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.

Using 'Legacy' for still active living entertainers

I recently got into a dispute at Madonna (entertainer) over the use of the term 'Legacy' instead of 'Impact' as a section title in the BLP. I tried to quote consensus from a previous discussion at Talk:Rihanna#RfC about exactly the same issue. I argued there that dictionaries generally define 'legacy' as something inherited from the past. I was informed that consensus at Rihanna has nothing to do with the article on Madonna.[1]

Hence I'ld like to establish consensus here for BLPs in general. Please let me know if this is not the right forum.

RfC: Use of the term 'Legacy'

Should the term 'Legacy' be used for the contributions and impact of living entertainers, personalities, etc, who are still active in their field?

• A: The term 'Legacy' is appropriate for anyone who has a significant impact.
• B: The term 'Legacy' is appropriate for people who have not been active for some time.
• C: The term 'Legacy' is appropriate for people who have passed away.

LK (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• C Per especially definition 2 on M-W. It implies something the dead have left us, their long term impact. I'm not sure why the word is preferable to impact though - legacy sounds more flowery and value-laden to me. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• B to A - provided WP:RS refer to the person's legacy - per m-w definition 2 - "something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past the legacy of the ancient philosophers The war left a legacy of pain and suffering." - past does not mean dead - it could mean a movie star no longer or active or perhaps in the wane of their career. However, I think the question we should be asking is whether RSes refer to a person's legacy - if there are strong RSes that do, then it is possible to refer to a legacy. For sporting figures - one often discusses the "legacy" (in sports) following retirement - e.g. Joe Montana's legacy - gNews "Joe Montana" legacy. Heck - we even have Montana discussing the legacy un-retired Brady - [2]. And Brady's legacy has been discussed for the past few years by others - [3][4]. I don't think this a BLP issue - more of a question of avoiding puffery (for dead or alive subjects) - this is a term that should be used only the most clear cases (supported by strong RS).Icewhiz (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• A because it's WP-practice and I don't see it changing (personally I think you've left a a legacy when you're dead). Like Bob Dylan (FA), Art Spiegelman (GA), Barack Obama (FA). For some reason Oscar Wilde (GA) doesn't have one, but that's WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• B or C depending on the time frame implicitly stated. "Legacy" implies "something from the past" so should not be used for recent persons or acts. Collect (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• A makes no sense. How can you assess the legacy of someone who has not yet died? And why are we using the euphemism "passed away"? Guy (Help!) 13:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Consider John Major. Twenty years after he left office and went into mostly-retirement, can we not assess his legacy?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think we can and it won't take long. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Very droll, Dr. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Lest we forget! Pincrete (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

That was a not inconsiderably important initiative. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I could go for some icecream. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• C (or B if they are never going to be active in that area again). Yes, we can assess the legacy of an ex-Prime Minister (who will never be such again) as the legacy of what he did whilst in power. Madonna, however, is still an entertainer, thus "Legacy" is not correct. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• A given how much impact those active can have (often lots). Lawrencekhoo, please stop with your absurd and completely unnecessary campaign to remove that from section titles of those who haven't retired or died. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Could someone have a talk with SNUGGUMS about being polite and collegial with other editors even if one disagrees with them about policy? Thanks --LK (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I know very well how to be polite as well as collegial when disagreeing with others. That's not mutually exclusive with criticizing others' actions as faulty or calling them out on a blatant problem. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• C' Makes the most sense, but an arguement could be made for B. A legacy should not apply to people who are still actively wroking in their field. AIRcorn (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• B and C though I would modify B to 'no longer active' (without the 'for some time' qualifier, which is vague and unnecessary). Especially in fields such as sports, where people retire very young, it is meaningful to speak of 'legacy' once they have 'left the field'. I'm sure sports writers are busy speculating about what Usain Bolt, S Williams, Ronaldo, Beckham, etc's legacy is - or will be - and the use of the term is meaningful, since their active lives in their professions are over/nearly over. This could be equally true of a figure like Obama, whose presidency might meaningfully be deemed to have left a legacy - though once again, as with the sports figures, the content is inevitably going to be speculation as to what that legacy will be. Using the term for a person still active in their profession is borderline 'puffery', since it implies we already know how they are going to be remembered. We aren't generally prescriptivists here on WP, but why use a term which is inaccurate, when other more accurate terms exist? The alternatives are even more readily understood - such as 'impact'. I presume of course that the use debated at this RfC is section headings and WP:VOICE text - not within quoted or paraphrased text itself, where we obviously would use the term used by the source(s). … … … "To evoke posterity is to weep on your own grave" - Though he doesn't mention other people's graves! Pincrete (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• C Some Wikipedia articles using the word wrong doesn't change the meaning of the word. Go with the commonly understood dictionary definition. Darx9url (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

What if sources use it "wrong"? Trump’s new effort to destroy Obama’s legacy is very dangerous, The Legacy and Lessons of Bob Dylan, Five readers offer their views on Madonna's legacy, her skill for reinvention and that new single. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I see "Obama's legacy" used all the time. However, an encyclopedia needs to use different words in an article summing up a person's life. In the article on Obama it would be premature. The man is just fifty-something and may be active for another three or four decades. Coretheapple (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Obama's Presidency is over - I think it is meaningful to speak of the legacy of that presidency, though not of the man himself. Ditto Blair, Major etc. Pincrete (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• C (Summoned by bot) While intended to be a compliment, the word implies that the article subject is either dead or as good as dead, per the definition "Something inherited from a predecessor; a heritage." If the person is still active in his field it even has BLP implications, implying the person is "over." There are so many wonderful words in the English language. Let's find a word other than "legacy" for living people. Coretheapple (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• A (Summoned by bot) you can have a legacy prior to croaking ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose codification of a brightline rule here: I don't often use this term (in fact, I think I may never have in my time on the project) but this feels like truly unnecessary policy WP:CREEP. This is clearly an editorial decision that needs to be made via WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and requires such a fact-specific analysis that any firm rule (even one of inclination) that is added to this [most bloated of all pages anywhere in project space] policy could never hope to address an approach good for every contingency, and will in fact only muddy the waters for the editors on individual articles. Some might say that this defaults my view to being closest to A, the broadest/most permissive interpretation, but I want to make it clear that I would not view that as terribly accurate; I don't think a specific one-size-fits all inclination towards any of the three options is appropriate here. Local editors familiar with the WP:Weight of the sources and the flow of the article are generally quite capable of puzzling out a pragmatic approach to questions like this, and BLP already constrains them (and clashes with other policies encouraging local consensus) quite enough as is.. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you given an opinion on whether this Legacy section in the article on Tom Cruise is appropriately named? And if not, what policy should be used to justify changing the name of the section? LK (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

No, reading through that section, I have to say that, were I an editor working on that article, I would definitely be urging against that header in that instance. But honestly, the section title is just the least of the problems with the section itself; it seems to be a random collection of tidbits that just didn't fit anywhere else in the article and were crammed together, without any connection, flow, or context tying together the handful of points of trivia--some of which arguably don't have enough WP:WEIGHT to be mentioned in the article in the first place. Clearly, this is an area which imputes a certain degree of subjectivity, but I can't say as those facts constitute much of anything that anyone would reasonably classify as "legacy". That said, this is an interpretation based on the current content in that section; I can very well imagine that enough has been said about Cruise's impact upon his industry that a legacy section might very well be appropriate for him, with better-suited content drawing upon the right sources. As to what policy should control here, I do see your implied argument that no policy is quite 100% on point. But even if the discussion might necessarily hinge on purely pragmatic arguments, I still think that in most cases the local editors can arrive at a rational solution in individual cases more expediently if they do not have to work around the proposed default rules here as a mandatory framework. Anyway, if nothing else, someone arguing against a legacy header in a case where they foudn it inappropriate would probably have at least WP:WEIGHT to draw upon; if anyone has a proper "legacy" then RS have probably described their notability in such terms, and provided some guideposts for which accomplishments/streams of influence qualify.

