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.

Hannah Holborn Gray

Hanna Holborn Gray (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

In the body of the article about Hannah you mention that she was at Northwestern University, Evanston campus, however in the chronological listing you don't mention Northwestern Unversity!!!!!She was also Dean of Woman at NU. Please contact her office or Northwestern University and correct this omission. Much appreciated.......Quecumquae sunt veritas!!!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1008:b02b:848e:f936:e48c:c029:4e95 (talk) 11:05, 24 October 2017‎

Glenn R. Simpson

• Glenn R. Simpson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

"However the Republican donor soon dropped out of what Simpson and Fusion GPS were doing. The Democratic National Committee and the Hillary Clinton campaign for president picked up the deal with Fusion GPS and funded the remaining political assignation of Donald Trump before he was elected the 45th President of the United States"

There are so sources. This Fusion GPS ordeal is conspiratorial so keeping the pages as informative and perhaps unassuming seems important. Currently, the article does not source and does not seem to provide a verifiable, neutral point of view.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:547:901:6570:79dc:deea:ae1e:8a5e (talk) 14:52, 27 October 2017‎ (UTC)

'cosmo jarvis' wiki page

• Cosmo Jarvis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

The information presented here on Cosmo Jarvis is not up to date and ignores many developments in recent years. Especially in '2010 to present' section - here there are many informations which are lacking or which, if included while others are not, creates an article which requires more detail and overall context to shed light on his recent works (especially as an actor in theatre, TV and FILM)

(see here) http://www.imdb.com/name/nm4008605/

His involvement with 'Hawke the movie' while correct information should not be featured at the expense of other, more notable, widely distributed and arguable more significant works.

I am suggesting the need for a revision/update on this page.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.215.89 (talk) 18:57, 27 October 2017‎ (UTC)

Tarah Wheeler

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

The article seems like a self-promoting advertisement. It contains untrue statements presented as facts without substantial citations. Example - "After a record-breaking Kickstarter campaign...". The citations for this statement don't verify this claim.

The article also contains a lot of redundant text like "She gave advice to women technologists on interview techniques and salary negotiation, when she was a systems architect at mobile encryption firm Silent Circle."

On removing all the unverifiable and poorly sourced claims and redundant statements, the whole article can be condensed down to one line - "Tarah Wheeler is an advocate for diversity in tech".

In all honesty, I don't think this page even should be there. The person concerned doesn't have enough notability to warrant an article. Iamoaf (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

At least three of the first 4 references I checked tick all the boxes on WP:GNG: significant articles in independent, reliable sources (Forbes, The Register and Seattle Weekly News). She almost certainly passes notability standards. I see that the language is factual and direct, lacking the flowery adjectives that usually mark promotional articles. Honestly, it reads much like what you would expect of any article about a notable business executive. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:58, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Forbes/Sites, not Forbes. Only in death does duty end (talk) 10:01, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

How is she "a notable business executive"? According to the info on her page, she founded one company, and even so, it has no website or any significant web presence, considering it is an internet based business. And she's only worked at a couple of other companies. Seems to me that she's just another business executive. Also, a lot of statements on her page can be challenged: She's a scientist, but has she published any research papers? She is a poker player, but has she played in any significant poker tournaments? She's a hacker, but has she "hacked", or found/researched any software vulnerabilities? Most of the information on that page lacks sufficient backing material. Undoubtedly, she's an author and has written but one book, and that too on a very niche topic, for a very narrow audience. Does that warrant a page? Iamoaf (talk) 21:48, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll admit that it's a tight fit, but I think she does meet the notability criteria. She appears to do a lot of work promoting diversity in cybersecurity and has received significant coverage for it. However, some of the article language makes it sound like a fan of hers wrote it; I think we can keep the article if we rewrite it with a more neutral tone. --Blueclaw (talk) 20:09, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Minneapolis child sex abuse ring

• Draft:Minneapolis child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This may need more eyes because of sensitive topic and potential BLP issues. Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 23:32, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

It had been submitted, and out of an abundance of caution, I declined it. Editor is quite new; I'll leave working with him to others. John from Idegon (talk) 23:51, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks John, —PaleoNeonate – 23:57, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Deleted by Cullen328 as CSD#G10 attack page. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 04:30, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

It may be possible to write a policy compliant article about this topic, but such an article would not list people convicted of nothing, and would not contain highly opinionated, tabloid-style commentary. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:40, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

• Update: Minneapolis child sex abuse ring (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

  Was since created in main space, but has gained some attention and is currently in a better state. —PaleoNeonate – 00:15, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Given that the article has included such things as unsourced claims about the backgrounds of the clients and listing crimes for which no one was listed as being convicted, care should be taken that this does not end up an attack page... and it is questionable whether there needs to be a page for this at all, or whether this was just a sad news item without lasting import on the larger scale. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:28, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It was deleted as an attack page. Tornado chaser (talk) 00:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, and then it was recreated, and the version that is in article space now had that content in until I edited it. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It still does not pass muster. 29 individuals were the subject of an indictment; three were convicted and six were acquitted. (The article does not say what happened to the others). The allegations of the indictment are reported as factual, rather than being qualified as allegations only. There is a reason why news sources always qualify allegations; Wikipedia must do so also. Kablammo (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Considering the creator was issued a 4im warning for the draft, shouldn't some admin action be taken, at least a stronger statement that this is not going to be tolerated? The editor creating these articles seems from his contributions to have a strong interest in sex scandals of various sorts. Do we want to keep dealing with this? John from Idegon (talk) 07:36, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Despite the posts here and the involvement of several experienced editors, the article continued to report as fact what were only allegations. I have, I hope, corrected that. But the name of the article itself implies a series of events which were not proved against most of the targets, for most of the offenses. Kablammo (talk) 19:24, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Minneapolis child sex abuse ring. SarahSV ^(talk) 20:58, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

In the wake of someone noticing that the few convictions in the case had been overturned, the article has now been deleted. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:27, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Mikhail Blagosklonny

An IP editor has been repeatedly trying to remove/whitewash sourced negative material from Mikhail Blagosklonny and from the associated article Oncotarget. The IP claims the source is unreliable but the consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 197#Retraction Watch on the same source for other BLPs is that it's reliable (and it's used similarly on many other BLPs). More eyes on the articles would be welcome. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:06, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

