volunteer Marek and Adoring nanny don't edit The Putin Interviews article to include the results of Polygraph.info's investigation: the source is entirely dedicated to Putin-Stone and doesn't even mention Katchanovski! I've already made this suggestion pn the article talk page [19]. Why do you insist so much on having this content in the article on Ivan Katchanovski? The only answer I could give is against AGF and I'll keep it to myself, but really, the amount of time wasted in these petty editorial squabbles is staggering. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• You say "Combining multiple sources to support unverifiable statements". This is not the case. To the contrary, the fact that "Ivan Katchanovski authored, supported or presented the false flag theory [of Maidan massacre] which includes Georgian snipers" (that is what I said) is 100% verifiable. It can be verified by quoting his own publication (as in this section [20]) and it can be verified by quoting secondary sources about his work as linked in the same and another section on talk [21]. This is not WP:OR. This is just the opposite.My very best wishes (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oh wow, I haven’t seen this particular bad faith argument before. “Youre using multiple sources to cite something so by definition that’s SYNTH”. Jeez. Volunteer Marek 19:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  cite something? I don't understand what you mean. My point is: please, don't combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Are you saying that this hasn't happened in this case? Well, then please tell us which source explicitly states that 1) In 2018 Katchanovski promoted a theory that Georgian snipers had orders from Maidan leaders to shoot Maidan protestors; 2) That theory is false; 3) that theory was also promoted by Vladimir Putin. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• I think you seriously misunderstood the meaning of verifiability and WP:SYN. For example, Ivan Katchanovski himself said in his publication that "7 Georgian self-admitted members of Maidan sniper groups ... stated that their and other groups of the Maidan snipers ... received orders, weapons, and payments from specific members of the Maidan leadership and former Georgian government leaders and commanders to massacre both protesters and the police in order to stop a peaceful agreement that was to be signed by Yanukovych and Maidan leaders.". This is a 100% verifiable (and verified) statement. But is it "the truth"? No, it is not because the claim about "Georgian snipers" was soundly debunked in the publications by Polygraph and BBC. The Polygraph does refer to/makes a links to twits by Stone and Katchanovsky. But can we use the article in BBC [22] to debunk the "theory" about "Georgian snipers", even though this article does not mention Katchanovsky, but only fake "testimonies" he cited? Yes, we can - for as long as we simply say that the BBC article debunked the theory of "Georgian snipers" that appears on the page. We are not going to say that "BBC article criticized Katchanovsky" because it did not. My very best wishes (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  The Polygraph does not refer to Katchanovsky: why do you say such a thing? And you reasoning above nicely shows the dangers of WP:OR and SYNTH, especially when editors are eager to jump to conclusions. Let me ask you two simple questions: how many Georgian snipers, 7 or 3? And why does IK's tweet (re-tweeted by Stone) speak "two more #Georgians"? Why 2 more? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• You say: "The Polygraph does not refer to Katchanovsky" Here is link to the source (one that you just removed from the page again [23]). It refers to Katchanovsky by making a link to twits by Stone and Katchanovki, exactly as I just said above. The link is just above the words "However, Polygraph.info already debunked this claim". References, figures and links provided by RS are important part of RS. But you was told about this already multiple times on article talk page. The quotation above say "7". If he was saying someone different before, this is not surprising. Claims by proponents of false conspiracy theories frequently contradict each other. My very best wishes (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  Polygraph does not refer to Katchanovsky. It contains an image: the picture of a tweet by Oliver Stone. In that tweet Stone is re-twitting and commenting upon a tweet by Katchanovsky, which by the way contains an entirely accurate information (he says that the Israeli TV has published a documentary about two more snipers stating that they had received orders to shoot). The guy who (according to Polygraph) promoted a false theory on the Georgian snipers is not Katchanovsky, but Oliver Stone (and Putin):

  Putin told Stone that Georgian snipers had been present on Maidan Nezalezhnosti, the central square in Kyiv, “completely ruling out” the possibility that ousted former president Viktor Yanukovych could have used force against the civilian population. Stone himself had previously repeated this claim on social media. However, Polygraph.info already debunked this claim, initially made by an Italian journalist who blamed the Euromaidan killings on Georgian mercenaries operating under the direction of former Georgian Prime Minister Mikhail Saakashvili

  Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

No. When a reader looks at the online publication, he can see the statement by Katchanovski directly in the publication online as an image, without even making any additional "clicks". It is a part of the online publication, and an important part that serves as a proof of statements made by Polygraph. Hence, as follows from the Polygraph publications, Katchanovsky supported this theory. But of course the linked quotation on Twitter is not sufficient to understand what exactly Katchanovsky was claiming. One needs additional RS for that, and it is exactly what quotation on article talk page has provided [24]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is more of Katchanovski pushing this conspiracy theory [25] [26]. The fact that this particular conspiracy theory is inconsistent with his other conspiracy theories is besides the point - conspiracy theories rarely make sense or have logical consistency. Here is someone else describing Katchanovski [27] In closing, I’ll note that there are a lot of other dubious claims made by Katchanovski that I haven’t addressed. For example, he takes seriously the claims of some Georgian ‘protesters’ who supposedly ‘confessed’ inside Russia – to Russian authorities – that they were the snipers.. Now, it’s true that this isn’t Katchanovski’s “main” conspiracy theory, he just throws it in along with all the others, basically trying to muddle the waters. But the fact that he’s pushed is definitely verifiable. Volunteer Marek 20:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it? Apart from anything else, could we use The Daily Sceptic as a reliable source? or would it fall under WP:UGC and WP:BLPSPS? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Brian Heidik

I don't know what to say about the controversial material involving this subject. True or not, I couldn't find a reliable source verifying his supposed divorce and second marriage. Furthermore, the article was deleted once in 2017 but then re-created a month later. Furthermore, there have been criminal charges, but I don't know whether they are worth learning about. If they are, I wonder whether I must include a (then-)wife. Oh, and I created Draft:Brian Heidik, just in case. --George Ho (talk) 08:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Why did you make a copy in draftspace? Did you mean to draftify the article? You've created a WP:CUTANDPASTE situation that will need to be corrected, I'm just wondering what your intent is so I can fix it appropriately.

This article is a good example of why we shouldn't have standalone articles about reality show contestants unless they're notable for other reasons, and just redirect their names to the shows they were on. He's done nothing wiki-notable whatsoever since winning, and his incomplete bio has become a WP:COATRACK for every bit of controversy the celebrity gossip rags can dig up on him over the years. I've trimmed some of the unsourced info, and I would endorse deletion if this made it back to AfD. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 15:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to attribute Draft:List of Survivor (American TV series) finalists (seasons 1–10) (now rejected), which I also created. I'd be happy to nominate the article for deletion if willing. I'd be also happy to request deletion of the draft version I made if the mainspace one is either redirected or deleted. George Ho (talk) 19:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Dan Bishop

Someone has written libelous statements. For instance, he/she is making judgements that are defamatory (e.g., calling him racist and Transphobic) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.81.67.130 (talk) 14:45, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Reverted and editor warned. In future, per our policy on unsourced defamatory content on living persons, please remove such information immediately if you are able to. You only need to make a report here if you cannot remove it yourself for some reason, for example if the page is protected, or other editors continue restoring the defamatory content. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 14:51, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Mary Hayashi

My name is Mary Hayashi. I am a former politician and the subject of a Wikipedia page. I recently spoke with a company called Status Labs about improving the Wikipedia page about me. I did not hire them. However, soon after talking to them, a now-blocked user, who is associated with a large network of "sockpuppet accounts"(see sockpuppet investigation on RMS125 at Hotmail.com and [28]), added tags to the page about me alleging conflict of interest and copyright violations.

Maybe I am paranoid, but given the timing and the tags being added by a black-hat Wikipedia firm, it seems likely these tags were added to coerce me into hiring someone. In any case, I have never edited the page and neither has anyone under my employ or direction. In my opinion, the page unfairly emphasizes a shoplifting accusation by putting it in a dedicated section, so the allegation the page represents my point-of-view unfairly through manipulation is far-fetched.

In any case, can these tags be removed? They seem to falsely accuse me of misconduct, the alleged problems with the page are made-up, and the tags were most likely added with an improper motive. Humphrey444 (talk) 17:34, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I have removed the tags, as the sock didn't explain them, and I can't see any pressing need for them. The shoplifting section does repeat itself several times, so I think it could do with trimming, whether it then deserves a separate section is probably a factor of how much it gets trimmed. JeffUK 17:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I restored the copy/paste tag with the URL that it appears to be copying. I don't have the time to look into it or repair it at this time, but that tag seems legitimate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

There's more copyvio from that page, it looks like an IP copied it more or less verbatim here way back in 2014. It's been softened and paraphrased over the years by other editors and by revisions to the source page, but there is still material that is too closely paraphrased or identical to the copyrighted source. Some of it is lists of positions and appointments that probably aren't copyrightable, but there are also qualitative promotional statements that will need to be removed. It's going to need a more thorough review and a massive revdel, if any of the article can be saved. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 19:43, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Having now seen the source; I can see where the other editor was coming from in terms of it being a COI edit too; if it's a copy/paste of the subject's promo page it's almost by definition a conflict of interest. I think I will restore the tag for now. JeffUK 19:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

if it's a copy/paste of the subject's promo page it's almost by definition a conflict of interest. This is insane. People copy promotional text for all sorts of reasons (notably, fandom) that have nothing whatsoever to do with conflicts of interest. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 01:57, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

1. "Editors have an apparent COI if they edit an article about a business, and for some reason they appear to be the business owner or in communication with the business owner," It certainly seems to me that we have reason to suspect the person copy/pasting the subject's promotional bio onto a page (and then making an unsourced claim that the charges (for which she was ultimately penalized) had been dismissed) has some connection with the subject.

