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.

Ongoing issues in Billy Mitchell biography (3)

Billy Mitchell has a publicly witnessed and verified Donkey Kong score of 1.050 million from November 24, 2018. Wikipedia's Billy Mitchell biography claims that Mitchell has only "a single publicly witnessed Donkey Kong high score of 933,900 from 2004". When Wikipedia's cited source was published on February 3, 2018, it was reporting the non-neutral, disputed position of the Donkey Kong Forum rankings. Even if it had been reporting a neutral fact, that outdated source obviously wouldn't support Wikipedia's claim today. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:42, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

We really are not in the least bit interested, Mr. Mitchell. Please go away. Guy (help!) 22:43, 15 November 2019 (UTC)

Regardless of the IP, there's a valid point that the wording is not quite what the source says. But the IP is very close to crossing the WP:TE line here, having not taken the advice given in the past. --Masem (t) 00:33, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Well this is something I can work with. The source, which is used three times in the article, seems to be well interpreted in the article. For example, the line in question actually says, "In 2004, Mitchell had achieved a Donkey Kong high score of 933,900 in front of multiple witnesses at the Midwest Gaming Classic.[6]" Is there anything incorrect about that statement? We never use the word "only" or "single". The other two times this source is used it simply talks about the investigation done by Young and Copeland, which also happened, did it not? The source looks reliable to me, and I see no evidence of misinterpretation.

If there was a subsequent, publically-witnessed game in which he scored over a million, it simply has not been added to the article yet. As far as I can tell, Twich is something like Youtube, in which case it's not usable as a reliable source. I don't know about the other source because my internet filters are blocking it as a "high risk site". If we have a reliable secondary-source verifying another, publically-witnessed high score, then we can most definitely add that to the article as well, but lacking such a source we can't. If anyone's feeling brave enough to lower their firewall and look at the EGMnow.com site, perhaps we can verify the info and end this once and for all. Zaereth (talk) 01:26, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I just edited the article. Originally it said what IP said which was "a single publicly witnessed Donkey Kong high score of 933,900 from 2004", which is not necessarily true in relationship to the "single publicly witnesses" part- the Ars Tech article didn't support it, and this discounts any other prior attempts that may have been witnessed. It was necessary to establish the 2004 score as what the newcomer Weibe was challenging (as documented in King of Kongs) so what I rewrote placed the score in that context, and does not say if it was Mitchell's only witnessed score. --Masem (t) 01:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, forgot to check the history as I guess I'm is a hurry to put this to bed. True, the source did not support "single", so thanks for fixing that. I'm still not sure about the purported new score, or whether that site is reliable or not, but if it causes this much sensation I would expect it to be reported somewhere. Zaereth (talk) 01:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, I have not researched much beyond what was already in the WP article and the EGM source. There may be more coverage, I just haven't spent any time. I will say , as I said in the past related to this article, Mitchell is a controversial figure and we do have to be careful how to present him - we're not going to act like the stripping of his records were wrong and present that side in favor of Mitchell. But there's several other allegations that fall into BLP problems that I am purposely leaving out as they're not necessary and mostly conjecture of what is going on. --Masem (t) 02:09, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

FWIW, this was what I came up with from EGMNow [1]. I didn't make the change myself or even make a proposal because 1) I wasn't sure if EGM Now was a RS, while I'm not challenging it, I also wasn't willing to endorse it by adding it. 2) I didn't take that much care to avoid close paraphrasing. 3) Frankly this seems to be a minor thing, while it can probably be mentioned, there didn't seem a great deal of urgency. (Likewise the 'single' part when I only thought it was a dispute over whether to count EGM Now.) 4) I was really hoping to convince the OP to do something more useful than open more BLP threads. Still anyone is welcome to work with it if they want.

For my mind, the key issue with the live streams is they don't really seem to add much to the dispute. The fact he can achieve these now doesn't provide much evidence that the previous disputed scores are fine. More to the point, I don't think concentrating on the live streams is really the right angle. The fact that (per EGM Now), his live streamed scores seem to be accepted even by those who disputed his earlier scores is the more important point. But I didn't deal with that because the OP/IP didn't seem to care about this.

As I understand it, the disputed claim is that modified hardware, maybe even MAME, was used for the earlier records. Live streaming from a public venue in itself doesn't easily disprove this. You first need to establish it was a genuine live stream, did he interact with his chat for example? More importantly, the hardware in this 'public venue' could easily have been modified when no one was around, or heck even when people were around if none of them knew what was going on. 300 people watching a live stream doesn't say much about whether the hardware was modified. Even if the game's code was substantially modified in such a way that was obvious to anyone sufficient familiar with the game, these 300 random people might not have noticed. But the other problem is that if you are modifying the game code you can likely give yourself a reasonable advantage that even experts have trouble spotting with detailed statistical analysis and very careful viewing of the footage.

That's why IMO the more important point is that experts don't seem to dispute his latest scores, rather than it being live streamed (apparently to 300 viewers) from a public venue. But there may also be little interest in challenging these scores anyway. It sounds like they aren't going to be recognised in any significant records, at least not unless Mitchell successfully challenges the earlier removals since he's no longer trusted by the parties involved. So to some extent even the lack of challenge of his latest scores may not mean that the parties are particularly certain his scores are "above board", but instead that they don't have obvious evidence they're not and they don't care enough to look.

But they also didn't tell EGM Now this when it seems to me they could have without risking defamation or whatever. Instead whatever they said lead EGM Now to say "(No one I spoke to, not even Jeremy Young, said they had reason to doubt these new games were above board)" so it's probably fine to mention that they don't question these latest scores or something similar, although the only person we know for sure this applies to is Jeremy Young. (I don't think we can safely conclude the statement means anyone quoted in the story was asked about the live streamed scores.) Hence why I'm not opposed to adding something about the live stream. But there doesn't seem to be any great importance from a BLP standpoint. So someone who actually cares like the IP, is going to have to deal with it.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:22, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for dealing with this. This seems to demonstrate the problem with the OP's approach. If they had just made a simple edit request asking for removal of the word "only" since the source never claimed it was the only publicly witnessed high score, it's likely this would have been actioned without needing these 4 different threads at BLPN. If they had really felt the need to bring it to BLPN, concentrating on the fact the source never actually claimed it was the only publicly witnessed high score would likely also have worked. Heck even without an edit request, a simple comment on the talk page concentrating on the key issue rather than rambling on about how removing something sourced to Twitch was wrong because there was another unused source which also mentioned the same thing. Instead we had all these threads about how evil other editors were and even now the editor is still apparently unwilling or unable to make a simple edit request and even their comment here sort of misses the point, attacking the use of Ars Technica rather than clearly pointing out all it actually said was it the highest confirmed score on the site and it never claimed it was the person's only publicly witness high score. Nil Einne (talk) 02:20, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

I know, it was like pulling teeth. I'm guessing part of the problem is that independent record-holders such as Twin Galaxies and Guinness have apparently removed him from their sites and refuse to accept any new submissions, so even if he did have a subsequent record they still may not be "official" in some circles. So even if we do find independent records, we may have to make clear that they may not Guinness records or what not. Zaereth (talk) 02:30, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Think about it a bit more, it was actually a bit obvious that the claim was problematic. Billy Mitchell isn't a recluse so it's a bit weird that there is no other publicly witnessed score especially since there were talks of him visiting various stuff as an invited guest. (Although I don't know what he played.) Without needing to check the source, I probably would have realised if I'd thought about it more that it's unlikely the sourced said it was his only (or single) publicly witness high score. I probably would have figured what the source was most likely claiming is it was his highest witnessed scored, not his only witnessed score. Or maybe his only witnessed score above a certain amount. If this had occurred to me, I expect I would have checked it out myself to fix the article, and then found out what the source actually says is it's his highest recognised score on some official record. Nil Einne (talk) 02:56, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Hindsight being 20/20, sure. But that single word that might have serious connotations to one person may go completely unnoticed by another. I just wasn't seeing it in that context until pointed out. All of this could have been so much simpler if that's all this is about. Zaereth (talk) 03:06, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