In any event, that is, of course, a very separate and more specific question than the one being asked in this discussion. FYI, even if you get an endorsement for this proposal (and I hope the need will be rethought before this goes much farther, but even if you do...) you are still going to need to re-introduce it at the talk page for the policy to be changed, and probably also publicize it via WP:VPP, WP:CD, or another central community space, per the usual approach to modifying policy pages. But maybe I am unaware of a habit of BLP-policy changes to originate here before moving to the talk page? Snow ^{let's rap} 07:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not proposing any changes to policy or guideline about this issue. I do agree that adding something as trivial as this to a policy page would be policy creep. I'm just trying to establish community consensus that in most cases, it would be in appropriate to use "legacy" to describe the impact of people still active in their field. LK (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see, my mistake--thank you for that clarification. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• C WP:Use plain English sums up my view on the proper use of language. The word 'Legacy' has a clear dictionary definition (which can be seen from my survey of dictionary entries) – it is an inheritance handed down from the past. Many fans have decided that it sounds nice, and have inserted it into articles where it's not appropriate. Including it in our articles violates WP:PEACOCK and WP:BLPSTYLE as articles are supposed to neutrally and factually describe a person and their achievements. This word is only being used for it's connotation that the person has made great achievements. Without the positive associations, this term would not be pushed by the fans (and perhaps paid editors) who patrol the celebrity pages. LK (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

Could someone uninvolved please write a brief conclusion based on guideline, and close this RfC? Thanks very much, LK (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Mike Lester

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

Since at least 2010, various IPs and new editors have been trying to add/delete material regarding an alleged arrest, and a cartoon Mike Lester created about Barack Obama[5]. In the past I've removed them as BLP violations, but an experienced editor has now restored the edits, so I thought it would be better to bring the issue here. I know nothing of Lester or the veracity of claims being made, and would prefer to take the article off my watchlist if possible. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:54, 17 May 2018 (UTC)

The assault is reliably sourced, the cartoon controversy not so much, I would say. Guy (Help!) 13:00, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

So what would you recommend? Jayjg ^(talk) 16:10, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Guy or anyone else, I'm looking for advice here. Jayjg ^(talk) 22:36, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

Jayjg: I have taken out both allegations while this discussion takes place. Even if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the subject of the biography is a well known public figure, these allegations do not appear to have been documented among multiple, reliable third-party sources and therefore must be left out. In the event the subject of this biography can be shown to be a low profile individual and not a public figure, then WP:BLPCRIME would require that these allegations be excluded as well. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 05:33, 8 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. Given the fact the IPs have been regularly adding this information to his bio for almost 8 years now, I propose it be semi-protected indefinitely. Anyone here object? Jayjg ^(talk) 22:22, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

No objections from me there. — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 18:06, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Rockin' Rebel: Dead or alive?

Bit of a tussle between sources and doubt at Talk:Rockin' Rebel. Also a subplot about professional wrestling integrity versus police authority in America, and a marital murder mystery complicating what (I assume) would've otherwise been a straighforward reflection of the exact same reporters' reports, rather than a locked-down article. Strange case with potential for strange precedent, but a rather obscure celebrity, so I invite the board to ponder it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, June 3, 2018 (UTC)

Fiona Bruce

Can anyone please review and comment at Talk:Fiona_Bruce#Unilever? It isn't really a legal issue but people are editing the article and ignoring its talk page. - Sitush (talk)

Luan Peters

The article for Luan Peters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) is having her death date added. Unfortunately the only ref I can find for this is a facebook posting. If anyone can find a WP:RS that would be most helpful. MarnetteD|Talk 13:58, 12 June 2018 (UTC)

I wasn't able to find anything yet either. I'll continue to search the next couple days to see if a RS can confirm. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you Meatsgains. MarnetteD|Talk 09:49, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Meatsgains would you or any other editor who sees this take a look at the talk page. The editor has added a copy/paste of a mention of her death but I don't know if it meets the policy for inclusion in the article. Regards. MarnetteD|Talk 16:02, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Santa Fe High School shooting

Should the name of the suspect in the Santa Fe High School shooting be published on Wikipedia? --Jax 0677 (talk) 02:50, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes, it's mentioned by sufficient reliable sources. GiantSnowman 07:38, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• Reply - @GiantSnowman:, even if it is a juvenile, in particular who has not yet been convicted? --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:05, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. NPOV, BLP and verification do apply, however. Just the facts, please, stated neutrally. - Donald Albury 13:17, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

• See WP:CRIME. This seems to fit the bill for including the suspect's name. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 13:34, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Neil Gross

I have removed a section from the Neil Gross article on BLPREMOVE grounds, as it was a collection of statements made by the author on a podcast, sourced only to that podcast with no secondary source verification of prominence. The entire article is overburdened with primary sources, which I've tagged it for, but the section was particularly controversial. This removal has already been reverted before by fans, so I ask for uninvolved editors to evaluate and comment per our sourcing requirements for BLPs. --Netoholic @ 16:44, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm very glad that Netoholic opened this BLPN discussion, because I logged in today thinking that if he hadn't, I would have. I think that it will be helpful to other editors to see specific diffs of what has been going on here. At Neil Gross, Netoholic removed a section in which Gross' views on his main area of notability, as he expressed them himself, were presented, sourced to what he, himself, had said in a podcast: [6]. I'm pretty sure that there has been no controversy over whether Gross actually said it (he did), and that it's representative of his views overall, and that it does not contain anything disparaging of anyone else, beyond Gross simply stating his position in some academic debates where he disagrees with others. Insofar as I can tell, the rationale was that, because the podcast is a primary source, that makes it a BLP violation.

Other editors have disagreed with this removal, and there has been an edit war: [7], [8], [9], [10].

This occurs simultaneously with a content dispute at Political views of American academics, where Netoholic has been arguing that Gross's academic views should be greatly downplayed: [11], [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17].

When I look at WP:BLP, it looks to me like the applicable part is where it says: Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that:... relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP, except that the argument made by Netoholic ignores the part that says "unless written by the subject of the BLP". --Tryptofish (talk) 18:14, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is here...does User:Netoholic think that this academic expert is not reliable? or that his podcast is not reliable?--Moxy (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

For Neil Gross, as the sourcing stands, I would agree with Netoholic. The issue isn't that the podcast is or is not reliable, the issue is that it is a single, primary, source, which means it does not suffice to show that this is Gross's main area of notability. Even if he says it is - a person isn't always known for what he wants to be known for! So dedicating half the article to one podcast is way too much weight. Find multiple reliable secondary sources that say "Professor Gross is mainly known for his study of whether academia causes liberalism", then it is a reasonable idea to devote more of his biography to that study; and even then, it shouldn't all come from one podcast, unless the podcast specifically says "this is a summary of my views". Otherwise there is the suspicion that this is just one episode of the podcast, and he may well have dozens like it that focus on different issues. --GRuban (talk) 19:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Gruban explains the concerns well. There is also a general concern whenever something is primary sourced to a podcast, youtube video, or other media which doesn't provide a transcript, in that it makes it difficult for a reader or editor to verify the content since it forces them to listen/watch the whole thing. There is also no transcript, so it is automatically unverifiable to deaf or hard-of-hearing persons, or those which are not fluent in spoken English. This means we cannot know if the claims used in the article are representative, accurately summarized, or prominent/important. Just because a person is a professor does not make anything and everything they say in any medium automatic for inclusion. They may be speaking outside of their field, they may be engaging in self-promotion. All of these considerations are reduced simply by finding secondary sources. Tryptofish brings up a related article, wherein the same problems are being repeated - cherry-picked, primary source material cannot be used in regards to BLPs if there is any controversy (and controversy is shown by the fact that editors bring it up for discussion). -- Netoholic @ 20:32, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

OK, I can see the point that GRuban is making. But isn't that an issue of WP:DUE, rather than of WP:BLP? In principle, I can see the argument that maybe this particular podcast is not really representative of what Gross has published, but in reality, it's very typical of what he says. I'm fine with saying that it would be better to replace the lengthy podcast quote with selected passages from his books and publications. That would be better, but there is zero reason to think that what he said in the podcast differs significantly from what would be on the page if we made that revision. Looking at WP:BLPSELFPUB, I can see how point 5, that the article should not be based primarily on such sources, applies here. But the argument here is very much about point 4, and there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity. We don't need secondary sources to substantiate everything that a BLP subject has verifiably said. So it comes across to me as posturing to assert that it might not be representative, so BLPREMOVE comes into play. The "controversy" here is not about whether this is typical of Gross' beliefs, but about how content at another page should be balanced between what Gross says about the issues in the podcast quote, versus what his opponents say to the contrary. Indeed, one could make the opposite argument: that it violates BLP to alter the page so as to obscure what the BLP subject believes, so as to give more weight to the BLP subject's opponents. Now, as for the WP:V arguments, those are just not correct. WP:PAYWALL says it's OK to cite a source even if it is behind a paywall, so it seems spurious to me to say that there must be a transcript, unless the audio cannot be accessed, and there is obviously no requirement that English language sources also be available to non-English speakers. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:11, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I want to note that I completely rewrote the section that was contested, reducing the amount of weight placed on the podcast, adding published statements by Gross, and adding positive evaluations of the significance of Gross' work by an academic expert who agrees with him, and one who disagrees. --Tryptofish (talk) 22:48, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

