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.

Kim Kardashian

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

Like I noted at Talk:Kim Kardashian, Liselanora (talk · contribs) has repeatedly added disputed content to the Kim Kardashian article. The latest version of the content is seen with this revert by me. The concern is that the content that Liselanora is adding contains material about a supposed enemeies list (in previous versions), feuds, rumors, includes some trivial material, and includes some poor sourcing. Before I jumped in, Vistadan was reverting Liselanora. I left a message on Liselanora's talk page about WP:Edit warring. If Liselanora read that page, Liselanora should have realized that the next best course of action was to take the matter to the article's talk page. Instead, Liselanora re-added the material. And I reverted for a second time. Although it makes sense to include some makeup and fashion material in the article, it should not be overly detailed and it should be supported by WP:Reliable sources only. Appropriate WP:Tone is also an issue. A "Fashion ventures" section was in the article, but it was recently removed. And we can see that it contained some poor sources (although it also contained some WP:Reliable sources).

Thoughts? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

I'll start with, this subject is really far-removed from the subjects I normally read. I don't know much about the subject, and I had no idea she did anything other than appear on TV and look beautiful. It almost seems ironic that she made her fortune in make-up, because from what I've seen she's one of those many women who look a million times better without any make-up whatsoever.

That said, the edit in question looks way too promotional, describing too much detail of her specific products and where "you" can purchase them. It's poorly written and, on top of that, it's written in the second person. For example, I was very much surprised to find out that her app was not only shut down for unknown reasons, but her sisters were also shut down, but not at all surprised that it would cost "you" a monthly fee to use it. It also surprised me that the widespread backlash against her "kimojis" was "released" by Kim herself, unless she created the backlash as a publicity stunt which the edit doesn't say. (Seems to me that the feminists would have done that.) That's just a small sample of the poor writing. I don't have time to go through all the sources to evaluate them individually, and did not go through the history to look for other questionable edits, but from what I have seen, you were most certainly justified in removing them simply based on the writing and promotional tones. Zaereth (talk) 18:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Zaereth, thanks for giving your thoughts on the matter. Liselanora asked me on my talk page if the content would be fine to include if the feuds material was excluded. But, as we've both noted, that is not the only thing of concern about the addition. I didn't even notice the second person use, but the MOS:YOU guideline is clear about avoiding that. I will point Liselanora to this discussion. The ping above might not have been enough to direct the editor, who is new, here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:11, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand, I'm one of those who never thinks to click on the little red box at the top of my screen. (Usually because I'm too impatient and start scrolling before the page has even loaded.) I'll look into it a little deeper when I have some more free time. Perhaps I can help offer some advice. I only had time to look at the one edit, but for Liselanora I will clarify that term "poor writing" it wasn't meant as a personal insult. The simple fact is that "easy writing makes for hard reading", and besides the second person, what I saw was a lot of sentences that had dual meanings, depending upon how you look at it, which can be very difficult for a writer to spot. And sometimes this duality can have unintended consequences. Thanks for your diligence, Flyer22. Zaereth (talk) 17:53, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

The editor is still adding the material, with superficial "clean ups." I'm either going to have to take this to WP:ANI or start an RfC on it. I do see that you recently posted problems with the material on the article's talk page, but, given the newbie that Liselanora is, Liselanora is unlikely to understand enough at this point in time to include actual quality material in place of the poor material. And Liselanora will keep adding the disputed content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Struck through parts of my above post since Liselanora's latest addition is about something else. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:29, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that edit before I posted at the talk page, but decided to let it go for the moment and concentrate on giving some advice. Judging by her writing style and communication style, I have a feeling that Liselanora is rather young, which is why I was trying to spell it out in very simple terms. (I know, some us had to grow up fast, but some of us have the personality types for it. Not everyone does.) Some people can learn from instructions, while others need to visually see what we're trying to tell them (by example), and yet others can only learn by hands-on experience (trial and error). Liselanora strikes me as the latter. The fact that she posted her latest changes on the talk page, combined with the fact that she corrected the double meanings and second person in her make-up addition, suggest that she is trying to figure it out but just not grasping what people are telling her. I think that posting her changes on the talk page is a very good idea, but she also needs to learn to wait long enough for people to respond. I'd like to try and help her understand, because there may possibly be a decent editor in there, in the future, but I also think it will take a lot of work on her part and WP:COMPETENCE still applies,. And we're not all here to teach her. I have watchlisted the article, and will keep an eye out for any more changes, but I'm hoping that explaining it in simple terms with examples will help her understand. Zaereth (talk) 18:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I understand what you mean. Again, thanks for helping. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Dominique Lévy

There is inaccurate and personal damaging information on the page for Dominique Lévy. The information in the ‘Personal Life’ section is no longer accurate. Dominique Lévy is separated from Dorothy Berwin. In addition to that fact, the information noted regarding their number of children in the referenced article is actually incorrect. We do not have any articles to reference this information because the subject of the article has since then wanted to retain her privacy and the privacy of her children. Due to the change in relationship, and the sensitivity of this personal information, the subject of the article would like please have the Personal Life section removed and any reference to her former partner and children removed from the Information Box. Very much appreciate your help dealing with this personal and sensitive situation. JacksonWW123 (talk) 18:19, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

I removed all the non-notable names of people who do not have an article of their own. There is just no need to name private citizens. I also removed the personal-life section as this was sourced only to an op/ed column. Zaereth (talk) 18:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Thank you so much Zaereth. In the Information Box the number of children is incorrect. Subject of the article has only 2 children, not 3. Would it be possible to please correct this? JacksonWW123 (talk) 15:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Brie Larson

"Her complaint about being interviewed by a majority of white men led to an attempt at review bombing Captain Marvel's page on Rotten Tomatoes with sexist comments."

There is no references about part "Her complaint about being interviewed by a majority of white men". When i tried to add them, content author rejected with no explanation and looks like he is going against Wikipedia guidelines! In my opinion if there is references, that Rotten tomatoes comments were just sexist, there were bad reviews, about Captain Marvel movie, then people should know why it happened, without skipping that part. All required references should be added, also its like turning things around, skipping crucial part! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw (talk • contribs) 11:42, 27 February 2019 (UTC) If for others this complaint is acceptable, i would like to see his other articles reviewed, cause looks like author prefers personal interests over facts! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw (talk • contribs) 12:07, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This does actually have non-clickbait coverage e.g. [1] [2], but you can't look at Brie Larson#Personal life and media image and say that her remarks about "white dudes" deserve more than a half-sentence there. It would ruin the entire section's flow. With regards to "want to see" nonsense, it belongs to Captain Marvel (film)#Release after and if it passes WP:Recentism. If it is significantly covered in that article (in several sentences), then it deserves a mention in Larson's bio, which will have been restructured by then (as the film will have been released), and this won't be WP:UNDUE. As I've skimmed over Larson's bio, it seemed to have a negative POV, but I'm not certain. wumbolo ^^^ 14:45, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

I want to point out this part "review bombing" and "sexist comments"! There was no reviews, but poll weather people will go to movie or not. This senence promotes fake news and it also has references to fake articles. I suggest to use references, where is also visible poll, before it was closed. Also promoting that all comentators was just trolls is stupid idea, without proof that they was actually trolls. Knowing that they faked idea, that it was actually reviews not polls, makes everything to look as fake story. So pleas don't promote any propaganda in articles, weather it is west, Russian or someone else and instead use checked resources!!! User:Wumbolo so i won't agree with you that nothing should be changed. If you also promote idea than wiki should promote fake news, than it is very very bad... + if there is references to poll downvoting, that there should be at least 1 reference why it happened! Nothing more, just reference is enough! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw (talk • contribs) 06:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC) I don't even get it why i should fight here so that here is just truth written. It that really that bad for you in US, that you can't even write truth, if some feminist is involved!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andzejsw (talk • contribs) 06:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

eric sanders (playwright)

Eric Sanders (playwright)

This article is clearly just copied and pasted from an online bio. It should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:9209:9F00:1114:D4F5:2A02:D3F8 (talk) 05:38, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• I proposed it for deletion. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Editor claiming to be Mary Kay Letourneau

Opinions are needed at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard#Mary Kay Letourneau. A permalink for it is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 17:11, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• I would say, an editing restriction to not edit the Mary Kay Letourneau article and another request to contact wp:otrs and verify their identity. Govindaharihari (talk) 18:43, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Govindaharihari. As seen here, we still need some opinions on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:03, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Jenny McCarthy

What is the rule on living people who deny a negative characterization of them? I though it was to include the denial, even if the denial is likely to be false. Under "public figures" BLP policy says "If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported." For this reason I reverted JzG's removal of the fact that Jenny McCarthy denies being anti-vax[3], he then reverted me[4], I checked BLP policy to make sure I was right and reverted him again[5] and then Bradv reverted me. Could somone here clarify for us what the proper interpretation of BLP is here?. Tornado chaser (talk) 18:50, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Tornado chaser, why do you feel it important to include this information? Bradv🍁 18:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Bradv I though we had a policy to include a person's denial of any negative characterization that we mention in the article? Tornado chaser (talk) 19:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Tornado chaser, we don't have a policy to include poorly-sourced falsehoods in BLP articles. Again, why does this matter to you? Bradv🍁 19:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Bradv When you say this is "poorly sourced", are you suggesting that we can't verify that she really said this in the interview? and why didn't you remove the preceding sentence that is cited to the same source? As far is it being a "falsehood", assuming the interview wasn't fabricated, it is fact that she denies being anti-vax, she may really be anti-vax, but again, I thought we had a policy to mention that the person denied any accusations. I never said or implied that she was correct to deny this, just that we should state the fact that she denied it.