2. Someone claiming to be the subject has admitted to engaging with paid editors to edit the page and is claiming that those paid editors have edited the page either positively, or negatively, that's also a COI too.

3. I'm not insane, and I have a certificate to prove it! JeffUK 09:11, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Mary Hayashi is not a business. The person claiming to be Mary Hayashi has a COI, but has not edited the article. I agree that you are not insane and apologize if my hyperbole came off as a personal remark. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Eirene (moon)

Second AfD on non-notable small moons of the Solar System, concerning five articles with concerning amounts of personal information about those who voted for the names, including Twitter handles. These informations were added by Wiki 2 contributor (talk · contribs), who made few other edits, shortly after the official names were announced by the IAU in 2019. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

What information is there on this article that concerns you? All I see is the twitter handle. Presumably the voting happened on twitter, in public, so the fact they voted for it is not in any way defamatory or controversial. Including their handles might not be relevant to the article but it's certainly not reason to delete the whole thing. JeffUK 09:17, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

This isn't a BLP issue. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 10:00, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Arthur Graaff

This page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Graaff - consists of fabrications, distortions and half-truths. Books are mentioned that don't exist, the mentioned sources tell a different story than is presented by the compiler of this page, all kinds of family claims are made which are simply not true, and so on and so on.

I suggest that a Wiki veteran who knows Dutch checks every sentence on this page to make the necessary corrections.

The main compiler, "Webnetprof" has a very bad record at nl-wiki, where he is banned indefinitely. See: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie/Zaken/Blokkade_Webnetprof https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Logboeken?type=&user=&page=Arthur+Graaff&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.95.90.103 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Birthdate for Josette Simon

A representative for Josette Simon, logged in as TomDale90, has repeatedly removed the birthdate from her article, on the grounds that she does not want her birthdate public -- e.g. here and here. The birthdate is only approximate ("c. 1959") since the sources (here) says she is 16 in February 1976 without giving her birthday. Does WP:DOB apply, meaning that it's OK to remove her birthdate? The justification there is privacy, but with just an estimated year that doesn't seem to apply. See here for TomDale90's acknowledgement that he is her representative. The comment there is about using FreeBMD, which I think does fall under the privacy rule as well as being a primary source. However, a newspaper interview is a perfectly good secondary source. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

As someone with a blatant COI, TomDale90 should absolutely not be edit warring about this, but should be confined to making requests on the talkpage. I agree that I don't see how a birthdate of "c. 1959" is a privacy violation. It's not specific enough to be used to access anything. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:52, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Joaziela

Regarding these edits: [29], [30],

and these replies: User talk:Joaziela#January 2023, Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#swastika-armband, User talk:GizzyCatBella#Nazi Ukraine historical negationism in Anti-Ukrainian sentiment plus Joaziela contributions at Talk:Anti-Ukrainian sentiment

 // Timothy :: talk  17:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue Please describe the issue - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to repeat the content, but I think above mentioned article contributions are poorly or unsourced additions of serious claims to a highly visible page. I think Joaziela's replies also contain poor or unsourced material about a LP and their replies show a strong POV they are unwilling to let go despite multiple editors responding to them.  // Timothy :: talk  17:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Material is sourced (it did happen), however, the way Joaziela composed it, is problematic from NPOV point of view and in my opinion, it’s WP:UNDUE. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue

Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada without taking part in discussion, with no explanation you deleted the information, it’s look like propaganda, Wikipedia is not a place for such a behaviors. You said that it’s poorly sourced, the official statement of Ukrainian parliament it’s poor or 3 websites articles from 3 different countries that I put are poor... Facts are that Commander-in-Chief promote Stepan Bandera, it was officialy promoted by Ukrainian parliament, that been international scandal mostly in Poland and Islael, because Bandera is a part of Volhynia genocide of 200 000 Jews and Poles, and they deleted it, but in internet nothing disappeared and also censorship and propaganda shouldn’t happen on Wikipedia, it’s like historical negationism this shouldn’t happen Joaziela (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Joaziela The bottom line is you need consensus for your desired additions and you don’t have it right now. (see talk page of the article) - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Joaziela also seems fond of making personal attacks in their replies.  // Timothy :: talk  17:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBellaabout it weight, imagine some German general or maybe minister of defense is taking selfie with Hitler picture, then Bundestag put it on it's Twitter. Would it be a huge scandal? Yes, it it as well with Ukraine so yeah it very wort mentioning Joaziela (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The coverage of the incident was narrow because the picture was quickly removed, and the photo was not posted by Zaluzhnyj himself but by someone from the Verkhovna Rada. We don’t know who posted it. Look, this happened, it was a minor incident and I don’t think it’s worth mentioning it in the BIO article. That’s all. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)