UNDUE doesn't really come into play until we have a set of reliable sources which are appropriate to use because as the guideline says WP:WEIGHT is determined "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources". Since this primary source podcast is not a reliable source, it doesn't factor in at all. I still have to ask why all the argument to try to keep such a primary source? The summary states that he's on the show to discuss a recent book, so there is clearly a potential that the content of the podcast is self-promotional in nature, and certainly not balanced by the presence in the podcast of a contradictory viewpoint. If the claims presented are relevant and prominent, secondary sourcing of both supporting and critical nature should be a breeze. If they cannot be located, then that is evidence that these claims are not relevant and prominent. Trying to edge this source in by some convoluted interpretations of irrelevant guidelines is more work than it would be to find secondary sources. The recent updates are EXACTLY the same problem, all you've done is add even MORE primary sourced material (and AGAIN removed the section tag alerting readers and editors). -- Netoholic @ 22:55, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I added sources that are independent of Gross, that comment on Gross and provide context. Those are secondary sources in this context. I'll put the tag back if that will make you happier (and I only removed it once, with the edit I made). --Tryptofish (talk) 23:00, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I've inline tagged the primary sources you've added/retained. Find. Secondary. Sources. And don't cherry-pick praise from a critical review. Represent it fairly. -- Netoholic @ 23:06, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

You. Don't. Need. to talk to me like that. I've made some corrections following your tags. I'd like to hear from other editors whether the remaining Template:Primary-inline tags have anything to do with BLP. --Tryptofish (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

To make my last question more explicit:

1. Does BLP require a secondary source to say that the BLP subject co-wrote a book called [title], or does an inline cite to the book itself suffice?
2. Does every quote of what a BLP subject has said require a secondary source, when there is a reliable primary source for the quote and there are secondary sources cited that show that the quotes reflect views that are recognized as important views of the BLP subject?

--Tryptofish (talk) 23:35, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

WP:ABOUTSELF and WP:BLPSELFPUB seem pretty relevant here. Also Gross is obviously an established expert in his field, so his statements don't necessarily need secondary coverage to be used, per WP:SPS. Overall I agree with the edit summary here - the original content maybe needed a trim and a bit more sourcing (which tryp has since fixed), but there was no blp issue there. People are reliable sources for their own views, and there can be no doubt that Gross' views have weight here (he has written 2 major books on the subject, published by Harvard and John's Hopkins, both of which were widely & well reviewed in academic journals). This whole debate is pretty silly, there's no blp issue here. Fyddlestix (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, I'll bite. I don't know much about nor have time to study the subject, but, as a general thing: Although being the author of a book in and of itself does not automatically make one notable, for authors who are notable, bibliographic information can be obtained directly from their books. In regards to quotes, however, it becomes too easy to use those as a form of synthesis, cherry-picking only those quotes we like (or are significant to ourselves in some conscious or unconscious way) and disregarding ones that the author or expert in the field would regard as significant to them. Note: I'm not implying intentional synthesis, but the sort that happens without our even being aware of it. (The subconscious is actually hard-wired to fill in any gaps in our knowledge with our own imagination, making that knowledge seem complete when it really is not.) That's why we usually rely on RSs to provide the quotes and analysis thereof, rather than taking them direct from the subject. Zaereth (talk) 00:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, that's very helpful. As a follow-up to anyone who wants to answer, with regard to the point about quotes, is that need met by citing secondary sources that do indeed provide the analysis, indicating that the quotes are significant by referring to the gist of the quotes, or do the secondary sources have to include the quotes verbatim? --Tryptofish (talk) 00:10, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Primary sources can be used, but with extreme care, especially to modify a secondary source. Context matters, and it's very easy to lose that with quotes. For example, Dr. Ramachandran introduces a theory that a certain area of the brain (where the amygdala connects to the hippocampus), when subjected to seizure activity, induces a heightened emotional state that, to the affected, can only be described as "otherworldly". A large number of those affected undergo huge, temporary personality-changes during which they feel some extremely-deep religious connection. Ramachandran theorizes this area of the brain, which filters and compresses our memories based upon emotional saliency, may be the root of where these ideas of gods and religion were sort of hard-wired into our brain's some 50,000 years ago. Reading this, religious people go nuts, and start calling it the "God spot". Proof that God exists! Of course, they take his quotes out of context and --most unintentionally-- stitch them together to affirm their own beliefs, not realizing they are disregarding/misunderstanding all the science in pursuit of their personal "truth".

While most of these situations are a lot more subtle than this, it happens a lot. Preachers have been doing it since the dawn of religion, stitching together quotes. Imagine what the Donald Trump, Barrack Obama, or Hilary Clinton articles would look like if editors could add quotes willy-nilly. It's all about context. Zaereth (talk) 01:09, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Got it, thanks. But I'm really asking about secondary sources – do they need to repeat the quote verbatim? --Tryptofish (talk) 01:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Review the breadth of the secondary sources, summarize them. If there is a quote used pervasively, include it. Don't cherry-pick a quote YOU think is important, and then search through sources to find an instance it is used. That's backward. -- Netoholic @ 04:01, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Your claims about this supposed violation is really a gross misrepresentation of WP:BLP. Under your interpretation, it's basically impossible to put a subject's words into articles about themselves, since any source including a subject's own words is by definition a primary source for discussions about that person. Maybe this material in undue, or non-neutral, but it's absolutely not a BLP violation. You seem to be saying that no primary source is reliable, which is contradicted directly by WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, as well as by WP:PSTS and a whole host of other policy pages. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 13:43, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It's my impression that the answer to my unanswered question about the quote appearing verbatim in a secondary source is that it is desirable but not required by the BLP policy. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Policy and best practice

It obviously is important to adhere to policies, but it is also important to base this adherence on what the policy actually says, rather than on conjecture about how it might be interpreted. If an editor thinks that something needs to be spelled out in a policy, then propose that on the policy talk page and get consensus for it. Otherwise, it isn't policy.

Something can be "best practice" in writing BLP content, without being required by policy. Given the start of this BLPN discussion by the OP, it is significant to note that the central concern was in terms of WP:BLPREMOVE. (There is also an issue of finding reasons to remove what the BLP subject says while advocating for the page to include more criticism of the BLP subject by other people.) I understand and appreciate what uninvolved editors have explained here, in terms of validating quotes from the BLP subject in secondary sources. But looking very closely at WP:BLP, I'm not exactly seeing that stated explicitly in policy. I'm concerned here specifically with a quote from a BLP subject that is cited to a primary source, that also passes all five tests at WP:BLPSELFPUB: it's not unduly self-serving, does not make claims about third parties (beyond taking a side in an academic debate), does not contain off-topic claims, is unambiguously authentic, and the page as a whole is not based on just that. I'm asking specifically about that, not something else.

I get it, that it is much better, "best practice", to also cite secondary sources to confirm its significance.

I also get it, that it is possible for a primary source quote, as I have described it, to violate BLP in certain specific examples.

But does it fall within the scope of WP:BLPREMOVE, in the sense of being potentially libelous and requiring removal automatically? Is it something where the requirement of this policy is: remove it right away, look at possible fixes later?

I am not asking if that is what editors think is the right thing to do. I am asking to see the language quoted from WP:BLPREMOVE that explicitly states this as policy, if the answer to my question is "yes". --Tryptofish (talk) 16:53, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

What we are looking for is positive contributions not time wasted on deletion with zero attempt to present other sources. People familiar with the topic would be aware of this point of view that he has that is documented extensively in his works.