The link you provide is about Retraction Watch which is also being discussed in the talk page of this article. Stop confusing the two sources. This is about Jeffrey Beall's list which is a self-published blog and has no place on a BLP per WP:BLPSPS. Note the discussion you link to even says that Beall's list is worse than RetractionWatch.40.134.67.50 (talk) 19:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

That is an odd mis-reading of WP:SPS. Beall is an expert in predatory and otherwise dodgy academic journal publishing and is well-recognized for this expertise. Beall's List therefore fits squarely within the meaning of reliable sources in the very policy you cite: Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Emphasis in the original. Continuing to edit-war to remove the information cited to this source has every appearance of tendentious editing. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:09, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

References

• @Eggishorn: Please finish reading the paragraph in WP:SPS which says Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. Second emphasis mine.
• In any case, I was referring to WP:BLPSPS which clearly states 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. Emphasis mine. 40.134.67.50 (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Retraction Watch is a good source for "predatory journal", which can now be supplemented with The Scientist also saying it's considered predatory.[1] However the current sourcing is very borderline for supporting the other BLP-allegations. I suggest the direct BLP-allegations be removed per BLPREQUESTRESTORE policy, pending the result of the open RFC at Talk:Oncotarget#Threats_of_retraction. Alsee (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

Lets please clean up the process on this - it is a total mess

We will only address Beall and Retraction/Scientist in regard to the BLP here - Oncotarget and academic journal guidelines are not part of this Discussion - however, anywhere the BLP is mentioned, BLP guidelines must be applied.

Wiki guides us on this by stating that biography of living persons must be the highest quality sources, and if you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out

As the other editor has mentioned the burden of proving that it is a high quality source is on the editor who adds or restores the material and I firmly believe you have not proven that these are high quality sources - you are mearly referencing a bunch of coverage about a group of poor sources. Moreover, even if I agree with you that these are of the highest quality of sources, there are still not multiple third-party sources making the same claims. Even tho its your job to prove this I will give you some guidance...

Overall, all of these sources present little or no legitimate well-researched news and instead uses eye-catching headlines which are exaggerations of news events, scandal-mongering and sensationalism attributing material to anonymous sources and using weasel words: (sign of poor source)

1. Both Retraction and Beall cite anonymous sources for their claims on this BLP subject this gives me a reasonable doubt as to their authenticity (sign of poor source)

2. Beall's List uses nothing but weasel words i.e. Possible, potential and probable. (sign of poor source)

3. The article from the Scientist contains multiple inaccuracies and it is apparent that the article involved no independent reporting. The writer has merely incorrectly paraphrased portions of a Retraction Watch article and placed an outsized reliance on a defunct website. Since it was published they have issued corrections on their article.

1 2 and 3 show that these sources are miles away from "high quality" sources needed for BLP pages - if good sources at all, they are an excellent example of circular reporting and basically repeating gossip. Ivan Oransky, a founder of Retraction Watch is also the deputy editor of The Scientist and the coverage of Retraction Watchlist article was a poor attempt to create a third party source. Overall, the body of these three sources applied to this issue are poor sources, if sources at all.

Moreover, even if we agree with you that Beall, Retraction and Scientist are of the highest quality of sources, there are still not multiple third-party sources making the same claims.

1. Beall is claiming (from an anonymous source) that Oncotarget peer review is questionable and BLP subject is gaming the system - noone else has ever claimed that. (sign of poor source)

2. The Scientist is not making the same claim as Retraction - it was literally two different claims all together (albeit due to the fact of thee poor editorial quality of the Scientist article which is highlighted by the subsequent correction)

To momentarily step away from BLP policy - one of Wiki's five main pillars concludes that to remain neutral an editor must cite notable sources especially when controversial, and goes on to specifically say about BLP that we must remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that is a conjectural interpretation of a source (The Scientist) relies on self-published sources (Beall) or relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet Verifiability standards (anonamoys sources in Retraction and Beall's post) - however, Wiki makes perfectly clear Never use self-published sources as sources of material about a living person

Putting comments like these from such bottom end sources on BLP pages is reckless

I have created a Wiki account and will continue to monitor this issue @MakinaterJones — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.139.102.133 (talk) 22:51, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Casting couch

Wikipedia at it's best, I guess?93.93.67.179 (talk) 23:11, 13 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm not at all sure about this article. My overall feeling is that most of the accusations are WP:BLP violations and should not remain, but my fear is that if I just dive in and butcher the article, it'll end up in a messy edit war and I'd sooner avoid that if I can! I'm starting a thread on the article's talk page in the hope that some kind of consensus can be reached. Neiltonks (talk) 13:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Suggest renaming to List of alleged rapists in the entertainment industry. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:34, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The editor who recently expanded this list seems to be using the article to right great wrongs. I can find no discernible criteria for including incidents in the list, so I have removed the entire section pending discussion. It includes unproven allegations of sexual assault by named, living people. If that's not a BLP issue, I don't know what is. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 04:32, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

I think that if it's a list-article, only very notable cases should be listed pointing at articles (assuming that these were high profile enough and well sourced enough to exist). Otherwise, only minimal high profile cases could serve as examples and the article should be shortened to be about the description and existence, maybe prevalence, not a list of cases... And yes, any allegation is inappropriate unless there were convictions. Thanks for the cleanup, —PaleoNeonate – 04:49, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Jimmy Page

See talkpage history (and most of previous discussion on this is in Archive 2). This has been an ongoing problem over the years with various IP editors attempting to insinuate or otherwise state Page has committed a crime. Leaving aside the legalities for the moment, BLP is very clear on what we can and cant do, and stating someone has committed a serious crime when they have not been arrested, charged or convicted of such is something we cant do.