This matters to me because as a wikipedia editor, I strive to write/improve articles so that they are accurate, fair and consistant with wikipedia's policies, this includes reverting editors who misunderstand these policies, and asking for guidance at the appropriate noticeboard if there is confusion over how to interpret or apply such policies. Tornado chaser (talk) 19:34, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

As pointed out below, her denial is already included in the article, with the full context of her quotation. Distilling that article, or even her entire quote, to a simple denial is a falsehood based on a clickbaity headline. Including the full quote, with context, would be undue for the lede, but it is properly fleshed out in the body of the article. I'm not going to respond to the second part of your comment other than to ask this rhetorical question: the anti-vax movement is a global health concern and a growing threat. To what extent are Wikipedia editors responsible? Bradv🍁 19:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't contain anti-vax material that I'm aware of, so I'm surprised you would think that wikipedia editors are responsible for the antivax movement, also this is really kind of off topic. Tornado chaser (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Generally not, but people will insist on trying to crowbar it in, or at least whitewash reality-based sources about antivaxers and their bullshit. In fact keeping Wikipedia free of antivax bullshit is a constant battle, especially the last couple of years. Guy (Help!) 21:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

True, but they usually give up after being reverted a few times, and a lot of the persistent ones are IP's, so the pages affected can be semi protected, as Jenny McCarthy currently is. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

But some engage in long-term WP:CPUSHing, shop things round the drama boards, insist they are not antivax at all (rather like McCarthy), and refuse to accept that we don't give deference to self-serving claims that are contradicted by the overwhelming consensus of independent sources. Guy (Help!) 09:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

So this is another of your misleading accusations? Can't we just discuss the content? Tornado chaser (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Her denial appears to be required by WP:PUBLICFIGURE. If the subject has denied such allegations, that should also be reported. Fairly straightforward. PackMecEng (talk) 19:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Agreed. Her denial should be included. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Her clarification is already in the body. I don't see a need in the lede considering that she's probably the most vocal of anti-vaxxers having written three books on the subject. O3000 (talk) 19:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • There's no rule that says it can't be in both places. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
    • Her denial is not a blanket denial She still claims that vaccinations can be dangerous, doctors don’t prescribe them correctly, and the pharma industry makes unsafe vaccines. It’s not much of a denial. That’s why it needs to be fully explained, which is too much detail for the lede. O3000 (talk) 20:28, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
      • she still claims that vaccinations can be dangerous, doctors don’t prescribe them correctly, and the pharma industry makes unsafe vaccines ... ok... and??!? MPS1992 (talk) 04:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

As with most antivaxers, McCarthy is aware that openly espousing antivaccinationism is generally understood as a fringe position. Instead, she makes demands for mythical "safe" vaccines, while continuing to promote long-debunked antivaccine tropes such as the claimed link between MMR and autism, and the claimed role of thimerosal in causing autism. Simply repeating her own statements that she's not antivax, honest, from primary sources, without reality-based context to establish that this protestation is bullshit, violates WP:UNDUE. There's a widespread misunderstanding that we are like a newspaper, and should always give the subject the last word. In fact the tendency of papers to do this comes from historical conservatism over fdear of libel. It's a long time since making true statements about a public person was a real risk, but they continue with it almost as a matter of style. It's not how an encyclopaedia should work. Guy (Help!) 09:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This is a misunderstanding of policy, we have plenty of context and sources for the fact that she is anti-vax and your criticism of her statements to the contrary do not change the BLP requirements. Tornado chaser (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• It's undue for the lead, but it's already in the body with pretty lengthy block quotes about what she considers to be or not be called anti-vaxx. People quoting WP:PUBLICFIGURE need to read the article. Valeince (talk) 19:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but if the accusation is so prominent in the lead, shouldn't the denial be in the lead too?

• • Yes her denial is peppered though the end of that section. It is mentioned enough that the source for it in the lead starts with that. But our lead does not mention it at all, which it clearly should. PackMecEng (talk) 20:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Not really, no. The consensus view of all reliavble sources is that McCarthy is an anti-vaccinationist. Pretty much everyione calls her that. Sure, she denies it, but Bernie Madoff denies being a fraudster and we don't put his denial in the lede. Guy (Help!) 21:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Well for our BLP policy that is all that really matters isn't it. Also with how much it is mentioned in the article, it should be in the lead as well. Since the lead is supposed to summarize the body. PackMecEng (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)That's a poor analogy. Bernie Madoff was convicted in a court of law. Jenny McCarthy wasn't. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Even when reliable sources don't buy the denial we still mention it per BLP. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

No we don't, per WP:UNDUE. We are not a newspaper, we do not give the subject of an article the last word when all independent sources say they are lying. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)}

• The lede seems unbalanced as it is -- this person seemingly had a lengthy career in modelling, acting, television hosting, writing, et cetera, and only later became a anti-vax spokesperson. But our article starts with the anti-vax thing, which is inappropriate. Then we have a quote -- in the lede! -- describing her as "the nation's most prominent purveyor of anti-vaxxer ideology" cited to a source whose title is itself "Jenny McCarthy: I Am Not Anti-Vaccine"! The use of the word "but" in the disputed addition is a problem which should be fixed (because it implies that her denial may mean that the accusation is incorrect), but the denial should still be mentioned. MPS1992 (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• Her anti-vaxx advocacy is what she is most prominent for today and most certainly what history will remember her for. Her other achievements, besides promoting falsehoods about vaccines, include posing nude in Playboy, one season on the View, and minor roles in non-notable films and TV-shows. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• I agree with MPS1992. The article suffers from WP:RECENTISM. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:02, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

In what way? Most sources about her now seem to mention the antivax bullshit, she seems to want to be known for it, the rest appears mainly to be away of funding the antivax. Guy (Help!) 21:42, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The anti-vax section is longer than the section on her modelling and entertainment career, the things she's primarily known for. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:UNDUE, please could User:JzG or User:Bradv. who between them seem to be pushing this thing, propose a re-written section about anti-vax that does not take up most of the whole article? If they are unable to do so, then per WP:BLP, the whole section will need to be blanked until this can be sorted out. MPS1992 (talk) 02:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

MPS1992, I'm not pushing anything, I only objected to this edit. I'm fine with including the full quote and context in the body, as it is now. Bradv🍁 02:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

So reflecting it in the lede is also OK -- the article lede should reflect the important aspects of the article body. MPS1992 (talk) 02:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Just as an example of WP:RECENTISM, the section on her anti-vax beliefs is the largest section in the article whereas her TV show on MTV, Singled Out, only gets half a sentence in the body. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 14:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

She was cohost of an MTV dating show in the 90s for a couple of years. How does that compare to writing books pushing anti-vaxxing, being president of Generation Rescue, which pushes anti-vax views, campaigning around the country on the same themes for a decade?