With zero attempt to help the article I think we're going to need an RFC for any further deletions. --Moxy (talk) 18:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

It fails points #1,#2,#5 of WP:BLPSELFPUB. It is self-serving (he's on the podcast to promote his book), it involves claims about others (prior researchers), and the article was almost entirely based on this primary source. This source is still pervasive, though, better, but still fails points 1 & 2. --Netoholic @ 20:05, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I look forward to hearing from uninvolved editors on my specific question. But I'll take up from your reply now. So your position is that it is self-serving because he is speaking about his position and explains why he thinks he is right, and it makes claims about other researchers even though no one is named and what he is claiming is that he is right and his critics are wrong. (And that the source is still pervasive because it is used a single time in the section to cite a direct quote from him. And your talk comments at the page indicate that you want to give high weight to his critics and low weight to him.) And you are then concluding that WP:BLPREMOVE comes into play as a policy requirement, because the fact that he explains his position in a positive way and argues that he is correct and his critics are wrong, makes it the kind of near-libelous misrepresentation of him in which BLPREMOVE comes into play. That's what we are dealing with here. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:04, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

No, I'm primarily saying that if you found secondary sources which describe his views, we wouldn't be here. But since you're fighting tooth-and-nail to keep this primary source, you should be aware of all the problems with it. These problems disappear if we replace this primary-sourced, cherry-picked, self-serving, self-puffery with multiple, reliable secondary sources - whether critical, neutral, or praising in proportion to the amount those views are represented. Every editor who incorporates and then fights for inclusion of obviously positive POV praise (and indeed self-praise) for this person demonstrates a lack of commitment to neutrality and sourcing. -- Netoholic @ 21:26, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Be careful about calling me a POV-pusher. I added secondary sources, but they apparently aren't good enough for you. On that basis, you are arguing that BLPREMOVE automatically comes into play. Because, after all, if the BLP subject engages in puffery (actually that's not the case), then that makes it immediately something for BLPREMOVE. I'd prefer to hear from uninvolved editors, rather than just going back-and-forth with you. I'm asking for a policy basis for invoking BLPREMOVE under the specific circumstances being discussed. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:35, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

You addressed me (" But I'll take up from your reply now. So your position is"), I replied. Calm down. -- Netoholic @ 22:00, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

• Short version: Netoholic is grossly abusing the BLP policy here to justify removing something it has no bearing on. Long version: A subjects own words are a valid primary source for what they think/may believe. They may not be true or accurate but there is no BLP policy issue involved that would make them unusable (unless they relate to specific name other parties, no generic 'I disagree with group of people' is not a BLP issue unless its a very small group of identifiable people). The main problem with primary sources talking about themselves is almost always one of weight or reliability. Is their opinion given too much weight despite being obviously wrong. Eg a fringe scientist biography has an extended section on why his pet unproven theory is obviously correct and every other scientist is wrong. Etc. Or where the subject claims something is demonstrably and provably incorrect. This may not be included at all, or it may be included in detail because it has had lots of secondary comment. But either way the subjects own words and opinion are still perfectly valid as far as the BLP is concerned. The rare exceptions are where a subject says something controversial that would affect them, then later on states that they didn't mean it, or they were unclear etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 11:32, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem isn't that it's the subjects own words, it's that we have no way of knowing if particular quotes have been cherry-picked by the editors using them to push a POV. If the subjects own words were quoted in secondary sources, then we would be more reasonably sure that the quotes are relevant and prominent. Since these quotes are contentious, using a primary source means they are poorly-sourced and should therefore be WP:BLPREMOVEd. Imagine if fans of any other contoversial figure created an article for them based on selectively cherry-picking quotes from their various interviews and presenting such self-puffery without secondary verification of relevance. It's never be acceptable. Quotes are fine when not contoversial and very limited, but if a concern is raised, then we must defer to using secondary sources. --Netoholic @ 17:22, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

None of those quotes are controversial in any manner that relates to the BLP. They may be academically suspect if anyone has taken issue with them. But that is not a BLP issue. You might have better luck at NPOV or RSN. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Quoting the BLP subject, quoting his critics

I find it contradictory to complain at this noticeboard about quoting the subject of a BLP, but then adding a long paragraph beginning with a sentence about his writings, followed by multiple lengthy sentences about critics saying only how bad those writings are: [18]. --Tryptofish (talk) 18:57, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Do you really not see the difference between citing what 3 (so far) peer reviews say vs. cherry-picking quotes from the author as a primary source? --Netoholic @ 19:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I promise you that I am listening to and understanding what you say, even when I strongly disagree. I don't consider the quote from Neil Gross to be cherry-picked, but selecting three highly negative reviews when there are others that describe Gross' findings as "may become the definitive source for understanding professors' political views" has an unmistakable POV on a BLP page (even if you intend to add positive reviews later), for which a far greater case can be made for BLPREMOVE than what you raised at the beginning of this BLPN thread. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:52, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

These 3 reviews were for the 2013 book and from among the most prominent peers which reviewed it, and the brief summary of those reviews fits the main themes of those reviews. That IHE article is about the 2007 working paper and covers just the initial reactions at the symposium Gross presented the paper in. It may or may not reflect accurately the preponderance of later reviews. --Netoholic @ 20:24, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

References

A day later, and the lengthy negative comments about the BLP subject are still on the page. Yet more negative comments have been added by the OP, followed by a very brief reply by Gross.

So it looks like:

1. What the BLP subject says, in his own words: BLPREMOVE applies.
2. Disparaging comments about the BLP subject, presented at length and with minimal balancing positive comments: BLPREMOVE does not apply.

--Tryptofish (talk) 16:07, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem, as I see it, is that you are looking for a black and white answer when none exists. BLPREMOVE is modified by every other part of BLP, which in turn is modified by NOR, NPOV, RS, and V, which in turn modify each other and are modified by BLP.

I took a look at the article, and first it should be renamed "Liberalism in academia", because that is what a majority of it is about. It tells me shockingly little about this person --to the extent that I can't even tell by reading the article what he is notable for." (Perhaps it should be speedied for "No indication of importance".) The majority of the article is spent either bolstering or trying to discredit his views rather than informing me, the reader, who this person is, what his views are, and why I should care. Wikipedia is not a place to debate theories, and the place to detail scientific debates is in the articles about the theories, not the articles about the people. In the scope of the entire article, we are giving way, way too much weight to something that needs only a brief, two or three sentence summary. The goal of this article should be to inform the reader about this person, and I think we've gotten way off track. Zaereth (talk) 23:42, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Zaereth, you mistake my comments for looking for a black-and-white answer, when what I am actually seeking to communicate is that the claims of BLPREMOVE that begin this BLPN discussion are actually just POV-pushing to discredit the BLP subject, because of his criticisms of conservative misrepresentation of studies of academic politics. I guess I have to be blunt now, so that there is no misunderstanding of what I have been saying. There is a narrative in US conservative politics, that US universities are bastions of liberalism and of discrimination against conservatism, and Gross is one of the most prominent scholars within mainstream expert research who have shown that this has been a dishonest misrepresentation of scholarship in order to advance a political agenda. But the OP wants to POV-push in favor of the conservative POV. He is going around from page to page to pump up conservative misrepresentations, and he has the problem that Gross is a highly notable and respected academic whose writings blow a gigantic hole in his POV. So he is trying to get Gross' views removed from various pages, and to further that goal, he is trying to discredit Gross himself. I'm sorry that you, acting in good faith, got fooled by that. But what we have here is the OP making a mockery of BLP with the agenda of making the BLP subject look bad. It's telling that, looking at the page, you don't see enough evidence of notability. That's not because notability is lacking (and no, it does not meet the criteria for CSD), but that's because the page has been disrupted for purposes that actually violate BLP. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Zaereth - Gross is more highly-cited for his Richard Rorty biography (a little under twice as many citations) than this 2013 book. It should only get a short summary, but the gratuitous, lengthy, primary-sourced quotes by Gross himself unbalance the section on the section so much that the external reviews also must be lengthy in order to even come close to NPOV. Note, I did not select any reviews based on whether they "disparage" Gross - I took the most highly-cited and prominent peer reviewers (ones Gross himself addressed in his "Reply to critics") and summarized their main points. That they were critical rather than overtly praising was not a consideration for inclusion. -- Netoholic @ 04:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Propose Close - OP's BLP concerns have been roundly rejected and the conversation has shifted to NPOV and RS. These additional non-BLP-related concerns should be discussed elsewhere. –dlthewave ☎ 15:15, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