A similar situation arose in September. The IP went on for days about the awful BLP and NEUTRAL violations that needed to be undone without discussion. I told him he needed to make a specific request or provide a WP:DIF of what change was problematic, as many edits had been made. He refused, and just went on with generic complaining. So nothing happened until the protection expired and he did it himself. Come to find out, all he wanted was the word “former” removed from one of his professions. And I believe his change is still present in the article. That could have been done weeks earlier had he just articulated it. It’s pretty amazing he hasn’t learned that he just needs to make more specific requests yet... Sergecross73 msg me 13:23, 16 November 2019 (UTC)

Double standards

Reliably sourced information that presents Mitchell in a positive light seems to be removed and excluded from his Wikipedia biography at a much higher rate than information that presents him in a negative light, even when the stated reason for removing it is merely an unsupported claim that it isn't relevant. Multiple commenters make false accusations against me in this section, but I've decided not to specifically address them, at least for now. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:12, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Rather than vague complaining, please submit constructive and specific requests for change on the talk page through the WP:EDITREQUEST system, or here, if it’s a BLP related issue. Thanks. Sergecross73 msg me 22:16, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Questions for administrator

@Masem: Rather than correcting Mitchell's highest undisputed Donkey Kong score of 1.050 million from 2018, you appear to have completely removed any mention of his personal high score from the article. Would you disagree with this assessment of your revisions? (Per Electronic Gaming Monthly, "Mitchell had proven he could earn those scores now. But he hadn’t outlined a clear defense to prove he’d achieved them at the time of the original submissions.") 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:24, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

You did check the next immediate edit I did, where I moved it to a relevant section AND improved the wording to imply it wasn't the only publicly witnessed high score, just the one best documented? I will admit that I was skimming the back end of that EGM article - most which is where there's a lot of speculation and potential BLP landmines that are best avoided, and missed the very last conclusion section about contiuing to show he can do high scores, and will add that. --Masem (t) 22:32, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'd checked your next edit and thought it was a net improvement, but 933,900 is no longer Mitchell's highest undisputed Donkey Kong score. Per Electronic Gaming Monthly, Mitchell has proven he can earn these scores. You appear to have completely removed any mention of his personal high score from the article. Would you disagree? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 22:32, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

I already told you, that was moved to a different part of the article in its chronological timing (just before the filming for King of Kongs), and added mention of high scoring results in 2018. You are clearly not reviewing the edits made and assuming bad faith on editors, which is not acceptable behavior. --Masem (t) 22:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: Your accusation that I'm assuming bad faith and not reviewing the edits is untrue. You moved Mitchell's 2004 score of 933,900 to a different part of the article in the "next edit" you'd cited above, and as I'd noted in my reply, I thought it was a net improvement. You didn't move Mitchell's personal high score in that edit because, as I'd also noted in my reply, 933,900 is no longer Mitchell's highest undisputed Donkey Kong score. The "two specific things" in the diff you point out below are Mitchell's 20th-anniversary perfect Pac-Man score and his first-place finish at this year's Australian Donkey Kong championships in Brisbane. What "mention of high scoring results in 2018" are you claiming to have added? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I will point out this diff that adds the two specific things EGM notes in its final section. It doesn't point to any Twitch streams, so it would be inappropriate to use those as primary sources. (And I did look to see if anyone covered them otherwise but didn't see them). We are hitting on the points you want in a broader sense, we just cannot put exactly what you want in there. --Masem (t) 22:59, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

IMO we could mention that he made live broadcasts from public records where he achieved the scores now in dispute as I suggested before. We could even mention Twitch. But especially with your additions it doesn't really seem to add anything though. As I said before the key point about these live broadcasts seems to be lost in what the OP is proposing anyway. We can't use Twitch directly and I'm not sure if we should even link to the videos considering no specific video was mentioned in the source. Nil Einne (talk) 06:12, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

From Electronic Gaming Monthly: "On April 12th, 2018, Twin Galaxies ruled that the first two of Mitchell’s disputed scores, the 1.047 million King of Kong score and 1.050 million Mortgage Brokers score, as depicted on the tapes, were not played on genuine arcade hardware. It declined to make a determination on the 1.062 million score from Boomers, citing a lack of direct evidence... In the year that followed ... [Billy Jr] began streaming on Twitch with the help of his son [Billy III], eventually obtaining scores equal to those that had been disputed, broadcast live from public venues..." EGM is obviously referring to these scores, and suggestions to the contrary strain credulity. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:24, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

We can mention from EGM he continues to showcase high scores over Twitch, but as we can't source Twitch directly, and his scores remain unrecognized by TG, that's all we can say. We have to clearly watch for unduly self--serving claims here. --Masem (t) 03:55, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: According to Electronic Gaming Monthly, after obtaining scores of "1.047 million" and "1.050 million" while "streaming on Twitch" in 2018, "Mitchell had proven he could earn those scores". Are you arguing that these livestreamed scores of 1.047 million and 1.050 million aren't the scores EGM verifies? 208.53.236.34 (talk) 00:09, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes actually. From EGM, when they talk of the 1.047 and 1.050 m scores, these are specially the ones removed from TG's high score list. "On April 12th, 2018, Twin Galaxies ruled that the first two of Mitchell’s disputed scores, the 1.047 million King of Kong score and 1.050 million Mortgage Brokers score, as depicted on the tapes, were not played on genuine arcade hardware." (King of Kongs was done around 2005, Mortgage Brokers around 2007). Now by happenstance, the two Twitch streams, which were generated in 2018, hit those same scores (+/- 1000 pts), but they are not the same score attempts specifically at odds as discussed in EGM. I can see how it is very easy to confuse these, but they are 100% different. EGM makes no specific mention of any DK high score from ca. 2018 or later for Mitchell, just that he is showing he can do it. --Masem (t) 02:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Masem: "... Twin Galaxies ruled that ... the 1.047 million King of Kong score and 1.050 million Mortgage Brokers score ... were not played on genuine arcade hardware... [Billy Jr] began streaming on Twitch ... eventually obtaining scores equal to those that had been disputed ..." Are you arguing that scores "equal to" 1.047 million and 1.050 million aren't scores of 1.047 million and 1.050 million? (By the way, your claim that Mitchell hit those same scores by "happenstance", rather than intentionally, is ridiculous.) 216.249.244.88 (talk) 23:48, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