It's the former that made her famous, not the latter. How can you justify such lopsided coverage? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 17:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Nope. Her denial should not be included in the lede. Individuals who hold fringe views and promote falsehoods, conspiracy theories and other things with negative connotations generally reject that they hold fringe views and will try to re-package their views to avoid the stigma.... it would be absurd to add "he rejects that he is a conspiracy theorist" to the lede of every conspiracy theorist, "he rejects that he is a climate change denier" to the lede of every climate change denier, and "he disputes that he is a racist, referring to himself instead as a "race realist"." They all dispute that they are [insert description with negative/controversial connotations]. Anti-vaxx folks typically always claim that they're not against all vaccines, they're just asking questions and so on while misinforming thousands of people by pushing lies about the dangers of vaccines. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:45, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Per BLP we still have to include the denial, as wrong as with think it is. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

• I don't know many antivaxers who actually admit to it. Most of them claim to be in favour of some mythical perfectly safe vaccine tested, of course, through a process of randomised double blind trials that not IRB would ever approve. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • I do know many antivaxxers who admit to it. Aren't you on Facebook? :) A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• It doesn't appear that we're going to achieve consensus. I suggest someone start an RfC and let the community decide. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 21:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Prob'ly right. But, I'd give it another day. O3000 (talk) 21:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
    • I agree that we will need an RfC. Tornado chaser (talk) 22:05, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The lede seems fine, and her denial is included in the article. Any denial of a clearly notable and well-referenced aspect about a person is going to require context, which we do. Before anyone starts an RfC, it would be useful to review how similar denials are treated: Jared Taylor and Joey Gibson (political activist) immediately come to mind for having long-running attempts to place the subjects' personal opinions of themselves on par or over the opinions of others. --Ronz (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Right. The idea of giving the subject the last word comes from newspapers, not encyclopaedias. X is an antivaxer, source, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, but X denies it, source X, quoted in Y, is not compelling. We'd need some independent sources that conclude that she's not an antivaxer to balance the hundreds that conclude she is. Guy (Help!) 22:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

X is an antivaxer, source, A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, but X denies it, source X, quoted in Y is not at all compelling evidence that X isn't an antivaxer, but it is factual and policy compliant, and saying it will not mislead people into thinking X isn't an antivaxer, precisely because it is not compelling. We'd need some independent sources that conclude that she's not an antivaxer to balance the hundreds that conclude she is. True, except saying she denies being an antivaxer is very different from concluding that she isn't one. Tornado chaser (talk) 01:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Actually, we really shouldn't look to other examples because this type of situation (where sufficient sources are there to make the claim that "X is a Y", and there's at least one source that is X claiming they aren't) has been so pushed to ignoring what X has said in favor of the number of RSes. Any type of claim is a WP:LABEL (there is nothing (yet) illegal about being an anti-vaxxer, there is no reason to red-letter a person over this), and regardless if there's 1 or 100 sources backing it, it has to be treated with care, and as per PUBLICFIGURE, with the counterclaim from X, if it has to be covered at all. This is the type of writing that is worsening our BLP articles, far too much focus on stuffing as much negative stuff in and as early as possible without considering consequences to tone and impartialness. Prime example of the total breakdown of BLP and core policies "because the press said so". --Masem (t) 01:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• She appears to have changed her position, at least partially. I don't see why it should be particularly controversial that she has done so. We should quote briefly what she has said in the past, and now. (I want to emphasize briefly--I consider the entire section much too long and disproportionate. We have no way of knowing whether she has changed her actual opinion or just her public statements, What we cannot do is call her anti-vax in the lead when she now says otherwise--, but we can certainly say that she was known for anti-vax statements, but now says that ... DGG ( talk ) 01:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC) .

  @DGG: Where do you get the impression she has changed her position? Bradv🍁 01:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The Daily Beast interview--. As I worded it above, , it may not be what she things, but what she says, but ifshe says she is not anti-vax, we can say that she says she is not anti-vax. DGG ( talk ) 03:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

That interview is from 2014 though. This is not about new information, this is about Tornado chaser trying to shoehorn a defense into the lede. Bradv🍁 04:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

this is about Tornado chaser trying to shoehorn a defense into the lede No, this denial has been in the lead and I reverted a BLP-violating attempt at removing it. Please stop the insinuation that upholding BLP on an article about an person means I must agree with them. Tornado chaser (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• "what she is most prominent for today" is not what Wikipedia is here to record. Rational thinkers' righteous and probably rightful outrage at the damage that her influence might do, is not what Wikipedia is here to record. The lede must change. MPS1992 (talk) 01:56, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Mentioned at WT:GGTF due to the appalling state of the lede. If you can't see why, then I can't explain it to you. MPS1992 (talk) 02:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I do like the change[6] that MPS1992 just made to the article, but this sounds a little bit like she could admit to being antivax but doesn't think she is the most prominent antivaxer, maybe we could change it to "although she says the characterization of herself as anti-vaccine is inaccurate."? Tornado chaser (talk) 06:03, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

User:Bradv says above that the anti-vax movement is a global health concern and a growing threat. This is absolutely true, correct, and important -- I read a BBC article today which said exactly that. Bradv also asked, with exactly the wrong and very foolish implications, To what extent are Wikipedia editors responsible? The answer is that Wikipedia editors are not responsible for these outbreaks of stupidity -- instead, other types of social media are responsible.

Some editors think that dangerous stupidity in the real world can be fixed by breaking BLP rules in the Wikipedia world. They are wrong in this belief, and their edits should and will be reverted. MPS1992 (talk) 00:12, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Very well said! Tornado chaser (talk) 20:59, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Charles Burnett

Hello.

The images of important filmmaker Charles Burnett, are NOT of Mr. Burnett, but of a someone's child. Please fix this disrespectful nonsense. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.152.80 (talk) 21:33, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

•  Done
   — Berean Hunter (talk) 21:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Vox Day

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

User:Grayfell Continuously re-adding poorly sourced content that violates BLP because 1. It fails basic NPOV guidelines. It ignores several other articles that don't describe Vox Day as "Far-Right" or "Alt-Right" in favor of one single, cherrypicked article, that describes him as far-right ONLY ONCE. Vox, The Guardian, Polygon, advocate.com, and Wired all fail to describe Vox Day as "far-right". 2. It fails WP:LABEL by including a label that isn't widely used by sources (and in fact, isn't used by most reliable sources), and should be an in-text attribution, not a label (i.e. "has been described as far-right") 50.107.79.14 (talk) 01:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)CheckUser-confirmed block evader comments striked -- Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Setting aside the WP:SOCK concerns raised by the IP's behavior (such as this post)...

The Verge source is fine. The Advocate source also uses "far right": He also owes thousands to far-right writers like the anti-Islamist Pamela Geller and to science fiction writer Theodore Beale (Vox Day).[7]

The body of the article includes many sources describing Beale (Vox Day) as alt-right, which is a subset of far-right. Many of the above cited sources also use "alt-right". If there is a way to summarize this which is as simple and succinct as "far-right", I haven't seen it. I also haven't seen any reliable sources disputing the "far-right" label, nor any compelling reason to think this would be disputed. Accurately describing someone's political opinions is not a BLP violation, nor is it a WP:LABEL. There isn't a more neutral way to say "far-right" which wouldn't be a euphemism, and "has been described as" is empty WP:WEASEL words. Grayfell (talk) 01:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The Verge[8] and The Advocate sources[9] are passing mention in pieces about Social Media & Milo Yiannopoulos respectively. Passing mentions are not reliable per WP:RSCONTEXT. Whatever labels or categorisations are applied to an article subject should be based on their prominence in sources which are primarily about that subject; not on passing mentions. If there are no sources primarily about the subject, then AfD. - Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC) - added Ryk72 ^'c.s.n.s.' 03:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Just noting here that the IP attempted to strike part of Greyfell's comment: diff - MrOllie (talk) 01:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This is very obviously the same sock as 50.107.81.26 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), who was previously blocked for evasion. Grayfell (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

"Alt-right" is not the same as "Far-right". If it were, there wouldn't be two different Wikipedia articles. They are different. It also still fails BLP due to poorly sourced content. If "far-right" is only attributed once in a single article out of several of them that mention Vox Day, then it seems strange to me that it would be included in the lede, as it isn't notable at all. 50.107.79.14 (talk) 01:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)CheckUser-confirmed block evader comments striked -- Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Pure nonsense. We have an article for all frogs and also many articles for specific frogs, because we have articles for things which are subsets of other things. They are different, but that's doesn't mean that "alt right" cannot also be "far-right". It is notable because Beale is primarily notable for his far-right political commentary, and the article should explain why a topic is notable. That's the primary purpose of an encyclopedia. Grayfell (talk) 02:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Alt-right and far-right are vaguely defined groups depending on who you speak to. The only commonality we can speak to directly is being farther right on a political and ideological scale. There likely is some overlap in the alt- and far-right if you use one person's definitions, across the board, but it would be very wrong to call the alt-right as a subset of the far-right in a factual statement/WP voice. As such, both should be treated as labels, and that means if the term is appropriate to include (likely in this case) we should use how the sources use it, and cannot make the OR lap of logic. --Masem (t) 02:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

This position doesn't reflect the consensus of sources. Per the alt right article:

• Stack, Liam (August 15, 2017). Alt-Right, Alt-Left, Antifa: A Glossary of Extremist Language. The New York Times. Retrieved: February 10, 2018. "The 'alt-right' is a racist, far-right movement based on an ideology of white nationalism and anti-Semitism."
• October 13, 2017. Explained: Alt-right, alt-light and militias in the US. Al Jazeera. Retrieved: February 10, 2018. "The alt-right is a loosely knit coalition of far-right groups that includes populists, white supremacists, white nationalists, neo-Confederates and neo-Nazis."
• "Alt-Right". The Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved February 10, 2018. "The Alternative Right, commonly known as the Alt-Right, is a set of far-right ideologies, groups and individuals whose core belief is that 'white identity' is under attack by multicultural forces using 'political correctness' and 'social justice' to undermine white people and 'their' civilization."