But have they though? --Netoholic @ 16:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Yes. –dlthewave ☎ 16:27, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed This thread has gone on long enough with just Netoholic and Tryptofish arguing past each other. It seems to me from a basic head count that most of the other editors who contributed to this thread agree that there is no BLP issue at all. Maybe there are other issues with the proposed text, but it's more than a stretch to say that quoting someone in their own article on such a non-controversial topic could be a BLP violation. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 03:57, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

POV pushing

Since I've been accused of POV-pushing here is my response (taken largely from the article talk page):
The gratuitous self-quotes appeared in this article first, and Tryptofish failed to address them on his own. After this BLPN thread, Tryptofish then submitted a review with glowing praise (Hermanowicz), even going so far as to cherry-pick praise from an obviously critical review (Brow). I also note that in both those cases, Tryptofish's quotes come from the abstracts available on the public internet, not from the main body of those reviews, and he has yet to prove that he actually had access to the full reviews when he cited them. If Tryptofish doesn't have access to the full reviews, then he cannot claim to be representing those reviews fairly. Next Tryptofish "balance with criticism" by including a broad unsourced statement (yet still keeping the cherry-picked quote). Tryptofish's next big edit was to add what he thinks is confirmation of Gross's conclusion, but which in reality is WP:OR/WP:SYNTH since those should only be added in the capacity that they specifically address Gross's work itself, not in general terms. Tryptofish then did the same thing again (OR and SYNTH) in another section. Then, after actual, highly-cited peer reviews were added, Tryptofish WP:POINTedly tag-bombed them. Today, he has removed the peer reviews completely, and edit warred to remove them again. -- Netoholic @ 20:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Suzanna Danuta Walters

A controversy section continues to be added to Suzanna Danuta Walters that includes more prose than the rest of the article (less the Bibliography list). The section consists solely of details regarding a single Washington Post essay. As far as BLP and NPOV are concerned, the coverage of this single event in the article appears to be WP:UNDUE and excessive and I explained as such on the article talk page when I initially removed the content. As the section has been restored, and even expanded, without a single response to my concerns noted on the talk page, could others please review the section with an eye towards ensuring WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE are followed? --Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 17:56, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

The Atlantic article is already a source, and this quote might be a good addition: "It is always illogical to hate an entire group of people for behavior perpetrated by a subset of its members and actively opposed or renounced by literally millions of them." The editorial from American Enterprise Institute calling it "the most hateful, venomous, vitriolic, and reprehensible op-ed in history of WaPo" is hardly a reliable source for anybody's BLP (and is itself more venemous, vitriolic, etc. than the oped it condemns.) Those two articles seem the only coverage of this not-very-notable "controversy."HouseOfChange (talk) 17:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

Noblesville West Middle School shooting

I would like to request input from some users experienced in BLP issues regarding the situation with the article Noblesville West Middle School shooting. The suspect in this school shooting is a 13-year old boy. He has not been charged as an adult and the prosecutors in the case decided to charge him as a juvenile. However, the prosecutors did issue a public statement releasing the boy's name. In spite of this, most news outlets (both major ones and minor ones) withheld the boy's name, citing their own policies for such case because of his status as a minor and because he will not be charged as an adult. The only major newspaper which reported his name is New York Daily News (I can provide a link if needed). There were also a few local TV stations that did the same (a rather small number). The parents of the boy, at least thus far, have not been charged with anything and have not been identified in the media either. The question is what we should do in the Noblesville West Middle School shooting article regarding the name of the suspect. On one hand, the prosecutors released the name, there are some RS sources that have reported it, so, formally, the requirements for including it are satisfied. On the other hand, the suspect is a minor, will not be charged as adult, and the name, this far, has not become a significant aspect of the story because almost no new outlets have reported it. As I said, the parents have not been charged with anything either for now (e.g. in relation to negligence for keeping the guns unsafe or anything of the sort, and it is unclear if they ever will be). I raised this question at the article's talk page. A couple of users sounded in there with the opinion that the name should be included. One of them actually mentioned the name at the talk page itself, without providing the source. (This situation is definitely unsatisfactory). In any case, I would like to hear the opinions of the people here regarding what to do, in light of the BLP issues involved. Thanks, Nsk92 (talk) 18:31, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

I've responded on the article's talk page, pointing to the relevant guideline, WP:BLPCRIME, which says "For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured." --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, that is a good point. Nsk92 (talk) 21:26, 13 June 2018 (UTC)

Currently, the info box says the suspect is an "unidentified 13-year-old student", even though he has been Identified. One the suspect is convicted, we can put it in the info box. Until then, the entry is redundant.Caleb The Wipper (talk) 01:51, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

I am not sure what should be done if and when the suspect is convicted/pleads guilty in the juvenile court. But for now I fixed the info in the infobox removing "unidentified". I also added a sentence to the article, with a ref, saying that the prosecutors have released the name of the suspect but most news outlets chose to withhold it because of his juvenile status (I found a ref that gives this information without mentioning the name itself). Nsk92 (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Ivar Stakgold

Ivar Stakgold was an acquaintance of mine and he passed away on May 29, 2018. Here is a link to his obituary. http://www.legacy.com/obituaries/sandiegouniontribune/obituary.aspx?n=ivar-stakgold&pid=189267950&fhid=9473

I tried to edit his article myself but now realize that the category of living person needs to be changed to deaths in 2018. The obit has a lot of info that might want to be included in his article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.95.169.104 (talk) 15:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

I've cleaned the article up a bit, and formatted the obit as a reference. Feel free to add info from the obit to the article (use <ref name=obit/> as the reference.). - Nunh-huh`

Madeline Weinstein

• Madeline Weinstein (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Newly created bio with disputed date of birth. IPs claiming to be the subject keep changing the date, contrary to sourced content. Is the source WP:RELIABLE? I haven't found any others. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 02:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

This isn't the reliable sources noticeboard - that's over at WP:RSN - but considering their front-page news is reporting rumors from reddit about what people saw in a sneak peek of an Avengers 4 scene, I'm going to guess the answer is no. Without a better source, we can do without the date altogether. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:07, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Good. Thanks, 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 03:25, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Tom McKillop's article has been tampered with and interfered with

Chairman of a bank that lost 60 billion dollars in value, the entire page fails to describe his career in any way relative to the corrupt bank, glances over his questioning by MP's as a side-note, and is an obscure defense of his reputation as a chairman of a bank that lost 60 billion dollars in value after he sought work there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeinthetrees (talk • contribs) 03:48, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

The link to the article is Tom McKillop.

At the moment, the RBS section is largely a description of the activities of the bank's CEO at the time, Fred Goodwin, not the article subject. As Chairman, McKillop would (or at least ought to have) been aware of these activities but this article needs to concentrate on his personal involvement. The detail of Goodwin's activities belongs in the article about Goodwin, not here. Neiltonks (talk) 09:56, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Allee Willis

• Allee Willis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Songwriter Allee Willis lists her many credits as solely being written by her alone, when, in fact, she had co-writers on most of the songs. It is misleading for Willis to not include the names of all the writers on songs she takes sole credit for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:e000:6087:7b00:b0eb:1550:edd:eb41 (talk • contribs)

The Wikipedia article about Allee Willis should not be written by Allee Willis or her representatives. Much of the material in that article did not have citations to reliable sources, so has now been removed by a snowman. MPS1992 (talk) 18:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not uncommon for artists to use ghost writers, and, unless it is the subject of some well-documented controversy, it is not a very significant thing. We would need sources to show that. Zaereth (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Billy McFarland

I'd appreciate another set of eyes on this page move. To my way of thinking, this slips over the line into an actual violation because there has been a guilty plea, not a conviction per se (and not yet a sentencing). (The edit summary doesn't help matters.) Even if that weren't so, it also seems to run contrary to WP naming conventions, but I can't find any specific policy or guideline wording to justify moving it back. I also don't like the parenthetical "entrepreneur" as a title, but disambiguation is needed for the name. Rivertorch^FIRE_WATER 21:39, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

In the U.S. law a guilty plea has the same effect as the conviction in the jury/bench trial and makes one a convicted offender; that does not require waiting for the sentencing. However I do think that in this case the page move was inappropriate. The new page title is inherently non-neutral. Such a title, name(criminal), might be appropriate if the subject was only notable as criminal and disambiguation was still required. But here the subject has independent prior notability as an entrepreneur. I think that WP:NPOVTITLE implies that in this case a neutral page title such as Billy McFarland (entrepreneur) is called for. I would revert the page move. Nsk92 (talk) 22:11, 15 June 2018 (UTC)