First, I don't know if they are exactly the same score, because we're missing 3 (well 2) significant digits. They are equivalent scores +/- 1000 pts. (in fact: [2] is a 1,050,100 pt score, but his previous at Mortgage Brokers was 1,050,200 whole [3] is 1,047,500 while his King of Kongs was 1,047,200 - so yes, clearly not the exact same score. Second, the EGM statement, the way I read it, means scores "in the same 1+ ballpark" as his former scores. While they may be referring to the two specific Twitch streams mentioned, its not clear if they mean these or earlier ones. The current statement in the article Mitchell has also gone on to demonstrate his ability to get these records at witnessed events is a completely accurate and fair statement based on the lack of explicitness of EGM or any other RS to say that Mitchell has gotten into the 1m+ scoring range rivaling his past scores, without explicitly acknowledging but left implicit that at the current time TG will not be accepting any of his scores in the immediate future. It's a neutral statement. --Masem (t) 00:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Of course, even if editors felt these were the videos referred to, we couldn't add them for WP:OR reasons. This is clearly not a WP:CALC case, deciding precisely which videos EGM is referring to clearly requires significant analysis. And I still have no idea why the IP is so desperate to include links to specific videos anyway, instead of accurately conveying the information from EGM about them. Nil Einne (talk) 13:25, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: On August 16, 2018, Mitchell obtained a Donkey Kong score of 1.047 million while streaming on Twitch. On November 24, 2018, Mitchell obtained a Donkey Kong score of 1.050 million while streaming on Twitch. On September 30, 2019, Electronic Gaming Monthly verified that, after obtaining Donkey Kong scores of 1.047 million and 1.050 million while streaming on Twitch in 2018, Mitchell had proven he could earn those scores. Determining which livestreams EGM has verified doesn't require a violation of WP:OR. It barely requires literacy. Your accusation that I'm "desperate" to include the links to Mitchell's livestreams is untrue, but I definitely believe including them would improve Wikipedia and benefit its readers. 208.53.236.34 (talk) 23:18, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

The critical line from the EGM article is this During this time, he began streaming on Twitch with the help of his son, Billy Jr., eventually obtaining scores equal to those that had been disputed, broadcast live from public venues. As I have shown above, the new Twitch scores are not exactly equal to his former King of Kings and Mortgage Brokers scores. Thus, EGM's statement here should use the interpretation of "equal" being "within the same 1M+ point ballpack that says he can get close to or greater than his earlier scores. But because of this vagueness, we do not known which of the numerous Twitch videos of Mitchell playing DK they mean, so no we cannot include those scores without a different third-party source. --Masem (t) 23:36, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I would note that we can't even be sure the videos EGM refers to are still there. Nowadays, Twitch normally doesn't allow VODs of livestreams to be kept more than 60 days. I guess Billy Mitchell managed to convince them to treat his channel differently (live streams of e-sports events are the same), or maybe these are just reuploads I don't know and don't really care. (The story was date September 30th, but it's quite likely that it was being worked on for at least a few weeks if not longer, and we have no idea when whoever wrote the story checked out the channel. So we really have no idea what was on the channel whenever it was checked out.) But even if Twitch didn't automatically delete the videos after 60 days, we have no way of knowing what the channel owner chose to keep and what they chose to delete. I do find it funny that the OP insists they aren't desperate to include these videos, when they prove the opposite in their very comment such as by making dumb claims about what is and isn't OR. But whatever, I think I'm really done with this discussion now especially since with OP's continued misleading claims such as the one about "not being desperate", I'm having strong doubts that their statement that they do not have a COI is true. While you're not required to declare if you have a COI, people are often reluctant to work with people who have undisclosed COI, and especially reluctant when the person claims they don't but this doesn't seem to be true. Being upfront about such things tends to make people far more willing to help you than when you're evasive or outright misleading. We are required to AGF, but ultimately AGF can only go so far when a person's own comments show the opposite. Nil Einne (talk) 13:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Onision article and child grooming and spousal abuse material

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

Over at Talk:Onision#BLP again, A Simple Fool is insisting that we add material about Onision engaging in child grooming and spousal abuse. The editor is upset that I removed this material. The editor told me, "Protecting a guy like this, despite the caution both me and the aforementioned editors have taken in regards to wording and sourcing is disgusting. You make me sick." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 10:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

The guy is a fairly well known figure, so if the allegations are being talked about in multiple reliable and independent sources, they could legitimately be reflected in the article. That said, I agree with your removal of the material which was originally in the article, as it was sourced to YouTube and 'hansenvspredators.com', which is hardly independent and unbiased, and therefore didn't meet our sourcing requirements for any article, let alone a BLP. Neiltonks (talk) 12:19, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Taken care of for now. If reliable sources have discussed the allegations, that's one thing, but YouTube and some guy's personal website are absolutely not adequate. Allegations like that would require something of much higher quality. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 17:16, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

Onision's child sexual abuse allegations

Should we add the subject's allegations of grooming and sexual abuse in the article? His case is being investigated by journalists such as Chris Hansen.98.6.21.229 (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I've boldly moved this to a subthread of the older thread. There's no need to have multiple open threads on the same article and largely dealing with the same issue. Nil Einne (talk) 00:51, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Chris Hansen is what I'd call a journalist only in the colloquial sense. I don't know about his new show, Hansen Vs Predators, because it requires a log-in to view. I really hope, from the title, that he's facing some alien hunter with natural heat-vision in the middle of the jungle while firing an 85 lbs minigun with 2000 lbs of ammo that's putting off about 300 lbs of thrust from the recoil, yelling "Eat lead Mother 'F'errrr!!!". (That would be cool.) If the show is anything like his Dateline: To Catch a Predator, then I would not count that as a reliable source anymore than I would shows like Forensic Files, Cold Case Files, or other shows that dramatize stories. And from all the reviews I've seen, that's basically what it is. Zaereth (talk) 02:17, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Upon further review of the article, while the subject obviously seems to be notable, the sourcing is sub-par at best, with youtube, the Daily Dot, op/ed columns, and similar sources being used for the most part. Some lines are completely incoherent. (I particularly like this: "The clips were scripted but presented in a manner many fans interpreted as unscripted. In some of them, however, Hoganson experienced amnesia, which was confirmed by her to have experienced a memory loss and was real, a pregnancy, and a miscarriage." I've read this ten times and still have no clue what it means.) I'd say this article could use more than a bit of work to bring it up to standards. Zaereth (talk) 03:03, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I would suggest WP:TNT as a good, ideal standard to bring this article up to, uh, snuff. Elizium23 (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

That would be almost as cool... Zaereth (talk) 03:13, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

You may be able to see the Hansen video here [4]. Note that it is a live stream involving interviews with random people and stuff. So even if Hansen vs Predator is a reliable source, it wouldn't be a great source. Nil Einne (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, Nil. I'll try to check that out when I get home. Part of my problem is I do most of my editing at work, mostly when I'm on hold and actually sitting at my desk, so I'm limited by the restrictions the IT dept puts on me here. But thanks for the info. Zaereth (talk) 22:21, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

I would like to add that the interviewees aren't "random people". I suppose the argument can be made for people like Repzion, a guy who's not physically been around Onision, but a lot of the female interviewees have documented history with Onision, i.e appeared in videos, mentioned by name, what have you. A Simple Fool (talk) 21:32, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

I haven't had time to look yet. My life at home is really busy, and even here I'm constantly on the go. Here's the thing, if the show is like Dateline, which by all accounts of the reviews (some not so good) it is, then it's something called "literary journalism". Unlike true journalism, which is written in journalistic style (a form of expository style and not too different from encyclopedic style), literary journalism is written or presented using a narrative style. Narrative style is something you're probably most familiar with from fiction writing, because that's where it's used almost exclusively. About the only exception to that is in literary journalism. In this style, we're given a narrative that let's the reader or viewer see through the character's eyes, feel their emotions, hear their internal thoughts, and other literary techniques that are actually impossible in real life. Makes for a great story, but lousy for reliability. There's just no good way to determine how much is real and how much is from the narrator's own viewpoint, and how much is just stitched together like Walt Disney's lemming movie. This is why similar shows like Forensic Factor, World's Most Deadly Serial Killers, Dateline, 48 Hours, those great Ken Burns documentaries, etc... are not reliable sources even though they're based on real events. It's far better to use the same sources they did (history books, newspapers, etc.) than try to decipher the facts from the narrative.