The problem is there is no acceptable physical relationship between a 14 year old and a man of his age (at that time). The article currently mentions it, in what is on the surface appears to be a 'neutral' wording, but since there is nothing neutral about the act itself, comes across as whitewashing. I am at a loss at this point, I am half-tempted to remove all mention of Maddox altogether as it is extremely frustrating to have to defend according to WP policy what is otherwise indefensible. I doubt this would stick as it is well sourced and has been covered over an extended period of time (and more can be found) both in biographies as primary recollections from two of the individuals involved and by the media in general. So there we are. Thoughts? Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:12, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• I've removed the passage, primarily because I disagree that it's well-sourced. We have citations to the "unauthorised biography" and to two secondary sources, which if you click through a read you will note also rely on that same biography. In fact the Rolling Stone article claims it's "fact checking" but doesn't even cite a source. I'm not saying it didn't happen, but it doesn't belong here per WP:BLP unless high-quality sources are used. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:09, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

While not currently in the article, there are primary sources involved too. Both Cole (the 'kidnapper') and Maddox have confirmed the substance of the event. Page has wisely kept silent on it. The current sources were the best compromise previously (rolling stone and independent) as Cole's biography was not considered acceptable (I own it, and I agree, he is not a reliable witness by himself). It can be well sourced and compliant as to the bare facts - that Cole arranged for Maddox to meet Page, and they started some form of relationship. The rest of the salacious details can be sourced to varying degrees of reliability. The question is should it? I personally have always been against gossip, but the counter argument is Rolling Stone and Independent are still covering the story 30 years later, there is at least some lasting impact. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:21, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

But the only real source being used is the unauthorized biography, since RS (maybe) and Independent are citing it as fact. I'm very uncomfortable with that. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 15:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I would steer clear of primary sources here as per WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:NOR, particularly WP:PRIMARY. Any discussion will absolutely need solid, reliable secondary sources. Primary sources can be used to support them, but with care. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 15:30, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes this is why they were not used, and it was sourced to the independent, rolling stone and the non-primary unauthorized biography (an authorized biography will only show want the subject wants and is no better than a primary source). Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:50, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

• I disagree strongly that there is no way to include well-sourced allegations in an article. BLP is clear that they must be described as allegations rather than a fact of law, yes, but Page is WP:WELLKNOWN. "BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." There are multiple sources, two of which are well-established, reliable, and fact-checked organizations. If the legal departments of Rolling Stone and The Independent are comfortable publishing an allegation, I can see no reason why Wikipedia should not do so. 50.79.5.81 (talk) 15:40, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

There are plenty of contemporaneous witnesses that there was some sort of relationship. That it was sexual appears to source from the girl. Problem is, there are also various stories that originate from the same girl that she lost her virginity to Bowie at 13, 14 and 15. Also, the word kidnapped may have been metaphorical. Quite possibly all true; but rather iffy for an encyclopedia. O3000 (talk) 16:59, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

I don't believe it's our responsibility as editors to determine the veracity of the statements. They're sourced and they belong in the article. Attempting to cast doubt on Ms Maddox's stories, especially based on information not in the provided sources, is WP:OR. If it's all false and Jimmy Page decides to sue somebody over it, that's on Stephen Davis, the Independent, and Rolling Stone. It is categorically not irresponsible or "iffy" for Wikipedia to repeat noteworthy allegations that have been discussed broadly by reliable sources for three decades. Wikipedia editors have done their due diligence; that's why it's attributed to three different sources. The section must be restored - and, separately, should not be in the "Partners" section of the article, because a child cannot be an adult's "partner". My pointing that out was the inciting incident which caused the section to be deleted. 50.79.5.81 (talk) 18:10, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

You still haven't addressed the substance of my argument, which is that an "unauthorized biography" is a very weak source for us to publish allegations against a living person of kidnapping and sexual conduct with a minor. You have yet to produce any sources other than those just repeating what the book says, which is a primary source (Maddox's account). We are not a news source, nor are we a music journal. We are an encyclopedia. It is absolutely our responsibility to assess the sources we're using and use the highest quality sources, especially when dealing with a BLP. --Spike Wilbury (talk) 18:32, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

The Independent refers to it as a "story", merely parrots what was in the unauthorized bio and says the girl "claims" she fell in love. A total of three sentences on the situation. The Rolling Stone article provides only two paragraphs with little detail. In both cases, the relationship was a small part of the articles. And yes, we are allowed to look at other sources. That’s not OR. O3000 (talk) 19:04, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

It is not in dispute that it is alleged that Page raped Ms Maddox. I am not suggesting that Wikipedia say anything more - the statement is obviously true, but I agree it is not Wikipedia's job to say that the statement is true. An allegation made in multiple sources is noteworthy in and of itself, and should be included per WP:BLP. Right now, however, we seem to be talking in circles. What is the path of action required for us to move forwards together to get this information back into the article? 50.79.5.81 (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

A court case would do it. Major coverage in the media as per Weinstein would merit inclusion of an "allegations" section. With the sources we have, which do not appear to constitute WP:RS,... I doubt it would get there. We could not include it without invoking WP:LBL Catfish Jim and the soapdish 21:39, 14 November 2017 (UTC)

This is indeed a very serious allegation, especially if true, but people of varying levels of celebrity receive unsavory allegations against them all the time - Page himself is no stranger to that, if his troubled relationship with fellow songwriters spanning many years is any indication. However, what we're not seeing - and have repeatedly asked for - is "[the] allegation made in multiple sources". You, dear IP editor, insist that this condition has been fulfilled, but we find it has not. It has been stated that there were many eyewitnesses, but we have yet to find them and all we have is the vague attribution along the lines of "many eyewitnesses". The veracity of the claimant has also been called into question, though I would definitely like a source for the claim that she made any such claim against David Bowie. Going back to my original point, for this claim to be included in the article we would need proof that 1) it made a notable, substantial impact on the subject's life or career, and 2) it's not just among the noise of claims that have no doubt been made over the years. Someone tried to sue Justin Bieber over the writing of the song "Somebody to Love", but the suit is not mentioned in the article because it has never been proven to truly matter for the subject at hand. It is not in dispute that such an allegation was made against Bieber, but if I recall correctly it was dismissed, and we rightfully omit any reference to the suit on the basis that it never proved to matter. But these sorts of claims are made all the time, and whether we acknowledge them depends on whether this has forced any subject of our articles to do anything, e.g. Page getting dropped from promos because of the accusations. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 05:51, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Given the following, Hammer of the Gods absolutely should not be used as a source, nor should articles that quote it:

Richard Cole toured with LED ZEPPELIN throughout the group's late 1960s/'70s heyday, and went on to become the primary source for author Stephen Davis' landmark 1985 account of the band's excesses on the road, "Hammer Of The Gods".