Patricia Kennealy-Morrison

The page of Patricia Kennealy-Morrison has a lot of conflicts as all the information comes from the same source which is the author herself. There is disruptive editing by if the author is directly quoted in a book which she has never contested. The page reads like a press release and "her" opinions are not put in direct quotes. This disruptive editing extends to the page of Jim Morrison with the stories of other female suitors being ripped out by the same editor that is very active on the Patricia Kennealy-Morrison page. See the talk page of Paltryforhire (talk) 01:54, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

Feel free to check the third-party sourcing on these articles. Paltryforhire (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is just coming off a block for vandalism and edit-warring, and is now taking the edit-warring to usertalk.[19] Disruption by this user led to article protection and now some long-overdue cleanup is underway. I'd love to have help from those who respect policy, but these articles have attracted a lot of vandalism and low-grade sourcing that has needed evaluation. I have attempted to explain basic policies around sourcing and user conduct, to this user, but as you can see, it's not going well. Best, - CorbieV ^☊ ☼ 02:09, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

References

Shahid Afridi

I have tried to have Javed Afridi removed as the cousin of Shahid Afridi a few times now but without luck. They are not related but share the same surname. Please can this the rectified? I am Shahid’s UK Director for this Foundation and he has personally asked me to have this removed. Many thanks. Saima Khan — Preceding unsigned comment added by Saimaxkhan (talk • contribs) 11:27, 16 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem is that there is an article that says they are, https://www.dawn.com/news/1225464: "[Javed] Afridi – whose cousin Shahid captains Pakistan’s T20 squad". Dawn (newspaper) seems to one of Pakistan's most respected dailies. I can't find it anywhere else, so if there were a retraction or correction or any reasonable source that says they're not related, we could accept that, but we need something. Does he have a web site or use Twitter or Facebook, that he could post a statement on? Just something like "Unlike reported I'm not related to Javed Afridi."? Then post the link here or on the article talk page. --GRuban (talk) 00:32, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

That's the trouble with relying on reliable sources (not that I'm saying we should't, of course!) Even the most reliable source makes occasional mistakes but it's sometimes hard to find other sources to prove this. There won't be a published source which says something like "Javed Afridi, who is not the cousin of cricketer Shahid Afridi, said that......" so we have to try and initiate something like that suggested by GRuban above which we can then cite. It's the price of trying to make sure that what's on Wikipedia is verifiably true. Neiltonks (talk) 10:08, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Lana_Lokteff

Users repeatedly adding language such as "White Supremecist" and "Alt-Right" to the article. Lana is Pro European, not anti anything else (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFLbtkJ2hyw). White supremecy dictates that white people are superior to all other races; a viewpoint inconsistent with Lana's ethno-nationalist stance; that all races have a right to their own culture and homeland. Linking biased news articles does not carry the weight enough to warrant the obvious defamation language demonstrated on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.96.213.134 (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

This is well sourced. And the IP account is an obvious WP:DUCK.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:10, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Philip Davies

Can this edit be permanently deleted? The edit summary is a gross BLP violation. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 07:48, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

NY Times: "Person X has a history of making racist comments"

According to the NY Times, Rep. Steve King has a "history of racist comments."[20] Can we say in Wiki voice on King's page that he has a "history of racist comments"? Or do we have to attribute it to the NYT? Or are we not allowed to mention it at all? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

We follow the sources, so if high-quality reliable sources (especially multiple high-quality reliable sources) state something directly in their own voice, we can do so as well, so long as the weight accorded to the text is proper. Neutrality^talk 16:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

We follow the policies, so if WP:BLP says "Do not use controversial or effusive descriptions unless commonly used by reliable sources." then opinion of one or a few journalists won't support adding this. See also the prior discussion in the Steve King talk page thread. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:34, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

There is that "unless commonly used by reliable sources" part.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Here are some additional RS that describe King's comments as "racist", "racially charged", "racially inflammatory" and "racially inflected": Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:29, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

• NY Times[21]: "In Mr. King’s case, his eight-term incumbency and his own history of racist comments"
• AP[22]: "King is known for making racially charged commentary"
• Politico[23]: "Republican Congressman Steve King of Iowa has become notorious for making thinly veiled racist pronouncements about the threats of immigration"
• WaPo[24]: "King, whose racially inflected comments on subjects such as immigration and Western culture have drawn headlines for years"
• The Atlantic[25]: "Steve King has always made a habit of speaking his mind, and quite frequently his mind has been controversial, blatantly false, or outright racist."
• Roll Call[26]: "King is known for making racially inflammatory remarks."
• Buzzfeed News[27]: "Rep. Steve King, the brash Republican whose penchant for shocking, racist comments has made him a staple of cable news"
• Vox[28]: "Rep. Steve King’s latest racist remarks are far from his first"
• The Advocate[29]: "King has a history of not-so-subtly racist comments."

While this list of sources is really good and does establish "commonly used by reliable sources" I think we should additionally ask ourselves - what added benefit is there to Wikipedia saying it "in our own voice" as against simply reporting in a neutral manner that it is common for his comments to be described as racist.

As of this moment, we are engaging in what I think is admirable short-term restraint. We say in the lede "He has a history of making controversial[weasel words] comments." That's fine as far as it goes, because 'controversial comments' is true, and is neither positive nor negative as an evaluation. Sometimes controversial comments are good, sometimes they are bad. Fine.

But we are at the same time here being too cautious, I think, in that we fail to inform the reader as to why the comments are controversial. Is he saying things that might be controversial in Iowa like "Gay marriage should be legal" or "Marijuana prohibition has done more harm than good"? No, actually.

So I think we should cautiously say something like "He has a history of making comments that have commonly been referred to as racist.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9]" Well, maybe 9 footnotes is excessive, but you see my point. We have more than enough to make the point that the reader needs to know, and I think the point is stronger than if we simply say, in our own voice, that he has a history of making racist comments.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 14:57, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

reference about a movie based on a person removed because of BLP concerns

I reverted the removal the first time explaining it needed a reference. [30] Then they removed it again stating: (→‎Film: The usa link fits this description: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous) [31]. Opinions please. Does BLP mean information in the article, or also a reference with a link to a news article that talks about the film? Dream Focus 16:06, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

It is indisputable that the movie is based on the life of this person and the sourcing is solid. I reverted, restoring the reference in question. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 17:46, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Victoria McCloud

The Wiki page is Deadnaming this living (claimed to be but unverified) transgendered person using very web sources which claim to be based on mainstream media reports which do not in fact exist (eg they mention a 'Daily Mail' article which does not exist), in circumstances where she has not consented and has not commented publicly about it, making this a very serious intrusion into this person's private life which is not appropriate and is contrary to policy which expects biographical material to reach proper standards especially where she has not even confirmed she is TG.

It reports a male name as if factual, and it is well known that doing so is harassing and can cause them to be placed at personal risk of harm and to be 'stalked'. Furthermore it against the law to do so in the UK where the subject of the article is based and where it is published, without prior agreement from that person and it is not stated that she has agreed (if there is agreement then please could an editor link to that in the page?). I have spotted that various random editors have wisely attempted to remove the reference to the (claimed but not properly substantiated) former male name but each time the edit is reversed. One editor even removed text referring to 'deadnaming' which suggests to me there is a real risk that what is happening here is simple prejudice.