The terms are vague, in a sense, but the connection between them is documented and agreed upon by many sources. Grayfell (talk) 02:28, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, however that distinction also has to be made by the article cited. Taking a claim from an article saying "alt-right" and claiming that it also means "far-right" because other sites believe that alt-right and far-right are the same thing or interchangeable is WP:OR. 50.107.79.14 (talk) 02:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)CheckUser-confirmed block evader comments striked -- Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Per WP:BOOMERANG, you're really going to have to face the music at the sock-hop eventually. So you're accepting that alt-right is a subset of far-right? Why would that particular article be the place to explain the connection? Are you proposing replacing "far-right" with "alt right"? What, exactly, does this have to do with BLP? Grayfell (talk) 02:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I don't really care whether alt-right is a subset of far-right or not. If enough reliable sources explicitly claim that it's "Far-right" or "Alt-right", then it should be included. My point is, that not enough sources do that, and it doesn't outweigh the amount of sources that don't describe him as alt-right or far-right. 50.107.79.14 (talk) 02:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)CheckUser-confirmed block evader comments striked -- Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Not enough sources to do what, exactly? Call him alt-right? Call him a near-synonym for far right? The lede should act as a brief summary of the topic based on the body of the article. There is no magic threshold for how many sources is enough to use a term. Many sources support that Beale advocates extremist views, such as his opposition to women's suffrage and his belief that marital rape doesn't exist, and how he wrote a manifesto on the alt-right, which included the Fourteen words coined by a convicted neo-Nazi terrorist. So counting the number which use a specific term is a pointless exercise in pedantry. The substance of sources support that he is on the extreme right, no matter which term is used. Grayfell (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

"Do not use controversial or effusive descriptions unless commonly used by reliable sources." Also "Value-laden labels—such as calling an organization a cult, an individual a racist, terrorist, or freedom fighter, or a sexual practice a perversion—may express contentious opinion and are best avoided unless widely used by reliable sources to describe the subject" 50.107.79.14 (talk) 03:12, 1 March 2019 (UTC)CheckUser-confirmed block evader comments striked -- Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Uh huh. What would be a non-laden way to say he is far-right? His opinions are controversial, but accurately labeling his positions isn't automatically controversial by proxy. We do not whitewash a controversial figure by ignoring the controversy or by using euphemisms. As I already said, if there is a way to summarize this which is as simple and succinct as "far-right", I haven't seen it. Grayfell (talk) 03:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

(To Grayfell) While it is true there are RSes that put alt-r in far-r, I've seen some [10] [11] say the reverse, enough that we shouldn't be factually state "alt is all far" or "far is all alt", but represent the vague boundaries; and when applied to BLP, careful adherence to what the specific sources say in labelling the person. --Masem (t) 03:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Vox Day has repeatedly described himself as a Christian Dominionist which is a far-right-wing political philosophy. Furthermore, we're talking about a man who got kicked out of Science Fiction Writers of America for using their official twitter account to make racist statements about N.K. Jemisin. He's the founder of the Rabid Puppies trolling movement. Complaints that he's being called far-right should be met with the same level of scorn as complaints that we call Gavin McInnes far-right. Simonm223 (talk) 14:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Small note As a science fiction writer who has friends who were involved in SFWA leadership at the time I might be considered to have a COI here. I don't know VD personally and have happily never met him, but I felt it appropriate to disclose in the off chance that anybody sees it that way. (I have collected a paycheck for dunking on the Rabid Puppies in public before. humblebrag) Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Just because X has clearly stated association with group Y, and group Y is broadly claimed (but not direct asserted by Y) to be Z, is not appropriate to say X is also Z, under BLP. Just being associated with a group doesn't mean a person necessary holds all facets of a group, so it is both inappropriate and not logical to take a label directed at a group to its members, barring any direct statement by its members. --Masem (t) 15:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• I take it you are completely unaware of who Vox Day is, and all the things he's said and done. Simonm223 (talk) 16:15, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Folks. No need to waste your time on a sock of a purely disruptive troll who was not here to improve the project in the first place. The IP is now CheckUser blocked by NinjaRobotPirate. Quoting Drmies, "Trolls and POV pushers are like dogs returning to their vomit". Tsumikiria⧸ 🌹🌉 21:47, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Using one source to suggest that an individual (in his article) has read a book, then juxtaposed with another source that states the book is anti-Semitic?

This seems awfully POV to me. Like writing "In elementary school he read the racist childrens book Dr. Seuss." Certainly that would be taken as a BLP or at least a POV issue? Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

References

The book in question is not comparable to Dr. Seuss; rather, it's comparable to The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. Like that book, it's a vehemently anti-Semitic fabrication of conspiracy theorist nonsense. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I've not read the book and I have no reason to believe it isn't anti-Semitic. However, is that a widely held view? There is no mention of anti-Semitism on the article for Gary Allen, nor in these NYT pieces from 1998 and 2018. If any alleged anti-Semitism is the subject of debate then it must be an issue for Wikipedia's voice to "take sides" on the matter. Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It is better described as subtly anti-Semitic. Unlike the Protocols, it does not claim that the Jews control the world but instead says it is controlled by "insiders", some of whom are Jews. You have to read between the lines. Unless someone is aware of anti-Semitism, it is possible to miss the anti-Semitic message. TFD (talk) 19:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Saying a person has "read" a book does not justify saying, or implying in any way, that the person agrees with, or holds opinions congruent to, the book. I have read the JBS "Blue Book", Mein Kampf, the works of Chairman Mao and Lin Piao, speeches by Fidel Castro, Das Kapital, the Communist Manifesto, parts of The Prince, and a slew of other works. Saying or implying that a person agrees with any book he or she has read is WP:OR and/or violative of WP:NPOV. If a person has said he agrees with such a book, that is a different matter, but, as phrased, the answer is that the Wikilink to the noted book does not violate WP:NPOV but ascribing its specific views to a person is violative of policy. Collect (talk) 14:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd suggest, since Ilovetopaint forgot to do so, that people should refer to the edit history of Alex Jones prior to weighing in. They've left out some context. Simonm223 (talk) 14:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I've looked back to August 2018 and found that @Dmezh: has previously removed the claim for similar reasons but did not start a talk page discussion. They noted, as I have, that the issue of the book being anti-Semitic does not appear to be a unanimous opinion. Ilovetopaint (talk) 14:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

In short, the conflict is whether to call a book that Jones claims had a profound impact on him and that he has publicly recommended antisemitic when the source that calls the book antisemitic is separate from the source that confirms Jones' fondness for it. It's the same book and there's no dispute that Jones has promoted it. Simonm223 (talk) 14:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The implication that the subject promotes anti-Semitism is still there. This is not consistent with the subject's stated views on the book, let alone his stated views on Jewish people, which is why it's a BLP concern. Even if we are to believe that the book contains anti-Semitic ideas, then presumably, it should also contain other ideas that are equally notable, so singling "anti-Semitism" is sorta WP:COATRACK as well. I don't believe the book's contents matter anyway. I think Collect and GreenMeansGo have hit the nail on the head. If you think that the book is anti-Semitic then that is a topic better addressed on the Gary Allen article. Ilovetopaint (talk) 15:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, that's pretty much just WP:SYNTH. You are implying that Jones is antisemitic using a source that doesn't mention him at all. The source that does mention him and the book together doesn't comment on antisemitism at all, but indicates that the important role it played in his background was as a basis for his conspiratorial thinking. If you are writing an article on the book, these are both appropriate sources. If you are writing an article on the person, then only one is. Jones might be deeply antisemitic for all I know, but you're going to need a source that actually says that to connect the two. GMG^talk 15:05, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• I forcefully disagree. Jones is recommending an antisemitic book. That it's antisemitic is not in doubt. That he recommends it is not in doubt. All we do by occluding that link is give cover to racists. Simonm223 (talk) 15:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Okay. And if the antisemitism of the book is deeply relevant to Jones, then you should have no problems finding a source that says that. GMG^talk 15:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Right because antisemites never try to couch their views in allusion and metaphor in a weak attempt to remain part of mainstream discourse. Simonm223 (talk) 15:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• Okay. You still need source. GMG^talk 15:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• For this, we'd need a single source that says that we'd need, contained within the same source (and ideally, reiterated in similar fashion in multiple sources), that the person promotes racism by recommending said book, or has had their racist views shaped by reading books such as that. As long as the claim the book is racist is separate from the ststement that he read the book, it is a BLP/SYNTH violation to combine them. --Masem (t) 15:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Do RS say it, if the answer is yes then it is sourced, if the answer is no then it is OR, and as far as I know no policy is over ridden by "but they are antisemitic, I knows". If it is so obviously (and Jones support of it) antisemitic, someone would have mentioned it. This is a BLP violation.Slatersteven (talk) 16:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The book is "subtle anti-Semitism." It claims that the world is ruled by "insiders," some of whom are indeed Jewish but asserts that it is not claiming there is a Jewish conspiracy. This subtle anti-Semitism has been compared to current conspiracy theories about George Soros. It's possible for a reader to be unaware of the anti-Semitic messages. Whether or not Jones was influenced by the book's anti-Semitism is a conclusion that needs to be sourced before it is included. We would not for example say that Martin Luther King was named after the German anti-Semitic Martin Luther or that Olivier starred in plays by the anti-Semitic writer William Shakespeare, although we could describe the connection if it appears in reliable sources about King and Olivier. TFD (talk) 19:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

ingrid newkirk

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

Her bio needs to be addressed. Particularly this statement. "She is known, in particular for hating Pit-Bulls and lobbying for easier requirements for their euthanization, as well for the media stunts that she organizes to draw attention to animal-protection issues in order to pretend that her organization actually helps animals rather than killing them hours after adopting them from shelters or abducting them from homes or off the street." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.88.113.102 (talk) 16:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