When Jones later asked him why he'd exaggerated the group's bad behavior for the book, Cole explained that he'd been a drug addict who needed the money

• "LED ZEPPELIN Bassist 'Disowns' Road Manager After Biographies", Blabbermouth.net, 13 Dec 2007, retrieved 15 Nov 2017

Catfish Jim and the soapdish 13:48, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

Greg Osby

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

The information that is repeatedly posted on this is not accurate, useful or relevant. It is also offensive. Especially since these are unproven ALLEGATIONS. This information is libelous, defaming and potentially unlawful. Jazzjock251 (talk) 05:09, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

I have removed the information per WP:BLPCRIME. Not a wellknown figure and these are just accusations. The one source that was included is minimal. It is a small piece tacked onto an article about someone else also accused of sexual harassment at Berkeley. To be included in the article we would need much more coverage of the incident. The statement that he was fired was not mentioned in the source at all. ~ GB fan 18:11, 15 November 2017 (UTC)

It's been re-added, and I've removed it again. fish&karate 14:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

List of federal political scandals in the United States

The introduction was a bunch of gibberish. For months it’s been removed and readded. The article falsely claimed that scandals had to involve a violation of law, which is not true for many Obama administration scandals. A terming of alleged legal but improper conduct as illegal is a major BLP offense. That introduction is not worthy to be part of an encyclopedia. 2606:A000:6444:4700:59D0:5215:432B:C56 (talk) 02:15, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Vandals are still attacking this page. BLPEnforcer (talk) 18:03, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Sikandar Shaheen

Sikandar Shaheen was one of the most versatile actor, who had a masters degree in English literature. Sikandar Shaheen also appeared in a film Bobby (1984) which was a diamond jubilee super hit film with Sri Lankan actress Sabeeta in leading role and Javed Sheikh as hero. Mohammad Ali was in supporting role as well. Sikandar Shaheen died on June 9, 2004 in Lahore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muhammad Ashiq Ali (talk • contribs) 15:52, 16 November 2017 (UTC)

Where's the issue that anyone needs to address? You might consider taking it up with Wikipedia:Articles for Creation if you have not previously done so. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist ^{(Speak quickly)} _{(Follow my trail)} 07:51, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Mark Schwahn sexual harassment allegations

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

Whether or not the amount of content about the Schwahn sexual harassment allegations is WP:Undue needs some looking at. I state this because he is not as famous as Harvey Weinstein, Kevin Spacey and others affected by the Weinstein effect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:04, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Kept allegations, reduced verbiage and identification of so many other persons who are only marginally connected to the allegations. Collect (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks, Collect. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:00, 17 November 2017 (UTC)

An editor with all of 25 edits basically restored the excess material and I am officially banned from touching it now on the BLP issue -- so will someone please address the matter? The article again links to a great many people tangentially involved, and goes to more detail than the entire rest of the BLP has! Thank you. Collect (talk) 13:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Already reverted by Darkness Shines. Obviously the article needs to be watched tho. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

And re-reverted by the new editor who now has 27 edits. And I am still banned from touching it. Collect (talk) 20:20, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Why are you banned from reverting? Darkness Shines (talk) 20:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

ArbCom banned me from making any additional reverts for BLP reasons, and I am restricted to 1RR on all pages, and I can not edit or comment on or discuss anything remotely connected to "American Politics" on any page of Wikipedia whatsoever from 1 AD or so to infinity. Was the decision rational? No. But it was their decision, even when an editor wished on my talk page that my wife would die of her melanomas. And one of the evidence givers was ready to report me when I discovered he was a major plagiarist. I am not going to appeal unless and until some of those folks recognize that my BLP positions are what Wikipedia policies call for. But I sure as hell am not going to waste my life holding a "grudge" about any of this. ArbCom has the right to make decisions, and the obligation to live with them. Collect (talk) 00:35, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Collect, see the first letterhead quote box. I've never doubted your ability. I'm much more versed in PAGs today than I was back when your case was filed, and just wanted you to know that you have my support if you decide to appeal. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Pardon of Joe Arpaio

The following allegation or what our readers could perceive to be a politically motivated "legal analysis" has been challenged as a BLP violation, especially considering it strays off-topic about the pardon itself and attacks the BLP. It was removed from the article twice. The editor who is now edit warring to keep it in, Softlavender, said in her edit summary that the article is not a BLP, seemingly to justify the BLP vio. Pardon of Joe Arpaio is already a highly volatile article that was relentlessly targeted by a persistent sock farmer and keeping it free of BLP vios has not been an easy road to hoe. Input, please? ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:02, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a violation. SPECIFICO talk 13:14, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Not a WP:BLP violation as a couple of editors have already told you. By the way, you're edit warring to remove scholarly content: [2][3][4] - MrX 13:19, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

It's an RS-cited analysis of the Pardon of Joe Arpaio, which is what the wiki article is about and why we actually have the article (we have the article because the pardon generated too much controversy and analysis and objection to fit into any other existing article). The quote is actually a fairly standard analysis of the pardon and notes issues that were brought up by numerous legal and political analysts. Softlavender (talk) 13:25, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

I disagree for the following reason: the statement is riddled with noncompliant value laden labels and challenged as a BLP vio per WP:BLPSOURCE and WP:V because it contains "contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." It is cited to a "Perspective" which is the author's POV about Joe Arpaio, and not about the pardon. The headline substantiates the latter: The problem with Joe Arpaio’s pardon isn’t the process. The problem is Joe Arpaio. The inclusion of the author's unsupported allegations are highly defamatory which dismisses any ambiguity that a BLP vio exists. ^{Atsme📞📧} 14:43, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

• Definitely not a BLP violation. It's well over the line into silliness to argue that Wikipedia may not contain material of that sort. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:47, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: Since when is The Washington Post a poor source? Also, the Cornell Law professor's view is supported by links throughout The Washington Post article. Did you think that no one would check? I have to say, you are teetering perilously close to being taken to AE so that your repeated provably false assertions and blatant misuse of policies and guidelines can be examined. I suggest you reel it in a bit.- MrX 14:54, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Technically, as that is under their "Perspectives" by-line, it is an opinion piece, not a news report, which should be avoided in contentious topics for facts, though here it is being used for opinion and attributed opinion, at that. --MASEM (t) 15:01, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

So, not an issue - like everyone else (except Atsme) already said? It's not being used as a source for facts and no one appears to be suggesting that it should be. Fyddlestix (talk) 15:23, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

The only issue I really see with it is a bit of coatracking attacks on Arpaio by the selection of the quote that attacks Arpaio; the 2nd last paragraph "In other words, Trump pardoned Arpaio because of his actions as sheriff, actions that are consistent with the platform on which Trump campaigned and has attempted to govern. Those actions were appalling — and not only is Arpaio unremorseful, but Trump has actually held him up as a model to be emulated" is a better summary that should be included since it's the core of Chafetz' point - Trump pardoned Arpaio because his actions were consistent with Trump's values, in Chafetz' opinion. The source is otherwise fine. --MASEM (t) 15:56, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