That said, admittedly I haven't had time to view the show myself to be sure. The problem with Hansen's other show, aside from the style, is that he was the one directly involved in exposing the people, and really that makes it a primary source to boot. I'll try to wrangle up some time this weekend so I can see it for myself. Zaereth (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2019 (UTC)

@A Simple Fool: I disagree. From our PoV, these are random people. They mostly aren't recognised experts on child sexual abuse. Nor are they journalists or whoever who have looked into the allegations. They are just random people making allegations. We covered people making allegations, when they have been properly covered in reliable secondary sources. This requires that the secondary sources have actually looked into the allegations and found them credible enough to publish. This does not include cases where sources have simply conducted interviews with random people making the allegations. Consider a far more prominent case, Brett Kavanaugh. If the only sourcing we had, was an interview Chris Hansen did with random people making allegations, even if those random people were clearly former class mates of Brett Kavanaugh, then no, we would not be covering the allegations in his article. If you want a more ontopic case, feel free to use Roy Moore as an example. Again an interview Chris Hansen did with random people, even if we had photos of Roy Moore with these random people, would not be sufficient to cover the content in our article. Nil Einne (talk) 04:51, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I didn't watch the interview except for the first few minutes. If in the interview, someone covers their investigation into the allegations etc then there is a slight chance that will be enough. Frankly though, the first few minutes was enough to make me believe it's not the sort of source was can use. Also as finally comment, do remember that we are should always be slower than RS, especially in cases like this. The RS coverage needs to come first, then we can include it, not the other way around. No one is saying that the info is never going to be included, simply that it doesn't seem it can be included from the sourcing currently available. Assuming this really does become a significant thing with sufficient coverage in RS, then we will include it. The fact we can't and won't now is not a mistake if it currently meet our sourcing requirements. Nil Einne (talk) 05:03, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

They really aren't though, they have appeared in multiple videos with the guy, he's mentioned them several times, he mentioned them by name just a few hours ago on Twitter. I realize these women aren't professionals, but they have very tangible, public connections with the man, ones he acknowledges personally. Honestly, just look at his Twitter. Ever since this started he's basically been making (Redacted) tangents to mock the allegations against him. A Simple Fool (talk) 12:43, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

What does any of that have to do with anything? No one here has ever questioned their connections with the person, since it's irrelevant to us. As for what the person may be saying on Twitter, it may very well be completely disgusting but is also irrelevant to us until and unless it is reported on by reliable sources. Looking at our article, I think a big problem is this guy is basically a minor Youtube star so no one particularly cares that much what they get up to (in terms of media coverage) and the allegations are extremely serious so not something many sources are willing to cover without significant research and there is likely to be additional concern about whether extensive media coverage may be harmful to any possible victims who I assume are still fairly young. One would hope that Chris Hansen and his team are working with those they interviewed to look into how they can take this further, and I don't mean more media coverage but law enforcement. If something like that does happen, then there's a fair chance it will get reported on IMO and then we can cover that part. Note that the article may very well have too much info that is poorly sourced and needs to go. The solution to that, as I said in reply to another thread, is to delete this material as I have now done, rather than allowing more poorly sourced material. Nil Einne (talk) 18:21, 23 November 2019 (UTC)

Basically, Wikipedia is not the news, and we are deliberately very conservative (in the general sense, not the political one) when it comes to covering living people, especially in cases of substantial controversy. We shouldn't be doing "investigative reporting" of people slinging mud or engaging in Twitter spats. If organizations with actual fact checkers and editors, and a high reputation for accuracy, decide to start looking at this situation and reporting on it, that is when it might become significant and well-sourced enough to go into the article. It's not that anyone's trying to whitewash or anything like that, but Wikipedia should always follow the lead of reliable sources, not jump out ahead of them. If and when such sources decide to weigh in on this, we'll use them as our sources and follow their lead in that as well. If they've not yet done so, we also follow their lead, by not doing so. But we never write articles from our own interpretations of primary sources and their significance or lack thereof; we let reliable secondary sources make that call. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 14:52, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Hello. Since this has been picked up by two sources Wikipedia considers generally reliable, I have just made this edit. The majority of the edit deals with the Patreon deactivation—rather than the accusations of abuse—and includes a direct quote from a Patreon spokesman as reported by the source in question. I have furthermore taken effort to use language which is as neutral as possible. In addition, I have added a Current Event template which states clearly that some sources may be unreliable. While I think this is a separate matter from the original point of this noticeboard incident, I am nonetheless mentioning it here for transparency. The Pony Toast 🍞 (Talk) 20:23, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@PonyToast: looks reasonable. We still want to be cautious about not overrepresenting what is essentially a small amount of internet drama/rumor mongering. —DIYeditor (talk) 00:40, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with DIYeditor, your edit seems reasonable. This gets into what I said in my last comment i.e. just because we don't cover it now doesn't mean we're never going to cover it. We have to wait for the RS. And frankly I'm not surprised that Onision response appears to be a bit part of why there's now something to cover. Nil Einne (talk) 03:30, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I have made some changes to the addition, with explanation on the article talk page. Nil Einne (talk) 04:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, well - looks like someone here was in the right all along. But at least now (Redacted) at least, and getting the information out there is far more important than anything else. A Simple Fool (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

No, you were totally wrong, youtube videos with vague allegations are not significant coverage in reliable secondary sources, and if you continue making defamatory comments about living persons on noticeboards or article talk pages in violation of WP:BLP you may find yourself blocked from Wikipedia. —DIYeditor (talk) 17:29, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I did not use YouTube as a source. Others may have, but as far as I am concerned, you are lying if you say I have done so A Simple Fool (talk) 11:14, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Some more eyes would be useful here, as it looks like some decent sources are beginning to report on the issue. Some additions have been appropriate in light of that, but some have been unreferenced and highly controversial assertions. There will be a need for both keeping an eye out for that, and also watching for due weight and verifying that cited sources actually do confirm the article material. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:23, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@A Simple Fool: I think you still don't understand. The fact that the information can be included now since there are appropriate sources doesn't mean mistakes were made in the past. I think many of us fully expected it may eventually be covered. Definitely I said so before it was actually covered. But we need to wait for the sources, not lead them. If the only stuff we have are crap sources, then no we cannot add it. Once and only once, the sources emerge then we can. It's entirely to be expected that we do not cover something at one time because of a lack of source, but then do cover it in the future because we now have the sources.

BTW, as for the Youtube stuff, from what I see you did add a Youtube video. In this edit [5] you added a single source. This one https://www.hansenvspredators.com/hansen-vs-onision/ . But this source has no meaningful content to support the allegations unless you count the title or user comments, other than an embedded video (a saved livestream). And the embedded video is indeed hosted on Youtube, this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FS5Spil1J10 . So by definition it's a Youtube video, no matter if it's embedded on the HansenVsPredators website. If I embed this video, or Friday the infamous Rebecca Black song or whatever else on my personal website, it's still a Youtube video.

I did wonder from some of the earlier comments if the site used geolocation to show different content, but I tested with a US proxy and also looked at the Google cache of the site [6] and I see no indication of this. So I strongly suspect it's a Youtube video for you too even if you did not realise this.

Mind you IMO the whole Youtube video is a distraction anyway per WP:Youtube. A BBC video hosted on Youtube is not unreliable because it's hosted on Youtube. If I choose to host my own video on my own site rather than relying on Youtube to host it, it doesn't become more reliable.

What is clear is that this video, and HansenVsPredators generally do not seem to be reliable sources so cannot be used, especially for BLPs. So it was proper to exclude the material when it was the only thing that came close to an RS. Now that we have better sources it is not. Something perfectly reasonable, and also somewhat predictable hence why me, and probably others did think it may happen like this.