I think I have dealt with the more obvious violations, who added it?Slatersteven (talk) 16:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Page may need protection.Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes protect this page. Subtle and unsubtle vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mcfnord (talk • contribs) 17:19, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Pope Francis

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

The article on Pope Francis contains extensive criticisms of Pope Francis that are not sourced to a secondary source, as required by WP:BLPSTYLE. With one exception (discussed below) all of the criticisms are sourced to news articles and opinion columns, which are primary sources by official Wikipedia policy per WP:PRIMARYNEWS. Among the criticisms are extensive defamatory allegations against Pope Francis in the section titled "Sexual Abuse". The other criticisms are largely theological and political but nevertheless need to be sourced to a secondary source per WP:BLPSTYLE. The one secondary source given is to a book by Ross Douthat (Footnote 496), but the user fails to give a page cite and the claim represents a fringe view and mischaracterizes the dispute (no one is claiming the Catholic Church can overturn its doctrine in response to the sexual revolution and modernity). The criticisms have been repeatedly reinserted into the article as seen here: Special:Diff/885689580 PluniaZ (talk) 18:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

News sources are secondary sources. ""Primary" is not another way to spell "bad". Just because most newspaper articles are primary sources does not mean that these articles are not reliable and often highly desirable independent sources.".Slatersteven (talk) 18:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

No, news sources are not secondary sources per WP:PRIMARYNEWS unless they meet the criteria for one of the following categories: Historical Reports, Analytical Reports and Book Reviews. None of the news sources given in the article meet the criteria for those categories. I never said "primary" sources are bad or not reliable. I said official Wikipedia policy requires that in a biography of a living person, criticisms must be sourced to a secondary source, as specifically stated in WP:BLPSTYLE.PluniaZ (talk) 18:44, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Provide an example of one that fails then.Slatersteven (talk) 18:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

That's an interesting essay, although I'd bet I could find sources to counter the arguments made on the page. It is not an official policy or guideline, as the little box at the top says. More of a "tips on what to look for" page, although some of us may disagree a bit with the author's interpretation. Zaereth (talk) 19:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

OK, the official policy is on WP:OR. Footnote c defines the following as primary sources: " investigative reports... editorials, columns, blogs, opinion pieces, or (depending on context) interviews..."PluniaZ (talk) 19:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

To be clear, news opinions and analysis are secondary sources; simply rote reporting from news sources are primary. What is of concern is UNDUE and RECENTISM. If these are only a smattering of a few sources that otherwise cover the Pope, then it's UNDUE. --Masem (t) 18:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

No, news opinions are specifically defined as primary sources in WP:PRIMARYNEWS. The only categories of news reports that are secondary sources are Historical Reports, Analytical Reports and Book Reviews. In response to

Slatersteven's request for an example that fails, the very first source given in the Controversies section of the article is a news report that contains extensive criticisms against Pope Francis: https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/mar/04/vatican-civil-war-conservatives-battle-francis-lent. This is not a historical report, analytical report or book review.PluniaZ (talk) 19:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

No I asked for one that fell foul of the examples of primary news reporting, this is not a primary news report as laid down by those criteria. It may be critical, but it also appears to be an analysis of events.Slatersteven (talk) 19:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It does fail the criteria for being an analytical report, which is described as follows: "The newspaper publishes a week-long series of articles on health care systems in the nation. This is not merely a piece that provides one or two comments from someone who is labeled an "analyst" in the source, but is a major work that collects, compares, and analyzes information." This column is not a major work that collects, compares and analyzes information. It is a one time column, which Footnote C in WP:OR defines as a primary source.PluniaZ (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Its an example only, not an exclusive criteria. I have asked you how it fails any of the examples of news reports as primary sources. We are going to have to agree to disagree on this.Slatersteven (talk) 19:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

It's an opinion piece. The second paragraph in the article states, "If he’d had any inkling of what these last four years would be like, he would surely have wept in that Room of Tears." That is commentary in a newspaper. It is not an analysis of the merits of the criticisms. The author merely repeats criticisms and occasionally adds her own commentary. Footnote C in WP:OR specifically defines this is a primary source.PluniaZ (talk) 19:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

As I often do, I find myself in agreement with Masem on this. I think you're making the wrong argument, or rather arguing for a technicality while overlooking the real policy this violates. Just because something is found in a reliable source (primary or not) doesn't automatically make it worthy of inclusion nor fit into the scope of things. We're here to provide the sum of all knowledge. Not all knowledge, but a summary. It's important to look at all the policies as working in unison, like one big equation, rather than focusing one part to the exclusion of the rest. If you look at WP:UNDUE you'll see that this not only needs good sourcing, but enough of a media blowout to warrant a mention. Within the scope of the entire article against the scope of media coverage, the weight this deserves --at this point in time-- is infinitesimal. Zaereth (talk) 19:53, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. To be clear, are you saying that the disputed material should not be included in the article because it gives undue weight to minority positions?PluniaZ (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

No. I'm not looking at minorities or positions. What I mean, is that, given how much sourcing is out there about all the other stuff in the article, how much weight does this deserve. I'm only looking at coverage in reliable sources. If you took all the sources out there about this subject (not just from the article, but all of the sources) and put them on an imaginary scale, then put these on the other side, you get a measurement of how much weight this deserves. Compared to the size and scope of the article, does it deserve half the article, an entire section, a whole paragraph, or a single sentence, just to put it in balance with the entire article? Or, given the small handful of sources which may or may not be questionable (I haven't dug that deep), does it require less than a sentence, perhaps a single letter or a pixel? That's where I think we're at right here. Zaereth (talk) 20:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:PRIMARYNEWS is not a policy or guideline and has not been vetted by the community. It misrepresents the Yale University source that says news article written "at the time" are primary sources, while current news articles are secondary sources. In practical terms that means that an article about Pope Pius XII, should not be based on news articles from 1939-1958, the years of his reign, but on books and academic articles about him. Researchers using articles written at the tie would not take them at face value, but would take into consideration private papers from the time, and subsequent statements and writings by him and people close to him. Their findings would then serve as secondary sources for the article. But today's news report is the only information about what Pope Francis did today and hence is treated as a secondary source. TFD (talk) 20:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

If we go by the transformational concept of secondary sources, news reports are primary sources if they make no attempt to offer insight or analysis on a report, as there's no transformation. News analysis and opinion would be secondary sources however. --Masem (t) 20:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

If the Pope makes a speech, that is a primary source. If a reporter summarizes what he said, relating what he or she considers important and putting it in their own words, that is a secondary source. If inside sources tell a reporter what happened at the Vatican, their statements are primary sources. But the reporter then compares the accounts and provides a judgment on their veracity and his or her article is then a secondary source. It's only when a reporter is on the scene relating events as they occur that one could consider their reporting a primary source. But then their reporting for the 9 o'clock news would be a secondary source since they would be able to synthesize what they saw with those of other witnesses, films of the event and comments by experts. TFD (talk) 20:46, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

We consider the reporter's summary of what the Pope stated as a primary source, with the understanding that as a reliable source with journalistic integrity, it is summarizing to a degree than any other person, reviewing the Pope's speech, would consider as the important points - eg there is no transformation. It's the same principle as with the difference between recaps and reviews of published works. A recap is primary as long as the summary is generally what any other person would obtain, without interpretation or stressing on a minor point, while a review is secondary. Most day to day news reporting is primary for that reason. --Masem (t) 17:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