Masem, thank you for your thoughtful input. I'm of the mind that in addition to WP:BLPSOURCE, there is WP:REDFLAG which also applies in this case. The value-laden labels are defamatory and usupported. Racial profiling is much different from being a racist, especially when one's grandchildren are of the race a BLP is being accused of being racist toward. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:28, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

"BLP" is short for "biography of a living person". Biographies don't have races. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 23:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

And pigs don't fly - so what is your point? ^{Atsme📞📧} 13:11, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

It was simply a reminder that the acronym BLP refers to the biography, not to the person. You said "... a BLP is accused ..." instead of "... the subject of the BLP is being accused ..." or just "... Arpaio is being accused ...". Not a big deal, but it is easier to communicate if we don't conflate the person with the biography. World's Lamest Critic (talk) 22:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

NPOV, one of three core content policies of BLP

It is unambiguously clear to me that the verbal attack against Arpaio by Chafetz who described him as a "xenophobe and racist" in a POV piece is a BLP vio, and I am dismayed that some of our veteran editors are not seeing it. Continuing along the same lines as what Masem described above as "coatracking attacks on Arpaio", I have listed the applicable policies I believe are unambiguous with regards to that quote:

1. WP:IMPARTIAL, which states: A neutral characterization of disputes requires presenting viewpoints with a consistently impartial tone; otherwise articles end up as partisan commentaries even while presenting all relevant points of view. Even where a topic is presented in terms of facts rather than opinions, inappropriate tone can be introduced through the way in which facts are selected, presented, or organized. Neutral articles are written with a tone that provides an unbiased, accurate, and proportionate representation of all positions included in the article. The title of the Chafetz "Perspective", The problem with Joe Arpaio's pardon isn't the process. The problem is Joe Arpaio, further supports my position. The spin-off article is supposed to focus on the pardon, not the character of Joe Arpaio which brings us to the next issue...
2. WP:POVFORK: A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. POV forks are not permitted in Wikipedia. The attack quote helps to confirm noncompliance with this policy as well. The article was created as a spin-off of Joe Arpaio by a blocked sock master. Much of the clean-up being done now is subject to WP:BMB policy as well.
3. WP:BALANCE which ...involves describing the opposing views clearly, drawing on secondary or tertiary sources that describe the disagreement from a disinterested viewpoint. A personal attack on Arpaio by Chafetz in a POV article is not a disinterested viewpoint.
   

One last point, the unsupported Chafetz allegation is contradicted by factual information about Arpaio, who is the son of immigrants, has been referred to as "a doting grandfather" of 4 children adopted by his daughter, each of different ethnicities, and his son's wife being Latino. I think strong political views too often create NPOV issues that may make editors less sensitive to BLP policy which unambiguously states: 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. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:15, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

The purpose of this noticeboard is to get a sanity check on your view after it's been rejected on the article talk page. If nobody agrees with your interpretation of site policy, there's really nothing to be done and it will be time to move on to other matters. SPECIFICO talk 16:28, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

You've expressed your POV and so has Nomo, and your arguments are not convincing, (and our past history accentuates my need for additional neutral input). Masem's view was impartial and he saw it as "bit of coatracking attacks on Arpaio by the selection of the quote" to which I responded. Nothing is keeping you tethered here, so feel free to move on to something else, and allow me to be the one who decides if my concerns have been addressed. ^{Atsme📞📧} 17:58, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Atsme: It's time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Kendall-K1, what? *lol* Why are you here? Nevermind, don't answer. ^{Atsme📞📧} 05:34, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

• Atsme, I think you're misunderstanding multiple policies, and then citing them very aggressively and refusing to listen to correction. You are misusing the highly inflammatory term "defamatory" in a way that suggests a great deal of confusion on your part. You are also confused about WP:NPOV, which applies to Wikipedia editors and edits, but not to the authors of third-party sources (which are governed by separate guidelines and policies). You seem to view opinionated criticism of Arpaio as abhorrent, but you cite opinionated praise for Arpaio (for instance, his "grandfatherly doting") as not only legitimate but "factual". This last issue suggests that you're bending policy to fit your pre-existing agenda when it comes to the article subject. Of course you don't deserve to be attacked by IPs/sockpuppets, and if I can help put a stop to that, then please let me know how. But you really need to stop posting, take a deep breath, and consider some of the things that people are telling you. We're getting into competence/WP:IDHT territory here, so let's turn the ship around before it goes much further. MastCell ^Talk 21:38, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
  • I commented above, but I think Atsme has a point here, though agree other points are wrong. When I read Chafetz's statement, it comes down to "Don't blame the process; blame Trump for valuing what Arpaio values which goes against Chafetz's values". Whether Trump's, Arpaio's, or Chafetz's values are right or wrong is not what we should be trying to discuss on WP. To that end, we don't need to address claims Chafetz makes towards Arpaio to still get to Chafetz' point above, but the quote chosen was the one that 1) didn't get to the core point and 2) chose the most "vile" terms to paint Arpaio here. That's a coatrack for a BLP. The source is fine, the opinion seems fine, but the means of inclusion were not correct per NPOV. Unfortunately, its very easy when it comes down to politics and identity/social issues like this that editors that feel strongly for or against issues related to a person, and see a RS that expresses those same points, and be clouded in seeing what is appropriate and inappropriate to include. This is happening both ways here with this article, Atsme's not helping much, but they are right that the selected quote raising many POV questions when there are more direct, to the point, but less BLP-ish quotes that can be pulled from the same source instead. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
    • Whether the chosen quote accurately represents the opinion piece is a question of WP:NPOV and editorial judgement. It is emphatically not a WP:BLP issue, and presenting it as such muddies the waters significantly and impedes an appropriate resolution. This is where competence comes into play. (Substantively, it seems to me that the chosen quote is, in fact, an appropriate representation of the author's thesis; it doesn't appear to be taken out of context, or otherwise used in a misleading or counterintuitive way. But again, this is a question of editorial judgement to be solved on the article talkpage, not a BLP issue, and Atsme's harangues here are thus counterproductive). MastCell ^Talk 22:49, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
      • Yes, it is a BLP issue. It's accusations from an opinion piece, and we have to tread very carefully with those. If the article was the BLP about Arpaio himself, then maybe they would be appropriate there, but we're talking about the pardon, and here, Chafetz's opinion on the pardon. What he thinks about Arpaio is unimportant to that, outside of saying how they align with Trump's (in his opinion). So there is zero need to bring in any of the accusing language towards Arpaio in this article about the pardon to still hit Chafetz's key point in his essay. --MASEM (t) 23:04, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
        • It may be a BLP issue, but it is no way a BLP violation. The BLP policy is not meant to shield public figures from legitimate criticism. Your view about what part of that criticism should be in the article may be perfectly valid, but no more so than the numerous other editors who have a different view.- MrX 23:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
          • Sourced and attributed criticism of Arpaio is perfectly valid on the biographical page about Arpaio. But it is inappropriate when it is not central to the point of the page about the pardon, which is more an issue due to criticism of Trump and the pardoning process, rather than Arpaio himself. It's a coatrack issue. Per BLP we are meant to write impartially and that means in this case avoiding quotes that coatrack unnecessary opinions that are not essential to Chafetz's argument. --MASEM (t) 16:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