Nil Einne (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Madhu Purnima Kishwar

One user is repeatedly adding defamatory content about Madhu Purnima Kishwar. It is already in politics and fake news section and still being added. I am not editing it again and again but I request to block the user. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/927078736, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/926928158 and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/926928158.I am working for their website so I am not editing but one person told to complain here.

Abuse of ADMIN privilege in Hunter Biden

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

---

This article has been hijacked to serve the purpose of POV and advocacy. I attempted to restore WP:NPOV to the Introduction, which contains blatant editorializing and online advocacy, using other advocacy for sourcing. Admin User:Muboshgu, instead of moderating to maintain neutrality, uses his Admin power to bully editors who do not play to his apparent desire to maintain this article as a WP:SOAPBOX. Not only was my attempt to remove the blatant POV reverted, but after politely explaining my reasoning on the Talk page, plus a constructive suggestion, I was threatened with blocking by Muboshgu. The WP:1RR is abusive, since it makes the victim of the revert a reverter himself if he dares restore his edit. Hence, there's a tyranny of reverters, since Wikipedia makes resolving revert wars a bureaucratic nightmare. Furthermore, consensus required by WP:1RR to make changes is a sham in this article. I see no consensus, only Admin fiat. Wikipedia becomes a monstrous subversion of knowledge and vehicle for advocacy, when editors attempting in good faith to do their jobs are constantly reverted by those, backed by Admin accomplices, whose agenda is to promote their POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by J M Rice (talk • contribs) 21:11, November 24, 2019 (UTC)

I didn't block you for violating 1RR. That is not "Abuse of ADMIN privilege". Talk:Hunter_Biden#Please_do_not_revert_edit! shows two other editors disagreeing with your edit, not to mention a complete misunderstanding of WP:BRD and WP:3RR. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:20, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

• Does not look like any abuse has actually happened. Though with Muboshgu being involved they should probably not be threatening to block people personally. PackMecEng (talk) 21:22, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, my being involved is why I didn't block JM Rice. I was referring to reporting the user to the edit warring noticeboard for another admin to handle, but that doesn't have the same ring to it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  Agreed that is why I said nothing actually happened. Though my concern is when an involved admin says If you do so again, I will block you[7] that can be a problem. PackMecEng (talk) 21:34, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

  PackMecEng, fair point. I didn't realize I said "I". I'll be more mindful of that in the future. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:54, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

While the issue being raised here is in regard to a BLP article, it does not appear to be an issue regarding the BLP nature of the article. As such, this is likely the wrong noticeboard for this to be raised on. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:21, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

It sure as heck is the right venue. The question is over allegedly fraught material in a biography, where else is this editor supposed to go? (It is unfortunate the J M Rice titled this section as she did, since it draws attention away from the matter at hand.)

User:J M Rice removed some material from the lede. Remember, this is the lede. (Note that all statements are properly sourced). The lede opens with this material, which was kept: "Robert Hunter Biden (born February 4, 1970) is an American lawyer and lobbyist who is the second son of former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden. He co-founded Rosemont Seneca Partners, an international consulting firm". User:J M Rice removed the rest of the lede, which was this:

In 2019, President Donald Trump falsely claimed that Joe Biden had sought the dismissal of a Ukrainian prosecutor in order to protect Hunter Biden from investigation. However, Hunter Biden was not under investigation, and there is no evidence of wrongdoing done by him in Ukraine. He has been the subject of debunked rightwing conspiracy theories. Trump's alleged attempt to pressure the Ukrainian government to investigate the Bidens by withholding foreign aid triggered an impeachment inquiry in September 2019. In October 2019, Biden resigned from the Board of Directors of a Chinese private investment fund he co-founded, BHR Partners.

All this is true. All this is sourced. The problem is, the article is titled "Hunter Biden", not "Persecution of Hunter Biden". That'd be a different article. We are not here to exonerate or valorize Hunter Biden. Biographies are not supposed to contain unnecessary negative material, but neither are they supposed to be hagiographys. What we have here is the son of a powerful man who has had a life heavily impacted by that. How to handle that is delicate and not the function of a lede. We want ledes to be an anodyne introduction to the subject.

So User:J M Rice was correct to remove this material. However, she didn't actually remove it all. She left in "In October 2019, Biden resigned from the Board of Directors of a Chinese private investment fund he co-founded, BHR Partners." Well not untrue, this is POV worded. "Resigned" has a negative vibe to it. Better would be something like "Biden co-founded a Chinese private investment fund, BHR Partners, and served on its board of directors from [date] to October 2019". For the lede. In the article body, with enough room to stretch out so we can provide sufficient detail to facilitate a reasonable understanding of the matter, we can talk about why he left. So, minnow slap to J M Rice for going too far the other way.

(WP:BRD does not apply to WP:BLP-based edits, generally. If J M Rice was blocked for this, and by an involved admin (I have no idea what happened), that's pretty sketchy and J M Rice could to WP:ANI, but that's a different matter.)

Anyway, the upshoot of all this is that the lede is a little bit better now, altho still problematic IMO, and props to J M Rice for starting the process that resulted in that. Herostratus (talk) 09:17, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

While there is a BLP exception to WP:3RR it says

Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy. What counts as exempt under BLP can be controversial. Consider reporting to the BLP noticeboard instead of relying on this exemption.

I don't deal much with discretionary sanctions stuff, but I'm pretty sure it's the same. Notably, there's nothing there about WP:UNDUE concerns. So I'd urge strong caution when relying on the exemption to edit against 1RR. You can't just say it's a BLP so I'm allowed to remove the information pending consensus.

While I'm a BLP hawk, I'm also opposed to WP:CRYBLP since it makes it more difficult to deal with actual BLP bios. So I'm fully supportive of blocking any editor who violates 1RR or 3RR or whatever claiming it's justified under the BLP exemption when it clearly isn't.

I'm not really sure whether the blocking stuff has great relevance anyway. AFAIK, no one was ever blocked. Definitely a quick check confirms my belief J M Rice was never blocked [8] An admin did mistakenly (by their own agreement) warn an editor by saying 'I will block you' (which wouldn't be acceptable since they were involved) rather than 'I will ask for you to be blocked' or 'expect to be blocked' or 'you will be blocked' or 'you may be blocked' or whatever which is a fair enough warning if the editor is editing inappropriately.

Note that none of this means there may not be issues to deal with, or that the article didn't or doesn't need improvement or whatever. All those are perfectly possible, without needing to violate a 1RR restriction. Disputes over changes can and should be discussed where needed, probably on the article talk page and seeking help from boards like this if required. I'm not even saying there wasn't a reason to violate 1RR, I have not considered it in depth although I admin from a quick look, I'm not convinced there was justification. (And it's often the case where multiple editors don't see it as something earning the BLP exemption then it probably doesn't.)

Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

In the interest of transparency, I should start by noting that I am both the editor who reverted the OP's initial deletion and the one who first pointed out to the OP that 1RR was in effect (at a time when the OP was trying to inhibit other editors by pointing to 3RR.)

Having said that, Herostratus, your comment seems to be both a curious reading of the post here (for which POV in a BLP is at most the grain of sand that triggered it - the pearl is made up of accusations of admin abuse - a matter better suited for WP:ANI - and the "tyranny" of 1RR, a sanction that applies not because it's a BLP, but because it involves modern politics, and would be best addressed somewhere that handles policy changes) and our guidelines on what a lead is supposed to be like, which do not call for it to be anodyne as you suggest. Rather, [i]t should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies. To omit Trump-related materials from the lead would be a failure for three-fifths of what the lead is called on to do, as the Trump material is covered in reasonable depth below (summary), as the level of notability that Hunter Biden has at the moment is clearly tied to that (certainly, coverage of him has skyrocketed in 2019 despite the fact that he took his seat on the board of Burisma five years earlier), and the controversy is clearly prominent. Was there room for some editing of the material that was in the lead? Of course, and that has been done. However, the OP's goal in editing the page was clearly fully eliminating mention in the lead of the controversy at all ("Controversy should come in the timeline below, in the proper sequence. Placing it in the introduction is promoting it, violating NPOV policy."), which is clearly incompatible with what we are called for in the lead. Indeed, leaving Trump out of the introduction of the Hunter Biden article would be about as unthinkable as leaving World War I out of the Franz Ferdinand lead.