Page is: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victoria_McCloud — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.179.71.99 (talk) 18:37, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

Hi: Looking at the references cited, these seem to be from http://www.vagabomb.com/Victoria-McCloud-UKs-First-Ever-Transgender-High-Court-Judge/ or https://www.latestlaws.com/uncategorized/first-transgender-woman-appointed-as-master-leading-judge-of-the-uk-high-court/ both of which refer to the source as the Daily Mail or Mail on Sunday (same paper) and the only linked source to the original is http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3435412/All-rise-UK-s-transgender-judge.html which is indeed ***non-existent***: this seems to be a simple error or misreporting and is clearly dubious and could potentially be a hoax. Suggest this is left out of the text given the strict requirements for good sources for this sort of living biography. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.19.64 (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

The name has been removed for now, and eyes are on the article. Per MOS:MULTIPLENAMES, "In the case of transgender and non-binary people, birth names should be included in the lead sentence only when the person was notable prior to coming out." Having said that, The Mail on Sunday is, while owned by the same people as The Daily Mail, not under the same editorial controls. I'm not sure that the rulings on sourcing that apply to The Daily also apply to On Sunday. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:40, 17 June 2018 (UTC)

My 2 cents worth: Imho the page now follows proper standards, if it helps here its worth being aware that in fact the Mail and the Mail on Sunday websites are simple mirror sites of each other under one web address (www.dailymail.co.uk) and the sole original claimed source is a nonexistent link whether you go to either of them and is not locateable on either site by a search. Hence I agree that the current removal of dead name is correct approach. This person also does not appear to have been a public figure or notable prior to the outing under former (potential) name, which from the article looks like it would have been decades ago. So anyhow I agree with the approach by natgertler and sorry not logged in with my username, am away from usual pc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.205.240.188 (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Amy Cuddy

• Amy Cuddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Amy Cuddy is complaining on twitter with what appears to me significant justification that her entry in Wikipedia is a mess of BLP violations. I'd like us to take a very good look at it. The concerns mentioned are that it contains false information and excludes factual information. There is also a claim that quality references that are favorable to her work have been systematically edited out.

Separately, but relatedly, she says "Current language silences targets, warning that reporting bullying may elicit boomerang effect. Bullying experts would be appalled." I presume that she means some current language on some policy page at Wikipedia, but I'm not really sure what she's referring to. If we do tell people that, we need to fix that immediately as it is against everything that we stand for as a community.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

There are multiple issues on that page. I've fixed a few of the most egregious issues. I'm sure the content on how failed replications of "power posing" are handled will need extensive discussion on the talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, it looks to be quite complicated. One hard part is that the combatants on the talk page are bordering on engaging in original research which would naturally fall outside the realm of what we should be doing here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I have the put NPOV tag for now till the issues are resolved.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem is, her biography is basically serving as a coatrack for Power posing the discredited hypothesis she co-authored (and note key word here is discredited, not 'unproven'. The co-author states the methodology was suspect in the first place and subsequent research has largely borne this out). Most of the neutral coverage of that is at the relevant article. If we removed most of the power posing related material it would be a relatively sparse bio. The problem with this is: subjects who do bad science like to have all the positive references on their biography, but none of the negative. This goes against our NPOV. So we end up with a bio that largely turns into a giant 'Subject did/said this - here are references saying they are wrong'. Which isnt really what an internet biography should say. It should be 'Subject co-authored a now discredited hypothesis Power posing' and thats it. Leave all the to and fro for the article on the paper itself.

RE reporting issues, about the only thing that is relevant from the talk page and the article history is that the subjects publisher attempted to make changes at one point and was pointed/asked nicely (and yes it was nicely for ENWP) not to edit the article directly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it quite unfair to say that "subjects who do bad science like to have all the positive references on their biography, but none of the negative", except to the extent that of course this is naturally true of virtually everyone who has a biography, a rather uninteresting observation. Invoked in this way, you seem to suggest that the subject of this article is asking for a whitewash, and that's a pretty bad violation of WP:AGF. I think it's a huge mistake to take on this kind of "gotcha" battleground mentality. The concern is that the article currently doesn't live up to our principles of WP:NPOV and that's not ok. It's further not ok to compound that with veiled criticism of the subject for asking for it to be better.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm reading Only in Death's statement a little differently. I think what he is saying is that these types of articles become focused on bolstering and subsequently refuting the subject's views or theories rather than actually defining the subject. (See, for example, the Neil Gross section above.) In many cases this may in fact be due to the subject trying to push their own ideas, while others work diligently to refute them, but I think a majority of these cases is between editors that have no affiliation with the subject other than a personal belief/disbelief in their work. A person's biography is not a good place to debate a scientific theory; those debates should be in the articles about the theories. For a biography, it is enough to simply state what their views are and link to the articles which expand on those views, which is what I think Only in Death was trying to say. Zaereth (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

If so, then great, and I agree completely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I took a look at her twitter thread, the article, and googled for some more information, and I don't see any information in the article that is counter to the information from reliable sources online. Of course she would be upset about it, she got viral fame for something that was later discredited over and over and over. This is an upsetting event, but it's really all she's known for, so removing it from the article would results in a completely untrue article. Natureium (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The squeaky wheel gets the grease. This whole approach, where someone complains directly to Jimbo Wales on Twitter that, as he puts it above, "her entry in Wikipedia is a mess of BLP violations," and then we all rush to the rescue, makes me queasy. Now that Jimbo has brought it to our attention and weighed in with additional replies, I think the community can take it from here without the founder's further intervention. KalHolmann (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Why can't Jimbo be just a regular human being and editor like the rest of us, working on what caught his interest and he feels is right? Zaereth (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales is not just a regular human being and editor like the rest of us, nor will he ever be. And for the record, he has not made a single edit to Amy Cuddy. None. Never. KalHolmann (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I see now very clearly what your problem is and who it is really with Zaereth (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

As an analogy, let's say the article on Joe Schmo says he believes the moon is made of green cheese. That's fine, because it tells me something about Joe Schmo. Do I really need a bunch of statements from scientists, celebrities, and "experts" from Saturday Night Live telling me how wrong Schmo is? What is the purpose other than to a.) prove Joe's theory wrong, thus protecting the world and our children from his outlandish ideas, or b.) to show the world just how stupid Schmo is? It doesn't serve to define Schmo, thus is really irrelevant to his article. That really belongs in the "Green-cheese moon theory" article, where I can go look it up myself if I want to know more about it.

I'd like to think this is something new, but it's not. For over 200 years the top theory in thermodynamics was the phlogiston theory. Old Johann Becher was like the Einstein of his time, and his theory enabled people to make precise and correct calculations. Turns out, it was completely backwards, but we don't spend time trying to prove that in his article. We simply state it link to the article about the theory. When Lavoisier came up with his oxygen theory, people called him a quackpot, because they knew that phlogiston was real. Thomas Young, whom Einstein regarded as one of the most brilliant men of his time, received death threats and was even attacked for daring to suggest that light is a wave instead of a particle. That is what articles like this often turn into; a battleground for people who either have something to prove or are just looking for that "gotcha" moment described above, when all we really need to do is define the subject. Zaereth (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not a good analogy. Everyone knows the moon is not made of cheese, so by stating that, it's obvious that the person has some crazy scientific ideas. This is more like creating an article that talks about all the things Dr. Oz promotes without noting that they are pseudoscience (which the article on Dr. Oz does in the first sentence). Natureium (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• The real problem here is the community's customary distaste for quack therapies running counter to the more recent inclination to believe women qua women and dismiss their critics as chauvinists. Watching this play out will be interesting. 199.127.56.89 (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Nice trolling, but serious people have serious work to do here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Comparing the version from 48hr before to now, clearly most egregious issues are removed, but this article represents the trend throughout WP that people want to include RS-sourced negative information about a person as high or as predominately as possible. The original lede here was bad, but the current single sentence lede still spends half the time focusing on the negative. We can't bury the impact of the "power posing" issue, but given there's a separate article for it, most of those details should be there on the separate article, and summarize her introduction of the concept, and its subsequent rejection by the scientific community on the BLP page. And this by far is a mild case of where past editors have focused heavily on the negative, which can lead to this improperly POV-ish BLPs. --Masem (t) 23:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Every time there is a BLP problem, we should indeed be rushing to the rescue

@KalHolmann: you say above that it bothers you that Wikipedia editors rush to the rescue when a BLP subject sends a tweet about inaccuracies aimed at Jimmy Wales, is worthy of further consideration. Do you know what? Any time a BLP subject is concerned that their article has -- in their view -- inaccuracies, then we should indeed all be rushing to the rescue! Wikipedia does not have any right to publish inaccurate information about living people, and it has been repeatedly proven that it does. If you have a problem with such errors being fixed -- regardless of who is publicly addressing whom and what medium they use to do so -- then you will need to coherently explain what your problem is. MPS1992 (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

about KalHolmann's user talk page

By the way, that's quite a talk page you've got there. I won't offer you advice because you've declined it before. MPS1992 (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC) I agree that when BLP subject is upset, we should take a serious look at the article. But, I don't think BLPN is the venue to resurrect past grievances against fellow-editors. Anybody who wants to hat this digression would do us a favor. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Discussing BLP policy on BLPN is not a digression. What past grievance are you referring to? MPS1992 (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Discussing BLP policy is great, I agree. Attacking fellow editor KalHolmann is inappropriate use of this space, IMO. Anybody want to hat this? HouseOfChange (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Attacks are not called for. MPS1992 (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Moving Forward

Jimbo Wales has found "significant justification" in Amy Cuddy's complaints of what Wales calls the "mess of BLP violations" that constitute her Wikipedia page. After editing that page 19 times over the past two days, with varying degrees of confidence, I propose the following longer-term remedy. Amy Cuddy should:

• register a user account in her own name, which is available.
• understand that per WP:BLPEDIT, "The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. … Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable."
• per WP:BLPSELF, open a new section at Talk:Amy Cuddy, identifying herself as the subject of this BLP and proposing further changes to be made by interested editors. Dr. Cuddy must bear in mind, however, that most editors are not scientists and will require simplified instructions in plain language suitable for content to be included in a popular online reference work.
  