MastCell, my focus is on the article, not the politics. Any use of contentious labeling raises a WP:REDFLAG for me, especially when there are other options to describe a person. Your use of "abhorrent" is a bit dramatic considering I'm a pragmatist, not a paralogist. From where I sit, competence is required for writing descriptive prose without using value laden labels. I came here in GF for input (discussion), and presented evidence to support my position and why I believe the quote to be noncompliant with BLP. I know we're not dealing with a BLP article but the person being disparaged is a living person and BLP policy applies everywhere on WP. I don't think we're as far apart as you seem to believe. We are expected to show a high degree of sensitivity where a BLP is concerned - you could say CIR applies to such editorial judgement. BLP policy unambiguously states that we must strictly adhere to NPOV, V and OR. The challenged edit clearly does not strictly adhere to NPOV and resulted in disparaging a BLP which is what made it a BLP vio. Do you see my point?

Arpaio is a living person, and NPOV is indisputably connected to BLP policy. Masem identified it as "coatrack for a BLP", WP:BLPSTYLE addresses the coatrack issue. He also said that "the means of inclusion were not correct per NPOV". I agree, it's noncompliant which brings us back to BLP policy. You said, "opinion piece is a question of WP:NPOV and editorial judgement." Yes, the way you put it is a bit conservative in my view but I will accept your explanation and say thank you very much. Quoting Yogi, When you arrive at a fork in the road, take it and we're there now, so here is my summary in a nutshell: noncompliance with NPOV that results in disparaging a living person (anywhere on WP) is a violation of BLP policy. A coatrack attack on a living person is noncompliant with BLP. I'm not wanting to get anyone in trouble for reverting or insisting it be included - I just want the quote removed. Calling someone a racist and xenophobe is far from showing a "high degree of sensitivity to a BLP", particularly when there is no proof that he is racist (per his own family structure) or a xenophobe - his parents are Italian immigrants (Latin). Oh, the irony! That is what I tried to demonstrate above. I'm appreciative of the input from you and Masem - I thank you both kindly - and I hope you can get the sock farm fenced in and site ban the farmer before he wears down all of our good admins. They all deserve a raise for what they've endured over the weekend. Enjoy your evening. ^{Atsme📞📧} 02:21, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

David Cassidy

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.

---

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

You have him listed as died today!!!!!! and he is still alive!!! I mean really? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.174.159.9 (talk) 19:22, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, he remains gravely ill. This has been corrected and I’ve semi-protected the page for 24 hours to protect the page against more premature additions of his death. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

• The page has now been semi-protected until 20 December. However, we are getting a handful of confirmed accounts editing the page to say that Cassidy has died despite a lack of reputable sources saying so (he remains critically ill in hospital). Extra eyes on the page would be welcomed.--Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

  This can be closed now, I think. RIP. fish&karate 14:29, 22 November 2017 (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.

File:Darwin Martinez Torres, murderer of Nabra Hassanen.jpg

He is only a suspect in the Killing of Nabra Hassanen.It is violation of WP:BLPCRIME to say he is the murderer or use a copyrighted image in the article under fair use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oathsparty (talk • contribs) 04:45, 20 November 2017 (UTC) Further the title :Darwin Martinez Torres, murderer of Nabra Hassanen is wrong he is only a suspect — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oathsparty (talk • contribs) 04:59, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

An admin has speedy deleted the file under criteria F7 (invalid fair use rationale) Neiltonks (talk) 13:29, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Mary Hayashi

My name is Mary Hayashi and I am a former California politician. I was told to post here regarding concerns about the Wikipedia page about me, which includes two dedicated "Shoplifting" sections.[5]

In 2012 I walked out of a high-end retail store in San Francisco, but had forgotten about a blouse, skirt, and pants (worth $2,500) in my bag that I had not paid for.[6] As a result, two years later my competition for the Democrat seat launched a smear campaign called "Mug Shot Mary" with its own website and promised to make sure everyone knew about the incident.[7] The current Wikipedia page says I claimed to have a brain tumor that caused me to shoplift, but I have denied this. The case was eventually dismissed on March 5, 2015, but by then the political campaign was long over and the press did not cover the dismissal.

While this incident was unfortunately a part of the 2014 political race, the Wikipedia page contains more than 10 paragraphs about this situation and two sentences about the entire 2014 campaign. I have been told this violates Wikipedia's policy here against an article that is "temporarily unbalanced" and that someone here might be able to help. Aunt Mary San (talk) 16:08, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I've deleted the section summarising (or quoting from) the personal statement; the section is sufficient without it. I'm not inclined to have the article discuss the denial of having had a tumour; Ms Hayashi could have (but apparently didn't) instructed her lawyer not to make statements along these lines, and it's odd (to say the least) to have a denial about it after the trial or dismissal or whatever. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm puzzled also by the notion that the charges were "dismissed"; the sources say that Ms Hayashi pleaded no contest, which contradicts the assertion of dismissal. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:05, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Shortened version looks good. I rewrite a bit about the election that seemed a little biased as well. ValarianB (talk) 21:01, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Hi All. I’m glad to see the section shrinking, but it still seems to cite a lot of op-eds and have redundant content. Hopefully I am not being too pushy – I respect Wikipedia’s editorial autonomy. But I want to bring a few points to your attention for closer scrutiny:

• The following sentence is cited to an op-ed labeled “Opinion Shop” and is redundant with another sentence in the section: ”During the campaign, Hayashi repeatedly denied that she was responsible for the shoplifting incident, again citing a medical condition and distraction.”
• This sentence is also cited to “Opinion Shop” and hardly seems neutral/factual: “Her shoplifting conviction proved too damaging for her to overcome.”
• It seems extraordinary that a biography on my entire life story and all my years of public service would have a dedicated section regarding a misdemeanor.
• The first sentence says I was charged with shoplifting. This second sentence effectively defines shoplifting and is somewhat redundant with the sentences before/after it: ”Prosecutors said that Hayashi had taken the items into a dressing room, put them in a shopping bag, and walked out of the store.” — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BD87:6730:B83D:9B02:61F8:9C65 (talk) 23:30, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

The reason it's covered in the biography is that it received significant attention in e.g. newspapers. If sources need to be upgraded, I'm sure that can happen. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:38, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Any such upgrading should be done right quick, because my itchy fingers are heading towards wholesale deleting anything sourced to a piece entitled "Opinion Shop". MPS1992 (talk) 21:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Ron Borges and the Boston Herald

The Boston Herald article seems to have been made into a WP:COATRACK for criticism of sportswriter Ron Borges, mostly introduced with this one-off edit a few months ago, duplicating similar content on the biography page. An anon tried to remove it a while ago, but was reverted for vandalism by Materialscientist. The amount of space spent on Borges seems grossly undue at the very least, and I have reason to believe the account responsible belongs to a rather persistent hoaxer whose work I’ve seen before, making me suspicious that the content is mostly fabricated. However, I know nothing about either subject, so I’m asking here for more eyes on both articles, with a view to removing (and possibly hiding) the content.—Odysseus1479 02:30, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the content. Neutrality^talk 04:20, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Janet O'Sullivan

Janet O'Sullivan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There was a recent article about the subject which suggested she celebrated the death of a pro life campaigner. It has been suggested on twitter that this was done to discredit her. While I suspect that some version will end up in the article on wikipedia about it the current wording and placement seems likely to cause pain and damage to an otherwise low profile individual who is currently not campaigning. The link to the diff is [8]. I would appreciate someone more experienced with BLP and low profile individuals taking a look and giving a recommendation please. ☕ Antiqueight ^haver 22:27, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Michel Chossudovsky

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

Fellow editors, Is this source[9] sufficient for inclusion of "conspiracy theorist" in the lead sentence; per this edit? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 00:52, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

You linked a Google search of the author's name, I think you meant to link the book? Greenwood is an academic press and that source is peer-reviewed, I don't see why not. It's not exactly an extraordinary claim, it's well documented that Chossudovsky subscribes to and promotes a number of well-known conspiracy theories. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Right you are (w.r.t the link). I have amended it in the comment above. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

@Fyddlestix: Where is the peer review documented? - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:20, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

I'll try to find a link to document that, but: Greenwood is a well established and generally well-regarded academic press, I'd be very surprised if they publish anything that isn't reviewed. Fyddlestix (talk) 01:33, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Thanks. Appreciate it. I note that the imprint on the book itself is Praeger, which is part of the same ABC-CLIO group; so not affecting of the general well-regarded-ness. There is a distinction between "reviewed" and "peer-reviewed"; the latter a technical term with a specific meaning. (Even in the "what I did on my holidays" world of some fields.) I would concur that it is unlikely for the book to be un-"reviewed"; I do think it is unlikely to be "peer reviewed", simply because it is not a research paper. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 01:41, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

The author of the source is a politics reporter and former fellow of the Shorenstein Center at the Harvard Kennedy School. The press is reputable. Furthermore, this source, even though it is RS, is not even necessary. Literally half the Chossudovsky page is about the conspiracy theories that Chossduvosky personally promotes or that his conspiracy website promotes. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 01:09, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

There are numerous sources in that article that amply justify the description of "conspiracy theorist". Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:42, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Cullen, just to confirm, conspiracy theorist is a derogatory term, see the lede of Conspiracy theory. WP:LABEL states that value laden labels (my underline) may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject, in which case use in-text attribution.^{Atsme📞📧} 14:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

• Ryk72, the question isn't whether the source you give is sufficient. Even if it isn't, we can simply summarise what is in the body of the article, which is more than enough to use "conspiracy theorist" as a core description. Given the feedback already supplied here, I will reinstate it. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Claims in ledes don't need sources; ledes should summarise articles and the article itself should have sources, which this one does. That book is clearly RS - written by an academic, published by an academic press. Praeger is a predominantly academic press, now owned by Greenwood Publishing Group so it was almost certainly peer reviewed; the book has a reasonable number of scholarly citations and reviews in scholarly journals. And I'm sure it would be no problem to find and add numerous additional reliable sources backing up the term in the article. BobFromBrockley (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

That is normally the case. However the WP:BLP has a separate requirement that "any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation" - this applies to the lede as well for biographies of living people. No exceptions. In practice this means biographies generally follow the 'doesn't need an inline cite if its something uncontentious', but any contentious label gets an inline citation. Only in death does duty end (talk) 15:02, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

To add to what Oid stated, it requires in-text attribution which I explained above, just below Cullen's comment. ^{Atsme📞📧} 16:45, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

So we should list all the people who have described him as a conspiracy theorist? That seems like an unattractive way of writing... I also think it matters that the article doesn't tell us there are people who dispute the idea that he is a conspiracy theorist. Why on earth is this in doubt?? Nomoskedasticity (talk) 17:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

We really need to get that policy clarified - this is exactly the same issue that came up in the recent rfc at Jared Taylor (where attributing it would make the article into a laundry list of "x, y, z, c, s, h, and w all describe this person as..."). Note that the consensus there was ultimately to use the label without attributing it. Probably something that needs case by case evaluation, but I don't think that policy should necessarily prohibit calling a spade a spade when very large numbers of RS agree that it is one. Fyddlestix (talk) 18:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Uhm, just pick your most RS, attribute the value laden label using inline text attribution and be done with it. You can add 1 or 2 other third party RS that support it. It's really very simple to do it correctly. ^{Atsme📞📧} 20:15, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

WP:FALSEBALANCE - that creates the impression that it is the view of only one or two sources when in reality the view is widely held and the characterization treated as factual by RS. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:23, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