--Nat Gertler (talk) 14:40, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"at a time when the OP was trying to inhibit other editors by pointing to 3RR" Utter rubbish. I was trying to inhibited reverters by pointing to a rule, NOT threatening them, as your ADMIN pal does. — J M Rice (talk) 21:42, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure how it's utter rubbish to say you were trying to inhibit editors when you say you were trying to inhibit reverters, as reverters are editors, and reversion is a form of editing. Then again, I'm not sure how that particular ADMIN is my "pal", either. --Nat Gertler (talk) 22:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about the post here, I'm concerned with the content in question.

OK, re WP:CRYBLP, yes, you're correct. Not being a negative characterization, it's not really a WP:BLP problem, there's no need to hurry, and overrides of WP:BRD are uncalled for. It's (arguably) a WP:NPOV problem. Doesn't belong on this board then, but since were' here, let's see.

Hunter Biden is completely innocent of these charges. That doesn't mean I have to be a fan of Hunter Biden; I'm not. If I may be vouchsafed leave to quote from a liberal writer, Matthew Yglesias at Vox:

Hunter Biden’s whole career is being Joe Biden’s son... Hunter interestingly went to work right away for MBNA, a major Delaware-based bank (later purchased by Bank of America) that was also a big contributor to Biden’s campaigns. This was part of a much larger coziness between Biden and the bank.... [I]t’s more like Hunter got the job due to his dad’s overall cozy relationship with the company.... In 2006, President George W. Bush appointed him to the Amtrak board of directors as a gesture of bipartisanship... It would obviously be a stretch to attribute any specific shortcoming of passenger rail in the United States to Hunter Biden’s service on the board. But the fact that the job is treated as a kind of patronage position to hand out to random senators’ kids who have no relevant knowledge beyond riding the train a lot helps explain why American passenger rail is low quality and exhibits little understanding of international best practices. When his dad became vice president, Hunter left the Amtrak board and instead got involved with a series of investment companies. As detailed by Ben Schreckinger in Politico, a lot of this work seems to have hinged on Hunter and his uncle James Biden sort of hinting around that the family connection to the vice president could help get things done and then not delivering. The Obama administration generally regarded Hunter as a kind of embarrassing family black sheep rather than a real scandal.

And there's a lot more. It's an opinion piece. That doesn't necessarily make it a poor analysis. Yglesias and Vox are generally trustworthy on facts, too.

But, I mean, you're not going to get any of this from the lede. You're not going to get any of this from the article. The lede describes him a blameless victim of a particular incident (true), but the article is pretty anyodyne -- he did this, he did that, which is... misleading, if you believe Yglesias. The article implies that he's a sterling figure whose main concern is to ensure that there's no possibility him taking advantage of his father's power and fame.

The article is POV. The lede is POV. Why are you editors defending this. Herostratus (talk) 17:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

If you wish to have a general content discussion that isn't addressing the violation of BLP standard, the place would be Talk:Hunter Biden, so that other people involved with the article, most of whom are likely unaware of this thread here, can participate. If you're assuming that by defending the inclusion of the Trump material in the lead or that by informing the editor about the 1RR situation, we're saying that everything is perfect with the article, then your experience with Wikipedia must've been quite different from mine. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:05, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Right, fair points. See ya there. Herostratus (talk) 19:43, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

I disagree that this is not the proper place for my post. Whatever happened to Wikipedia is not a Soapbox? Everyone here knows that Wikipedia, obviously including this article, is infested with POV speechifying and editorializing and opinionating using cherry-picked sourcing. Battling newspaper/magazine editorials is NOT NPOV. Everyone here knows exactly what I'm talking about. The material I removed obviously violates WP:BLP by using "poorly sourced" (policy term) material, which I cited. Sourcing POV content with a POV source is a travesty.

Further, I and I'm sure other editors are tired of their good-faith edits being reverted and then being threatened for restoring their edit. The burden is on the REVERTER to explain his actions. Bullying ADMINS have made the editors instead of the reverters the perps. The 3-revert rule targets reverters, NOT editors. But bullying ADMINS construe edit restorations from reverts as reverts themselves and threaten the victims of the reverts! (One of their favorite "Gotchas!" is the 24-hour rule.) This is pure Kafka!

I believe that reverts are usually made by those whose egos are bruised at having their brilliant writing messed with. There is or was a notice by Jimmy Wales to the effect of "expect your content to be mercilessly edited". It seems that egos here don't accept that admonition, and too many ADMINS, including the one I cite, use their position to advance their personal agenda.

I full agree with Herostratus. No matter how it's dressed, this article is obviously a battle of POVs. Arguing whether a POV "right" or "wrong" is utterly irrelevant. The issue of POV isn't about right or wrong but about being unencyclopedic.

I have no position about Hunter Biden; I just know unencyclopedic when I see it, and this was blatant. I see that POV is still in the lede ("debunked right-wing conspiracy theory"). I've edited it to NPOV language. Is it going to be reverted, too? The answer is, Yes, by the same abusive ADMIN Muboshgu.

I ask the ADMINS here, are you going to do something about this rogue ADMIN, this rogue article or, when users try to edit this mess, circle the wagons and continue to throw around arcane acronyms?

Of course, what it's come down to is that cliques of editors and ADMINS write article the way they want, then when they're called on it, threaten or bury the challenge in endless process, so legitimate editors just throw up their hands in disgust and walk away. That's the monster Jimmy Wales has created then placed on autopilot to work its mischief on the dissemination of knowledge. J M Rice (talk) 21:30, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

J M Rice, when allegations are false, we say so. We don't do this equivocation that makes it look like the conspiratorial allegation could be truthful. That would be a disservice to our readers. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

"We"? "A disservice to our readers?" You are not journalists. This is an encyclopedia, not a newspaper. Neutrality is not "equivocation". You and others who use Wikipedia as a soapbox violate policy, and it's disingenuous to claim you don't. I'd try to have you removed, but the bureaucracy here makes the process not worth the effort, and THAT'S a disservice to the reader. J M Rice (talk) 01:45, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Gentlepersons. I have opened a thread over at Talk:Hunter Biden. I have been properly correct, that indeed is the place to take this. Let's go there, for article content. If there're any behavioral issues, WP:ANI is the place to go. I wouldn't recommend that, at all. User:J M Rice, my advice would be to calm down. There's no hurry, and it's not world-shaking. Head over to Talk:Hunter Biden and let's calmly work this out. Herostratus (talk) 07:22, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

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

Eric Geiselman

A piece of puffery, commandeered by an IP account. Would profit from more eyes and a lot of paring. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Needs to be rolled back three years or so to here. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 22:31, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Agreed, Jpgordon. A draconian reversion is necessary; my concerns are that my doing so would be mistaken for vandalism, or that the other IP would engage in an edit war. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 22:55, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

I was BOLD and took the liberty. The few sources for some of the claims were little more than PR copy. And I’m not sure a user-driven poll for “most radical maneuver” could be considered analogous to WP:AWARD, either. The rest of it was either unsourced, or just acknowledging the reality of sponsorships. Professional surfers are sponsored; this doesn’t affirm notability, nor is it particularly due. If the IP(s) take issue with any of this, point them to this discussion, and I’ll be happy to explain the reversion. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Apologies, Jpgordon. I rolled back the article before I realized that you had already done so, and to the version prior to the one you had linked here. I still don’t think the sponsorships are particularly due, as these companies support numerous athletes in any field, but it also doesn’t hurt anything, and perhaps fills out the article a bit more. Your explanation to the COI IP on the article talk page was also very good, by the way. I haven’t checked, but have they declared their COI? Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 04:04, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

A lovely confluence of minors, trans, and public figures

Juliana v. United States is a case of several minors (or when this started, were minors), represented by an attorney, suing the US gov't over climate change. The 20-some minors have been identified in RSes ([9]) and while maybe not household names like Greta Thunberg, have been publicly visible on this trial which has received more than enough attention.