"If a reporter summarizes what he said, relating what he or she considers important and putting it in their own words, that is a secondary source" - no that is still a primary source, both by wikipedia's guidelines and in academia. Primary & secondary sourcing when it comes to news reporting is not who says it, it is the level of analysis and research involved. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:28, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your feedback. Based on the recommendations of Zaereth, I propose that the article on Pope Francis be revised as shown on this diff from my sandbox page: Special:Diff/885734328. In sum, the article as it currently stands gives undue weight to fringe criticisms of Pope Francis from theological and political extremists. The only substantive criticisms that have generated meaningful coverage in mainstream news media relate to sexual abuse in the Catholic Church. I have removed the more minor allegations (relating to his handling of particular cases of priests), and moved the section into the "Papacy" section of the article, thus eliminating the need for a separate section on Controversies. I would appreciate your feedback. PluniaZ (talk) 00:04, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm not seeing any support for this at all. Your interpretation of how WP:PRIMARYNEWS and WP:BLPSTYLE intersects seems prima facie absurd, since it would effectively bar us from ever covering any negative breaking news about a subject, ever; this plainly does not reflect current practice or policy, nor is it a reasonable approach. Contrary to what you're saying, WP:BLPPRIMARY does not bar primary sources - it merely exhorts us to use extreme caution (which is appropriate), and gives examples that are much more extreme than anything you're objecting to here. My main takeaway from this discussion is that BLPSTYLE and / or PRIMARYNEWS need to be reworded to make this intersection more clear - plainly policy does allow news sources to be used for negative material in some cases (with significant caution per WP:RECENTISM and the like, but it is not simply forbidden the way you're implying, and I don't see how anyone who has ever edited a breaking-news BLP could believe it is. That interpretation would make it impossible to keep anything negative about anyone up to date at all.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:15, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that my interpretation of WP:BLPSTYLE was in error because I mistakenly thought that WP:PRIMARYNEWS was an official policy page. I apologize for that. Nevertheless, Zaereth has pointed out that appropriate weight must still be given to each criticism, and "the views of small minorities should not be included at all." I respectfully submit that the criticisms I removed in my latest revision (here: Special:Diff/885734328) are the views of small minorities that should not be included in the biography of Pope Francis. For example, the idea that Pope Francis is a "crypto-protestant" or has fallen into "apostasy and modernism" are obviously fringe attacks by religious extremists. Likewise, the "appeal against changes on the death penalty" was a fringe attack covered only by right-wing media outlets First Things and EWTN. The same goes for criticizing him for giving political knighthood to an abortion rights activist. Outside of a few far-right Catholic media outlets, nobody cares. And in the discussion on Amoris Laetitia, there is no actual criticism of Pope Francis from anyone of note, but rather a discussion of a technical theological inquiry from a group of cardinals, which belongs more appropriately in the actual Wikipedia article on Amoris Laetitia. PluniaZ (talk) 16:40, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: I've made a WP:BOLD revision to WP:BLPSTYLE to bring it into line with WP:BLPPRIMARY, here. Since it's pretty bold I wouldn't be surprised if someone objects and reverts or if it requires hashing out, but given the seriousness of the policy I feel that this is definitely something that needs to be hashed out, so I've started a discussion about it here Please take any discussion of if / how to change the relevant policy there. (Of course, changing WP:PRIMARYNEWS would be easier and might also be worth considering, but I feel that the apparent contradiction between WP:BLPSTYLE and WP:BLPPRIMARY is more serious and needs to be resolved, even if it's really just a matter of a few words.) --Aquillion (talk) 05:27, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

• I will say there are definately some issues with sourcing. The very first paragraph under 'sexual abuse' makes a number of claims about the Pope that are not supported by the sources used. The reuters piece contains no actual criticism of the Pope directly. They may be supported elsewhere, but BLP requires in-line citations for controversial claims. There are other issues later down where sources are being used to justify wording critical of the pope, when on reading they are actually critical of the church. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:36, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

I withdraw my concern regarding the use of secondary sources, which was due to a misunderstanding of the authority of WP:PRIMARYNEWS. I have made revisions to the article intended to address the concerns of Only in death does duty end regarding sourcing. I eliminated all statements that are not sourced and restructured a few paragraphs for better flow. I also deleted the fringe criticisms regarding apostasy and crypto-protestantism. You can see my changes here: Revisions by PluniaZ to article on Pope Francis PluniaZ (talk) 21:27, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

Update I have made a few more edits. Cumulative changes here: Cumulative changes to article on Pope Francis -- PluniaZ (talk) 03:38, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

2017 Interstate 75 rock-throwing deaths

2017 Interstate 75 rock-throwing deaths (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I recently stumbled across this again and I've removed some of the information in the article. I wanted to double check some of my work with you guys.

Here's the deal: In 2017 there were two cases of teenagers throwing rocks off of bridges. In both cases, the teenagers killed someone, with one person in specific being responsible for the deaths in each group. The article listed the names and ages of these teenagers and in one section, listed the general area where they lived (ie, their town name). The article also had some slight issues with tone and NOTOBITUARY in how the sections were written out.

I removed the obituary and tone wording - that's not what I'm worried about. What I wanted to get some discussion on is the removal of the teenagers' names in each section. I don't feel that we need their names to tell the story of what happened. There's also a question of future harm since almost all of the teenagers were under 18 when each death happened. Only in one situation was one of the teenagers 18. I don't know that it's really necessary to have their names up on Wikipedia for something incredibly awful they did when they were young and incredibly stupid. The kids range in age from 13 - 18. If they were all adults admittedly I wouldn't worry as much but essentially I removed their names because they were minors and there's more of a question of future harm for them. I suppose that there's a question of them being notable for one event, although the article has been kept the prior two times at AfD, once by no consensus.

Basically, should we retain their names? If so, what is to be gained by including them? ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 20:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• I do want to say that I'm not going to fight tooth and nail against re-adding them, but them being minors does make the presence of their names something to discuss. Not all of the media lists their names either, so their names aren't automatically universally known in relation to the deaths. It's not the same as say, Brock Turner's name being extremely well known in relation to the People v. Turner case. So to reiterate, my question(s) are these:

1. Should we include the names of minors who are involved with these deaths. Some of the minors were sentenced but had those sentences overturned.
2. Would including these names potentially harm them in the future? This is particularly important in the cases where the minors had their sentences overturned because the judge hoped that clemency would help them lead better lives.
3. Is the coverage that includes their names heavy enough to justify mentioning them in the article?
4. Would not including their names remove something vital from the article that would justify including them? (IE, is potential harm outweighed by the potential need for Wikipedia?)

I'm going to tag the users in the most recent AfD to take part in this and give their say. @Jayron32, E.M.Gregory, Pontificalibus, Dawnseeker2000, Lugnuts, The Grid, Imzadi1979, Doncram, MB, Lorstaking, BabbaQ, and Britishfinance:. I'm not arguing for deletion of the article - what needs to be discussed here is how important it is to include the names of minors who are involved with crimes relating to the death of a person. I'm not entirely sure if all of them have been sentenced or not in this situation, but I suppose that it should be asked if we should handle minors involved with crimes (at least when it comes to names) the same way we would legal adults. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 21:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• My 2 cents - anyone convicted as an adult (i.e. minor tried as an adult) - no issue. For minors - depends on how the sources treat it. If more sources avoid naming the minors (and this vary by locale and period) - so should we. Otherwise, we should name.Icewhiz (talk) 21:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)::Good summary of the situation presented. I guess the time element question can be looked at with 1999 Interstate 75 rock-throwing death - later this month marks its 20 anniversary. Two of the teenagers were convicted and I believe it was mainly due to the age limit as described here. – The Grid (talk) 21:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

• The press named the boys in these cases freely. The judges did not seal the trial record. These kids weren't skipping flat pebbles across a pond, they were dropping large rocks from overpasses onto cars. People died. These two crimes took place in the U.S. where the press names. It would be different in, say, Germany, where the press does not print the names. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• The current version of the article, w/o the names, is fine. There's nothing of encyclopedic value to be gained by adding the names. --K.e.coffman (talk) 22:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)
• Non-noteworthy people did a noteworthy crime. Even the 18y.o. The conventions of the press and legal meaning are all factors to me. Mcfnord (talk) 17:26, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

2019 Nevada Killing Spree

What are our rules on naming persons accused of crimes notable enough to have a page on Wikipedia? I ask because this has come up in a series of recent AfD discussions (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of crimes committed in the United States by illegal aliens, 2019 Nevada killing spree, Killing of Nabra Hassanen). We are, of course, talking about major crimes (murder) that had been in the national news. These are U.S. crimes and the names of the suspects have been all over the front page. Is naming the accused-but-not-convicted suspect permitted. I would be happy to know where to find the rule on this.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The event articles shouldn't even exist, and I believe are in AfD. O3000 (talk) 21:23, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME. If public figure/well known (e.g. a celeb or pol) we name. If relatively unknow - we almost always do not name prior to conviction. The exceptions tend to be very high profile and large impact (e.g. a major terror attack with multiple casulties) - and need to be discussed case by case.Icewhiz (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)