No. You dont need to overcite. The lede is still a summary of the body. If it has multiple cites in the body that describe him as a conspiracy theorist you just pick the strongest one for the inline in the lede to satisfy the BLP requirements. Its not creating any false balance as there are plenty in the article. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Unfortunately, this reasonable line of policy and logic is what leads to the disconnect of such labels in the lede and body in a properly developed BLP article. Take a person such as this guy who clearly is regularly called a conspiracy theorist in sources. In the body of a proper BLP, we'd start with their early life, their career, and then likely move on to criticism of his views and opinions, at which point we could include the laundry list of sources that describe his as a conspiracy theorist, with appropriate inline attribution (even if it as simple "He is frequently considered a conspiracy theorist by the media", without having to name all names. This is all well as good. We would not include these claims earlier before introducing his career because narratively it would not make sense 99% of the time - someone usually becomes labeled as a theorist due to the path their career takes, not because they set off in life to become one. So in the body, we're in good shape, no issues.

But then suddenly, this approach completely changes for the lede, per arguments presented above. We suddenly focus on calling a spade a spade, rather than follow the same logical flow that the body developed (career path and then criticism/labeling). And while I would agree that as long as we have the body well sourced that we don't need the lede to be sourced, this suddenly "reordering" of importance, particularly when we're talking broadly-shared criticism rather than 100% factual data, is problematic and will make it harder for people seeking the citations for the "conspiracy theorist" claims to find them. Arguably, this is one of the ultimate forms of POV pushing, even if that POV equates to the near majority public opinion about someone. The court of public opinion is not a reliable source, effectively. I know I've argued many times on this before and I don't want to repeat myself, but when it is phrased in the context of how we need sources in the body and the ability to leave sources out of the lede, the issue takes on a new light that shows this as a serious BLP/POV problem. To stress: in cases like this, its not an issue of having the claims of things like "conspiracy theorist" in the lede (as long as sourced in body), just the fact that editors want to strive to push those aspects out as the first sentence rather than focusing on the 100% factual "who, what, and where" parts of a BIO that nearly all other biographical articles are written to. --MASEM (t) 20:55, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Eloquent explanation, Masem. ^{Atsme📞📧} 00:02, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @ OID, I'm not sure we're discussing the same thing here. I agree with what you wrote about needing citations above, my issue is with textual attribution (ie, a lede that says "BuzzFeed has called Joe a conspiracy theorist" when in reality 40 major newspapers and multiple academic works agree that he is a conspiracy theorist, and no or very few sources contest that). My point is that there's a point where that policy reaches a reductio ad absurdum that should really be fixed. Fyddlestix (talk) 20:58, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Reading that (yes, very confusing) policy line, "in-text attribution" could just be "by multiple sources" or something like that. Volunteer Marek  06:31, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

But honestly, even that isn't necessary. When something is the main reason someone's notable, and is described as such by so many sources, common sense argues against attribution. This appears to be a misapplication of the policy, along with a good bit of WP:WIKILAWYER thrown in. Volunteer Marek  06:33, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

The problem extends from the fact that the person is notable for what other people think about them, which is not a factual element ("X is a conspiracy theorist" is a statement of opinion; "Most source think X is a conspiracy theorist" is a statement of fact). Nowhere else on WP do we start an article (BLP or otherwise) with a non-factual statement. In no case of a first sentence in a lede do we talk about how great certain past world leaders have been, how terrible and vile that dictators and warmongers in the past have been, how well a creative work has been taken, how poorly taken the worst movie flops have been, how successufl a business has been, etc - except on this slim subject area of BLP articles of people and entities linked to the alt/far-right of late. I can fully understand why it seems sensible from "common sense" that we should lede off with that - the bulk of the media talks poorly of these people, we should reflect that, etc. etc. but that's ignoring the situation of the media today where there is no separation of fact and opinion. WP:RECENTISM is very important to keep in mind here. We bury our heads to the problem when we say its okay to consider the court of public opinion as "factual" to put these opinions front and center before any other non-disputed factual elements have been laid out. As a non BLP example. take Ishtar (film). It's claim to fame is being one of the worst films ever made. Does the article lede off with that? No - it gets past the facts (type of film, when released, who starred, who made, what the development was) and then introduces this worst-film-ever element by the last part of the lede. Same with these BLPs. Get a few sentences past the non-controversial facts that is written in a disinterested and inpartial tone, and then you're in the clear to establish why that person is really notable, if those core facts are not the reason why. There is zero policy or guideline that requires the lede sentence to establish notability, only that the lede at some point needs to state the reason for notability. But pushing these types of opinions to the first sentence is pretty much a POV against BLP that only occurs in this subset of articles, and it is inexcusable for us being an impartial work as well as against core policy. --MASEM (t) 07:12, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

James McEnteer, in the highlighted excerpt from Shooting the Truth: The Rise of American Political Documentaries, appears to suggest that Michel Chossudovsky's view is correct. The term conspiracy theory implies falsity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotyacd (talk • contribs) 21:01, 22 November 2017 (UTC) The article is transparently biased even if its one-sided assertions are supported by equally biased though conventionally accepted sources. In fact, as evident from some of the very material presented in the article, Michel Chossudovsky is an accomplished member of the academy who has dedicated himself to the pursuit of knowledge which is suppressed in the academy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dotyacd (talk • contribs) 22:07, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Emmerson Mnangagwa - "President (designate)"

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

People keep adding to Emmerson Mnangagwa's infobox that he is "President (designate)". As far as I can see we have no source saying this is the case - ZANU-PF sources have said they expect him to be made president on Friday, but an expectation doesn't seem to me to constitute a formal post that should be in an infobox. (Zimbabwe simply has the position as 'vacant'). I'm out of reverts, largely to IP editors, so thought I'd see if anyone else thought this was an issue. TSP (talk) 13:14, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Who's Who scam

[10] — please chime in. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:05, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Also [11]. Tgeorgescu (talk) 20:08, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

Draft:Trump and Hitler

• Draft:Trump and Hitler (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Eyes welcome, —PaleoNeonate – 03:28, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that opus was created by User:Kingshowman. It should be G5ed.- MrX 04:06, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Deleted, user blocked. Acroterion (talk) 04:11, 23 November 2017 (UTC)

Hm, how about something like Nazi-references in politics? I think there´s some amount of at least primary sources. ;-) Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:03, 23 November 2017 (UTC)