Now, apparently, one of the minors (well, now 20) has identified as trans, with a new name that differences from the past publicity. (This article [10] would be sufficient to support that if we're including it) But do we keep the dead name? One can argue that they were a public figure under that former name and thus we should keep mention of it (footnote would be my choice if we had to keep it), but I can see a lot of minefields if we're talking the issue on minors and transgender people. Just want to make sure on this. --Masem (t) 03:53, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

NO the commentary from the Guardian isn't sufficient, it's not an article, it's a commentary. Second, if the individual's not known under their new name, that's no ok as it would fail WP:NOTABILITY. Keep the the name they were born as, they're notable as that name and there are reliable sources to support that. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 13:33, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I'd say the guidance of MOS:MULTIPLENAMES applies here: "A person named in an article in which they are not the subject should be referred to by the name they used at the time being described in the article." (E.g., Benedict XVI is called "Joseph Ratzinger" in articles which discuss what he did before he became pope.) Maybe with a parenthetical "later known as", if needed to prevent confusion. Cheers, gnu57 13:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm actually ok with that, provided a reliable source exists for both name. In this case, so far, no reliable source exists for the individuals new name. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 15:08, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

If/when reliable sources start using the new name then the article can likewise be modified to include both. At least a mention of the prior name should be kept as they came to wide attention under that name. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:08, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

IMO this is one of the pitfalls with mentioning random non notable people in articles, although at least in this case it's people who were involved in a court case, even if as minors, rather than victims or whatever. Nil Einne (talk) 13:18, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Should Vivek Agnihotri have a controversy section

• Talk:Vivek_Agnihotri#Controversies

The thread above has a short discussion between several editors where, Myself User:Vanamonde93 and User:Harshil169 had shared opinions against this. IMHO whatever is in that controversy section can easily be merged into other sections, But we have User:Winged Blades of Godric opposing us with the line that "WP:CSECTIONis an essay". I would like other editors at BLPN to weigh in and share opinions if a controversy section is merited there. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:56, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm strongly opposed to controversy sections - I think they're an example of lazy article crafting, and I they're very prone to become bloated. But from a policy standpoint, the issue is WEIGHT - as long as they're not unbalanced, they're not a policy issue. It's also important not to use CSECTION as an excuse to whitewash an article - if you're removing a controversy section, make sure that legitimate, balanced criticism remains in the article. Guettarda (talk) 23:58, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

I'm also strongly opposed to controversy sections in BLP articles, they are often impo used to unduly attack a person, WEIGHT is the issue. It would be a good idea to discuss moving the essay WP:CSECTION into BLP policy. Govindaharihari (talk) 07:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Have the article baptized by GOCE and I guess, it will resolve the issues ..... ∯WBG^converse 12:00, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Winged Blades of Godric, is that another one of your Delaying tactics ? Kindly speak about the merits or demerits of your "still" unjustified position that you have been taking on the article talk page. DBigXrayᗙ 12:06, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I have justified my reasons (Agnihotri has done seldom anything of mention, outside directing films and raking up controversies) and I am not bound to convince you of the merits, thereof. You have been already advised against leveraging an essay in content-disputes, to remove/move criticism.

Also, comment on the content, rather than on the contributor. ∯WBG^converse 12:16, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Stop distracting, No one talked about removing content from the article. You are expected to explain your position on why cannot the content be merged into other subheadings. (Something that is explained in detail at WP:CSECTION, if you bothered to read it) For example Urban Naxal can easily be merged on the section about his book. Controversy about his movie can be moved to his career as a filmmaker, etc. You have anyway clarified your hatred for this person on the talk page [11]. It appears to me that you are deliberately shifting the balance of this article to negative coverage using this controversy section and reverting improvements to fix this problem.

Remember discussion is not optional here. And yes you are expected to clarify your position when asked, if you aren't interested in justifying your stand you can as well abandon editing that page & move on to other pages. --DBigXrayᗙ 13:13, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I am not choosing sides here, however DBigXray Your accusation of hatred against Winged Blades of Godricis {WP:ASPERSIONS}}, untoward and unjustified. There is nothing in that diff you linked to that justifies an accusation of hatred, despite the characterization of his work as "crappy", which is an opinion apparently backed up by reviews (facts).After reading his article and diff's it appears that this is really an argument with an ideological basis. Otherwise the heat being generated is inexplicable and all out of proportion to the significance of the man and the article.Using wikipeak and wikilawyering to push or defend an ideological/political POV is rather commonplace.Oldperson (talk) 21:43, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

Oldperson, thanks for joining this thread with off topic comments. Now can you kindly comment on the topic of the thread ? --DBigXrayᗙ 06:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Umm, you started with casting some blatant unsubstantiated aspersions about my personal likes and dislikes. ∯WBG^converse 13:22, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

DBigXray I have no interest in the topic, commenting on the topic only adds to the drama. What did garner my interest is the social discourse, the emotions ginned up resulting in name calling and accusations. Such raised my antenna (I'm a Martian :) ). Very little of what I can read of this discourse has to do with improvement of the article and as such is offtopic,i.e accusing others of hatred and an agenda.My question, which will remain unanswered, is what is behind all of this rancor and emotion, given that the subject of the article is so mundane and obscure No way can i sanctify this b.s. by jumping in with an opinion about the article Apologies for jumping in with an off topic observation.Oldperson (talk) 16:25, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

If you aren't here for the topic, then the WP:Drama is what brings you here. I wont be feeding you. Adios--DBigXrayᗙ 16:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

I moved the "Urban Naxals" sentence in the controversy section to the relevant section about the book. It was a single sentence, and does not make sense to have its own subsection. For the Twitter and sexual harassment allegations, couldn't we just remove the "Controversy" section header and leave those in "Personal life"? That would seem to be an easy fix. I also posted this comment on the article's talk page thread. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:53, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

I removed the "Controversies" section header for now. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:59, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

– wallyfromdilbert Thanks for fixing it. Harshil had attempted it before but WBG here had reverted him. So we were discussing the need for a section that is titled "Controversy" lest he would edit war and bulldoze his loved version back into the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 20:05, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Wallyfromdilbert and Guettarda:Also, read Republic TV and OpIndia curated by same editor. Though not much controversial like this but still needs copy editing. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 18:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
  • @Harshil169: You probably don't want me looking into those articles. On the issues here, I think I agree more with WBG, and while I don't always agree with them, I respect them as a Wikipedian. Guettarda (talk) 18:18, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

”Controversy” sections automatically signify poor and usually POV writing. Readers are better served if NPOV content is merged with the rest of the article. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:11, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

• I am satisfied with current article structure. Fell free to close this or whatever. ∯WBG^converse 18:24, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Ajaz Khan

Contentious material about the subject have been repeatedly posted like son of xyz, abuse for profession and changing it to prostitution. I will like to request oversight the content and hiding their version. This version is okay, all versions after it should be oversighted and removed;just one edit before this version was also defamatory. Can someone help with it?-- Harshil ^{want to talk?} 11:50, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

@Harshil169: - to get something oversighted, you should use the Wikipedia:Requests for oversight procedures.