In the interest of fairness, we could also offer the same arrangement to critics of Dr. Cuddy. I am hopeful that as long as editors consistently maintain WP:NOPV, this open collaboration will violate no Wikipedia policy or guideline. KalHolmann (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional, related complaints by Amy Cuddy

In introducing this section at BLP/Noticeboard, Jimbo Wales alluded to Amy Cuddy's complaints on Twitter of BLP violations. He also mentioned Cuddy's separate but related charges of bullying at Wikipedia. To facilitate addressing Dr. Cuddy's concerns, I have compiled a list of tweets from Amy Cuddy's verified account @amyjccuddy posted within the timeframe that she tweeted to Mr. Wales. After two days, most of her accusations remain undiscussed on this noticeboard. I encourage editors to address these.

• "Hadn't looked at my Wikipedia page in a year. Someone just directed me to it. Wow, it is a mess of false and defamatory info. Why is it okay for people to continue to vandalize by adding false information and excluding accurate information? Where are the actual Wikipedia editors?"
• "Let me add: Wikipedia has become a playground for bullies."
• "Hi, @jimmy_wales. Please make a clear, pro-social statement to targets of repeated @Wikipedia defamation on correcting record & protecting selves. Current language silences targets, warning that reporting bullying may elicit boomerang effect. Bullying experts would be appalled."
• Kelly Silbernagel @KellySilby asked, "WHY!! Why would anyone bully you in the first place?? I. Don't. Get. It."
• Cuddy replied, "It's fun? Makes them feel powerful? Righteous?"
• Kelly Silbernagel responded, "Ugh. Gross."
• Cuddy went on, "It's not just intentionally defamatory. It's flat-out wrong. I just—how is that allowed?"
• "Learning more: Apparently people have made correcting edits and contacted the people who unjustifiably deleted those edits, which only led to addition of more false and defamatory info."
• "The wrongdoing causes actual harm to people."
• "And miraculous, isn't it, how none of the publications that demonstrate effects of power posing end up on my Wikipedia page, like our 55-study meta-analysis?" http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797617746749?journalCode=pssa (Note: this publication has since been added to Amy Cuddy.)
• "I am just totally dumbfounded by how many false statements are included on the page and how much accurate, highly relevant information is excluded. I know, there are bigger things to worry about. But it hurts. Truth."
• "Well, this is just another topic to cover in a book on bullying. If you (1) have a @Wikipedia page that's been vandalized or that's included defamatory information, and (2) have found it impossible to get Wikipedia to correct the record, will you please contact me? Thanks."
• "If you look at the history, you can see where people tried to do that but they were reversed. I totally do not understand this."
• "I don't know who adjudicates when getting it right requires expertise."
• "I think of myself as a pathological optimist. No matter what, not matter how bad things get, I wake up the next day feeling that things will be okay. I'm feeling like it's time to abandon some of that optimism."
• "I would just like to be represented accurately, fairly, and concisely in the places that so many of us default to for basic information. And I would like other people and concepts to be represented accurately, fairly, and concisely."
• "People who want to destroy often do so with greater passion and energy and time than people who want to build. It's not an easy problem to solve, but If we want to see positive change, we need to direct passion and energy and time toward building."
  

Personally, I consider that last allegation especially unfair. As an active Wikipedian for the past 12 months, I've had plenty of run-ins with other editors and have fallen afoul of admins who do sometimes bully. But I've never thought of them (or myself) as "people who want to destroy." KalHolmann (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Abu_Sufian_bin_Qumu

This article is full of allegations without verifiable proof. There is one editor who insists on keeping these items and wishes to to re-introduce more unproven/unverifiable allegations. 104.249.227.78 (talk) 01:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I've copyedited Abu Sufian bin Qumu a little and toned down some language, but what's in the article at present seems to have have reliable sourcing. What specific statements do you think are not supported by reliable sources? Neiltonks (talk) 10:13, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Tyler Florence

The page on Tyler Florence states that he is on the board of Sun Basket. He is not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seantimberlake (talk • contribs) 17:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Philippe Parreno

This is a long term resume/promotional bio, that was cleaned up a bit earlier this month, particularly for copyright violation. Several WP:SPAs appear to claim ownership, and continually remove the much deserved maintenance tags. What's needed are several credible editors to trim the chaff and watchlist it. If I start to move on it chances are it'll appear like an IP edit war, and I don't expect to gain much traction. Thanks. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Declan Ganley

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

This article has a B class ranking by WikiProject Biography, and I'm not sure how. It was an uncited vandalised mess. I've cleared it up as best I can but someone with more expertise should take a look. (Disclosure: I wouldn't be on his side politically, though I think my edits were NPOV, do check through them. I also wish I was better at doing everything in a single edit instead of clogging up the history, sorry about that.)--occono (talk) 22:54, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

B-class awarded about a decade ago in this edit. Personally I would just re-rate it however I felt best, but, since User:Auric is still active -- Auric, do you have any thoughts on this? MPS1992 (talk) 23:15, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

That was a long time ago and I don't remember why I rated it thus. A C-class might be more appropriate. I should also note that citations were present before Occono's cleanup. --Auric talk 01:36, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I was maybe a little hyperbolic, but I was wondering if this article went *really* south since it was rated. Not nearly enough citations, and I was prompted to check after he tweeted making fun of mistakes in the article. I meant no offense, there was, uh, definitely some citations yes.... ;) --occono (talk) 17:46, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Determining noteworthy awards

I do a fair amount of work on BLPs and a situation I often find myself in is determining which of a subject's awards are worthy for inclusion on their article. I'm familiar with WP:NOTCV, but is there a specific policy, or some kind of criteria to help narrow them down? I feel like it often comes down to a judgment call, and it'd be helpful if there were a standard to adhere to.--FacultiesIntact (talk) 23:03, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I can't find any specific policy or guideline, but from seeing what edits stick: any award that has its own Wikipedia page sticks, any award granted by an organization that doesn't have a page doesn't. -Nat Gertler (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

George_Zukerman

Hello, I'm trying to update the page George Zukerman on behalf of George Zukerman himself. He has written a document with all the content he wishes to put on the page with a list of citations. Would someone be able to help me do this for him?

Comments on Cathy Young at Columbia University rape controversy‎ article

Hi All. Regarding this and this revert: Do we want to disparage a living person based on one article (even attributed), in an article not about them (Columbia University rape controversey), with the sentence also not (mostly) being about the subject of the article? Responses so far are on a talk section I started here Arkon (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Also another revert. I've asked the editor to self revert for now. Arkon (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Took it out again. Can't justify leaving what (I believe) is a BLP vio while waiting for a good faith revert. Arkon (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Either way, I'm really struggling to see how an attributed statement of opinion about a public figure constitutes a BLP issue. As I mentioned in my edit summary, Cathy Young is cited 13 times in the article and she's mentioned in text in 6 other places. Young's article prompted a response from Sulkowicz, and the Washington Post describes Young's article as the most extensive and sympathetic treatment of the accused student. If Young is not central to the story, it seems like we should remove some of those citations and in-text mentions. If she is central to the story, then it's reasonable to mention at least one author who criticized her work. Perhaps it makes sense to move the quote to another section, or to find another.Nblund ^talk 21:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)