The most straightforward read of WP:BLPCRIME is that, in the exception of the most extreme cases, having been suspected of a notable crime is not sufficient to treat the suspect as well-known. This largely grows out of WP:ROUTINE, WP:BLP1E and WP:LIBEL in addition to Wikipedia feeling it is correct not to risk the justice process by engaging in the chance of incorrectly naming somebody in relation to a crime prior to a conviction. Even in the case where a confession has been reported, we must consider that, prior to a trial, we have no way of knowing if that confession was extracted under duress. Simonm223 (talk) 16:13, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Nader El-Bizri

Nader El-Bizri (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Just to request the contributions of experienced Wikipedia editors to improve the content of the article and address any flagged issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.187.54.56 (talk) 13:16, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

We are seeking the intervention of experienced Wikipedia editors to improve the article and evaluate whatever issues are raised — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.98.144.26 (talk) 08:09, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Neil Thomas Ministries

• Neil Thomas Ministries (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Mr. Thomas died in 2014, but has recently received coverage re: allegations of sexual and financial abuses. There are at least two separate issues that require administrative attention. The first is the obvious, edit warring over the content. Yesterday I requested page protection. I'd appreciate more thoughts as to whether the accusations merit inclusion--I've pared content on the subject to a minimum. The second issue is yesterday's repeated additions of copyright violation text, lifted from one of the newspaper sources. So some rev/deletion is necessary, regardless. Thanks, 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 18:13, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

parisl latsis kassidokostas

hello to whom may concern

kindly note that the bio of Paris kassidokostas latsis is constantly violented False information, gossip and many other not real sources have been writen in order to draw bad attention or serve other purposes kindly take some action in order to respect the whole environment of the wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by AnnieKalou (talk • contribs) 10:34, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Article is Paris Kassidokostas-Latsis and above editor appears to be blocked. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 12:05, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• It's a SPA with a clear COI They've been trying to turn this page into a resume for a few weeks now. Neiltonks (talk) 12:32, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ben Swann

Editors keep trying to push a Western/Anti-Russian pov on the Ben Swann page by changing the word "narrative" to "propaganda" when source clearly uses the former term. More eyes on this would be appreciated. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

This IP user has been previously blocked twice for disruptive editing on the article and is currently pending a block for socking with User:FastEddieo007. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 14:19, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

FastEddie is not my sock. Also that's not an argument for the OR you keep restoring in the article. That's an Ad Hominem. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 14:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

But if you want to go down the road of Ad Hominem attacks then we could discuss your history of smearing political figures you don't like (and I'm not the only one who sees this) and your defamatory claims against them that you refuse to support. In fact, it's difficult to find an edit of yours on the Ben Swann page that isn't repeatedly added poorly source smears and pov pushing. It's a wonder you've never been banned for this behavior. I can only imagine who else you've attempted to do this to. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 15:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

But that's neither here, nor there. I'd rather stay focused on the issue at hand. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 15:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Wait a sec. NBSB changed:

"Reality Check", which has garnered media attention for questioning widely accepted narratives on high-profile controversies such as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, the Pizzagate conspiracy theory, and an alleged link between vaccines and autism.

To:

promoting conspiracy theories about…

Are you saying that the theory that the Sandy Hook shooting was faked and that the theory that the Democrats ran a pedophile club in the basement of a Pizza joint with no basement were not conspiracy theories; but just questioning of “media narratives”? Thaht Sandy Hook was a real shooting was just a “narrative”? Can you explain your problem with this? O3000 (talk) 15:43, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

You don't care about my opinion. Why are you asking me questions that are irrelevant for multiple reasons? I thought you only cared about reliable sources? Why not talk about those? Why not discuss the OR you restored, or why you haven't even attempt to defend it here or in the talk page? Isn't you that said "If RS uses the term, we use the term"? You don't have to agree with me. You just have to agree with yourself. Use the term the RS uses. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I was responding to your claims. And this habit of yours of linking to ancient, unrelated diffs is disruptive. O3000 (talk) 16:28, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'd be more than happy to get into the weeds on these issues on your talk page. I tried to make a section addressing these concerns, but an automatic filter said it was unconstructive. If you want to start a section on your talk or mine then I can answer any questions you like. But I don't think this is the time or place to rehash old lede changes. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 17:36, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I note that this IP editor also apparently objects to factually and accurately describing the fraudulent claims about vaccines and autism as being what they are: fraudulent. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 15:50, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

That's still an Ad Hominem. At least try to make an argument for the OR you keep restoring. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 16:11, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

There's no OR here. It's a paraphrase that I (and others) view as acceptable. If there is a consensus that it's an inappropriate paraphrase, I will, of course, yield to such a consensus. But you haven't even tried to create such a consensus; you've just revert-warred, which suggests that you don't believe you can create such a consensus either. Notably, that's the history of your single-purpose account's activity on the article; lots of disruptive editing, ignoring discussion, multiple blocks and, frankly, no sign that anything different will come. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:16, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Ignoring discussion? ...still waiting for your response there... Consensus does not override the core principles of Wikipedia. The fact that you keep bringing up consensus proves that you have no argument for the material you keep adding. Also, changing a single neutral word that's used by the RS to a different politically charged word is not paraphrasing. It's pov-pushing. Also, the charges of "single-purpose" activity on the article and revert-warring would be better coming from someone else. You are probably the last one that should be making such charges... --74.195.159.155 (talk) 16:31, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Consensus is literally part of WP:5P#4 Simonm223 (talk) 17:40, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

It says "seek consensus" as a part of the pillar that says to treat each other with respect. Which is below the more important pillar being violated here. Reaching consensus involves an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns. No efforts have been made here. Therefore, we have no consensus. Baranof would have you believe that consensus was achieved to include the politically charged "propaganda" in place of the neutral and source-supported term "narrative". It wasn't. --74.195.159.155 (talk) 18:12, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

all editors' legitimate concerns

legitimate concerns

legitimate

Treating the patently disproven and obviously false conspiracy theories that Swann advocates as merely questioning "media narratives" is why you have no legitimacy here. Your concerns are not legitimate, they're tendentious. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

I'm glad you brought that up. From your link we can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources, giving appropriate weight to the balance of informed opinion: even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it...Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought or original research. Wikipedia doesn't lead, we follow. Let reliable sources make the novel connections and statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them. I know you think it's really true that Ben Swann espouses Russian propaganda. But it still has to be verifiable. Let RS's make those novel connections (like calling a narrative from state-funded media and propaganda "synonymous"). Your argument is not with me, but the sources (absent of any pov-pushing interpretations) --74.195.159.155 (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• After reviewing just article edits by the IP since they came out of their last block, I'm blocking them as WP:NOTHERE but WP:RGW. The article edits alone would be sufficient to indef an account but add in how much time and patience they're wasting for everyone else on talk pages and noticeboards and it's just not worth it to bother with them. Were they an account, I would have indeffed so let's treat them as such. Ian.thomson (talk) 18:54, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Zerlina Maxwell

• Zerlina Maxwell (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A barrage of IP users have been editing the page to include unsourced, partisan snipes to push a narrative in favor of U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, because Ms. Maxwell holds negative opinions of her. This is likely either an organized brigade from Twitter or one user with a handful of devices with IP addresses. It will likely pass within a few days, however, for now it's currently unprotected with a few folks keeping a constant eye on it. --KingForPA (talk) 16:21, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Watchlisted. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:22, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

Bobby Beausoleil

• Bobby Beausoleil (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Looking for a second opinion here. Beausoleil was a very minor (probably non-notable at that point) musician and artist who was convicted of murder as part of the Manson "Family" and has been incarcerated since 1970. He is now going through the parole process. Someone apparently close to Beausoleil has been editing the article to (in my view) give undue weight to his "career" as a musician and artist, and give undue detail in the lede as to the parole process. I've reverted them, but they have responded with further reversions and threats to "report me" on the article talk page. I'm reluctant to get any further into edit-warring threats, and would appreciate uninvolved editors taking a look, and helping to determine where the balance should lie. Thanks. Ghmyrtle (talk) 10:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

"holds dual American and Japanese passports" = "has dual American and Japanese citizenship"?