Looking at that article, I'm rather concerned about the third paragraph, which details two arrests. It doesn't mention charges, far less convictions, just arrests. It has a lengthy quote, but no context. And the charges cover more than a third of the (not tabular) content of the article. At the very least, this is a WEIGHT issue, but it might represent a more problem. Guettarda (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Lilly Singh#Allegations of cultural appropriation

Lilly Singh#Allegations of cultural appropriation is a nice hit piece on Singh. I’m sure some criticism is warranted but this feels overblown. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:18, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

There are some serious WEIGHT issues there. I think it could reasonably be cut down to a single paragraph. By the third paragraph it definitely seems to feel excessive. Guettarda (talk) 13:31, 28 November 2019 (UTC)

Archana Vijaya

The article Archana Vijaya redirects to a Web show Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa (season 5). I believe the Biography of a living person information is not justified here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by The9Man (talk • contribs) 12:22, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Kingston Papie Rhodes

Kingston Papie Rhodes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I am new to Wikipedia, but this article seems to go against Wikipedia’s policies on biographies of living persons.

It seems like an attack page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attack_page, as the biographical material is “unsourced or poorly sourced” and the article seems to lack balance. Where citations do appear, they are quoted from only two media outlets, including three citations from a single source, the Inter Press Service https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inter_Press_Service, and the fourth citation from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AllAfrica.com

The article also reads like a news event: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#NEWS

In summary, the page seems to go against all of the rules.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lrcol5718 (talk • contribs) 15:05, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

The Inter Press Service is a news agency that is frequently republished by other sources, much like the Associated Press. They are considered generally reliable at WP:RSP. That being said, most of the article is entirely unsourced, and the controversial content is largely WP:UNDUE so I've removed much of it. I found another source and added that as well. Woodroar (talk) 22:09, 29 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you Woodroar for your assistance and for helping me learn more about the inner workings of Wikipedia. Lrcol5718 (talk) 16:29, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Jasmine Shimoda

I would be grateful for any input at Talk:Jasmine Shimoda#BLP. The disputed content involves the contention that the BLP subject has appeared in pornography. Cheers, gnu57 18:44, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Absolutely BLP violations. I've revision deleted several revisions, including some edit summaries, and warned the editor responsible. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 21:53, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Frank Wuco

I don't have time to go through it at the moment, but a recent major expansion at Frank Wuco looks to have made the article into an WP:ATTACK page of sorts. It looks like there are some good sources and many of the edits have merit, but it also looks like it needs to be checked in more detail to ensure compliance with WP:BLP. Thanks to anyone who can take a look. Marquardtika (talk) 02:27, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Whoa. Yes, that is a lot to chew on. I am not convinced User:ExCITEable really knows what they're doing. Drmies (talk) 05:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
• I started cutting. A lot of material was referenced with primary sources, and that's already unacceptable. Drmies (talk) 06:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Thanks, @Drmies! It's looking a lot better. But still has the appropriate amount of "wait, wuttt?" Marquardtika (talk) 15:21, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    • Yeah I know. It's certainly not done. I picked some of the low-hanging fruit: the hard work is reading the references and judging what's appropriate and how it should be presented. There's also duplicate information in different section, some of which unverified, some of which verified. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 16:17, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
    • User:Marquardtika, I created the redirect Faud Wasul in your honor, haha. This is the BLP noticeboard, so I have to be careful, but that's some crazy shit. Drmies (talk) 16:22, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

I wasn't going for WP:ATTACK - cited sources. I'm not sure I know what I'm doing either, but I am learning as I go and stay neutral. If someone who is a prominent government official and they previously dressed up as a terrorist and hosted an "Ask the Jihadist" radio show it is not an attack. It is indeed crazy shit but the sources are good. In the wake of Mina Chang, I have an interest in the qualifications and histories of political appointees. Also, I can't edit without using the visual editor - sorry if this isn't formatted correctlyExCITEable (talk) 02:45, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Religion of climate scientist Cliff Mass

I don't want to get into a dispute on whether the religion of Cliff Mass belongs in the article; instead, raising the question at the noticeboard. ☆ Bri (talk) 20:15, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Give that Mass has clearly stated that his Judaism informs his work, then it is reasonable to integrate it into the article (just as we would cover the religious some noted person who was against addressing the climate because it would interfere with the plans of the Almighty Wildebeest of Atmosphere.) Since our reason for inclusion has to do with his work, it should not be in the "Personal life" section, as it was apparently previously displayed. --Nat Gertler (talk) 20:37, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

• Support the inclusion. Self stated Judaism informs his work. Govindaharihari (talk) 22:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

If there's a decent secondary source for it, sure. Create a "Personal life" section and stick a sentence there (well, depending on coverage). Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:23, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

The article linked above by Nat Gertler from Jewish in Seattle [12] superficially looks OK? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:05, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Seems good enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Aziz Mohammad Bhai

Highly problematic article. Claims of criminal activity are countered by editorializing--it is possible much of the material needs to go. Maybe the whole article needs to go. Drmies (talk) 05:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Just a WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 05:55, 4 December 2019 (UTC).

Well, more than one. Drmies (talk) 06:02, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Aziz Mohammad Bhai

Dear Administrators I need your help because people keep posting false information from tabloids and unreliable sources like state run media regarding my father. They also keep removing any information I post elaborating on the situation. I also mentioned several of his accomplishments which were sadly deleted. Please help me on this endeavour it is intensely impacting my family and our lively hood. for over 3 decades my father has been harassed and i have joined him over the last two. Please help us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 27.34.20.226 (talk) 06:56, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

To understand the context from the WP-perspective, take the time to read WP:Biographies of living persons and WP:Conflict of interest carefully. Then try to use the talkpage Talk:Aziz Mohammad Bhai for discussion. Successfully editing an article where you have a Conflict of interest is very difficult on WP, but it is not impossible that you can have some influence if your suggestions are inline with WP:s (many) policies and guidelines. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Chaim Shacham

Perhaps one of you is interested in digging around a bit to see if this is a case of WP:BLP1E. I can't easily judge whether the guy has inherent notability because of his former position: the only source for that position is primary. Drmies (talk) 16:48, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, where to start. First, the allegation should definitely go. From reading the source, all we have is an indictment from three years ago and some vague details they admittedly gleaned from a blog. No official statements nor anything substantial except they confirmed he did lose his job for reason not commented on. There is no conviction and he certainly doesn't pass WELLKNOWN, so I say per BLPCRIME the allegation should be removed.

Beyond that, I find his name mentioned in several newspaper articles, but most are just in passing, like "he attended this event" or "that rally". I'm not seeing anything that really demonstrates that he passes GNG, and I don't think being a diplomat in and of itself is enough, so this may be a good candidate for AFD.

If we do keep, we should at least get rid of all the "former"s. This actually puts it into a present perspective rather than a perfect (timeless) one. We don't say Caesar is the former emperor of Rome, but simply he was the Emperor between such-and-such a date. Zaereth (talk) 03:27, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Noah Feldman

It appears that someone edited the article about legal scholar Noah Feldman to say that he is a never trumper and a Bernie Sanders campaign volunteer. I can find no other source for either, outside of the fact that he is testifying about impeachment today. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.142.22 (talk) 17:37, 4 December 2019 (UTC)

Jeff Eastin

He did NOT work for Roger Corman. It is a lie that Jeff Eastin has perpetuated for more than twenty years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.14.98.102 (talk) 21:46, 4 December 2019 (UTC)