See Naomi Osaka. I'm not actually sure if the source technically supports the content we attribute to it, since having two passports is essentially the same as holding dual citizenship for almost all purposes. But Japan doesn't recognize dual citizenship for anyone over the age of 20; presumably this is quietly overlooked in the case of talented athletes who live outside Japan but want to represent Japan in their chosen sport, but it seems highly likely the Japanese Ministry of Justice would feel differently if she took up residency in Japan and decided to play tennis as an American. And I can't escape the sneaky feeling that if it really was a matter of her holding dual citizenship, our source would just come out and say that directly rather than specifically referring to the number of passports she possesses. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 14:40, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Look at Japan Times coverage of this in depth. Seems there is a "don't ask, don't tell" policy in Japan about dual citizenship (and in this case - don't hear or see - I guess - relevant in two years). Japan Times should support the content. Icewhiz (talk) 14:56, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Articles should contain sourced facts as they are, not extrapolation based on what editors assume that fact must mean: see WP:SYNTH. Absent any reliable source saying that Naomi Osaka has "citizenship" in Japan and the U.S., the article should say that she holds a Japanese passport and U.S. passport. (The literal phrase in the Time article, "holds dual American and Japanese passports", is awkward.) And then there's the whole thing about Haiti, which makes the word "dual" a bit ambiguous, since it's possible that she is a citizen of Haiti through her father, and has neither renounced nor exercised Haitian citizenship. The way to avoid arguments about citizenship law, and when passports mean or don't mean proof of citizenship, is to avoid using the word "citizenship" or "nationality" when reliable sources didn't use those words. (And for anyone that thinks that passports always mean citizenship, the following examples probably don't apply to Osaka, but will give you an idea of what kind of madness comes from this sort of thing: The U.S. has nationals that are not citizens but get passports and U.S. protection. The UK has 5 levels other than British Citizen that also get passports and British protection even though they don't have the right of abode in Britain itself. Then you have refugee travel documents, which look like passports and sometimes refer to the "protection" of the issuing country.) --Closeapple (talk) 09:45, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

@Closeapple: Icewhiz (talk · contribs) actually basically solved this problem with the Japan Times article linked above. It seems to be the "quietly overlooked" possibility I alluded to: dual citizens by birth are encouraged to give up one or the other, but not actually subject to any penalties for not doing so, which is apparently the way Japan manages to handle cases of people who identify as Japanese and would renounce their other citizenship but are unable to do so. My own feelings about JT are well-known (actually at around the same time they printed a borderline anti-Japanese hate piece that referred to kikoku shijo as "repatriated children" and described Japan as a "highly racialized" society and made a bogus claim that "They’ll claim us if we’re famous" was a common phrase used to describe "such societies"), but my opinions are not widely shared among the WP:JAPAN editors, and that particular article seems pretty good, and handily solves the problem with our article on Ms. Osaka. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:41, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Elvera Sanchez

Biography says Sammy Davis Jr was her only child then end of article says she was survived by her daughter — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.93.0.168 (talk) 15:24, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The New York Times obituary in the references backs up that she was survived by a daughter, so she had at least two children ('survived by' leaves open the possibility that there were children who predeceased her). To avoid confusion, I've removed the Children parameter from the infobox - we don't know for certain how many there were so unless someone can find a cite for it, it's best to omit the detail. Her famous son is mentioned enough in the article, so we don't lose anything by not listing him in the infobox. Neiltonks (talk) 16:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I see no conflict here based on the NYTimes obit. Also, keep in mind, this is definitely not a BLP (she's been dead for nearly 20 years). --Masem (t) 16:08, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Harry Lloyd

On the Harry Lloyd page, the same IP address, 2.39.36.135, keeps adding the same information about the actor's wife. The information is entirely speculation on a "fake marriage", when the actor has actually confirmed his marital status here in an interview for UTP (Un-titled Project) magazine. They also keep stating that interviews given to reputable media sources by the actor are "fake", with no sourcing of this theory, and claims the actor is actively vandalising his own page to "troll". Other than perhaps a throw-away sentence in a life section of some sort I don't think his wife needs any mention at all, as she is not notable and a low-profile individual.

Myself and other users keep reverting the edits, but as this material continues to be added I thought it would be appropriate to raise the issue here (apologies if this isn't correct procedure, I'm new!). The material added also infringes POV and OR rules as the edits consistently paint the actor as a "troll" as part of this person's wild speculations, without trustworthy sources. If this isn't the correct board for this, could someone point me in the right direction?

I thought the issue was worth raising here because of how the same defamatory content is repeatedly added time and time again. (I also cross-posted this to the OR noticeboard, apologies if that was incorrect)

SillyRoundKatie (talk) 20:27, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Watchlisted and warned. Although it looks like this died down several hours ago. So they've likely moved on to something else to occupy their time. GMG^talk 20:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: SillyRoundKatie (talk) 00:18, 6 March 2019 (UTC) They have unfortunately just begun making the edits again, is there anything further I can do other than keep removing them? I don't want to seem that I am edit-warring SillyRoundKatie (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

• They're blocked now. If this nonsense happens again, please report on WP:AIV, saying it's repeated vandalism and ask that the admin look at the history. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 00:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Thanks for the action and advice! Much appreciated SillyRoundKatie (talk) 00:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Luke Brugnara

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

I've been attempting to clean up the article on Luke Brugnara, which was very POV, with extensive statements that weren't actually supported by the cited sources. User Joshualeverburg1 (the article's original creator) has reverted all my edits, first just with the explanation "reverting vandalism," and most recently with the statement that I was trying to "besmirch" the article's subject by posting "false statements." I've asked multiple times for Joshualeverburg1 to come to the talk page to discuss these edits, as well as posting a warning about edit warring on his talk page, but he has refused to engage in any discussion about the article. Any suggestions on where we go from here? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 22:55, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Ah, it appears that the user threatened legal action, and has been blocked. Would it be appropriate for me to restore my edits at this point, or would that constitute edit warring? BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 23:00, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• At a quick glance the article does have significant issues, for example long stretches of material cited to primary court documents (see references 13, 14, 25, 26 etc in this version) Can some experienced editors take a look? Abecedare (talk) 23:12, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Based on looking at your diffs, I would agree that yours is at least somewhat better than the original version from a BLP standpoint, but stands for more improvement. --Masem (t) 00:06, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

User Jimmy Bing

Contributions from Wikipedia user Jimmy Bing displays several edits that would reveal an admitted conflict of interest. Many defensive edits to the W. Mark Lanier page leaves room for question that someone close to the indivdual or possibly employed by the Lanier Law Firm is making edits in his best interest.

Examples below:

22:35, 17 June 2009 diff hist +135‎ Virtuality (film) ‎ Fox has no official site. Check futurefox.com, they've linked to us.

20:51, 17 June 2009 diff hist +63‎ Virtuality (film) ‎ We're working with FOX to promote the show.

Special:Contributions/Jimmy_Bing

Gabe Hudson

• Gabe Hudson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A bio turned into a press release, filled with promotional blurbs. More eyes on this, please. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 05:09, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

I've rolled back to a stable earlier version, which looks a lot more acceptable in my opinion. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:33, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Thank you very much, Ritchie333. There was more likely to be an edit war if I'd done so. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:26, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Zofia Klepacka

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

Anti-LGBT/homophobic vandalism. Please, lock the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.10.80.21 (talk) 16:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Homophobic? No. Vandalism? No. Protecting the article? No. It's a content dispute about whether some of her recent comments merit a mention in her article or not. GiantSnowman 16:22, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

documenta artist notability

Quick general question: is there some kind of consensus on whether participation in a documenta makes an artist notable? My notion would be yes, it being an invited and highly prestigious event; but not sure of precedents. (specific case in point - Nomin Bold, who also has other international exhibitions under her belt, so probably not riding on that) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 21:20, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharad_Tripathi

Derogatory article mentioning Cow belt, whether Indian govt has spine, etc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajnp1 (talk • contribs) 06:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

It's been cleaned up somewhat, and I've copy-edited it for grammar. It desperately needs improving as it's largely unreferenced, but my knowledge of Indian politics is sketchy at best so I'm not comfortable attempting it myself. Neiltonks (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Lee Nailon

• Lee Nailon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Lee Nailon (talk · contribs)

Problematic edits by eponymous account. Unsourced personal content, including some with WP:BLP issues that may need to be rev/deleted. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:35, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Hank Johnson's Guam gaffe in lead

In 2010, Hank Johnson expressed fears about Guam capsizing during a Congressional hearing, should his comment be mentioned in the lead paragraph of his entry? The gaffe is currently covered in the article body, but not the lead. Here's the edit in question. Nblund ^talk 20:43, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

No. The lede should be a quick overview of what the subject is. It's a poor place to put what is obviously (to me, at least) a joke, or maybe a slip or a misunderstanding (although I doubt it). Such things look completely out of place in the lede, just as I would not expect Dan Quayle's potato gaffe to be in the lede of his article nor John F Kennedy's jelly-donut flub to be in the lede of his. Funny as they are, they're just too insignificant compared to the other things they're notable for. Zaereth (talk) 21:52, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Jamie Moyer

In the wiki page on Jamie Moyer, the section on his personal life implies that he is still married to Karen Moyer. Karen and Jamie were divorced in 2017. I'm a friend of Jamie's. He has expressed the desire to see his personal information updated to reflect reality but has no idea how to do it. I told him I would try. I can't find a reference online to the Moyers' divorce but I know it is true. You might try contacting him.24.17.11.63 (talk) 01:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)M A Ganong