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.

Sedat Peker

This article is objected to constant unsincere and unsubstantiated changes. There is a lot of activity on different internet sites which appears aimed at furthering the impact of Sedat Pekers YouTube videos. The changes on wikipedia are highly political and usually doesn't adhere to the guidelines.

There might be a case for setting the article in locked mode. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.216.129.74 (talk • contribs)

Crazy Legs (dancer)

Crazy Legs (dancer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

This article could do with some eyes. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 01:07, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

There seem to be several news articles about the allegations, and so I restored the material with sourcing to AllHipHop [1], HipHopDX [2], and Okayplayer [3]. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 01:29, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

I have some concerns about the quality/reliability of those sources to satisfy WP:WELLKNOWN as they seem like mostly clickbait. For example, allhiphop has a section devoted to rumors while hiphopdx has tabloid articles like these [4][5] Okayplayer seems like the strongest source although I question how much weight it should be given compared to news sources that have written about him like CNN and CBC.[6] Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:42, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

AllHipHop and HipHopDX appear to be reliable sources for information about hip hop and music, and I do not see issues with the particular articles about Colon on those sites. I think this is one of those situations where an individual is not likely to get mentioned outside of smaller publications and so it is harder to determine what is due given some of the less reliable aspects of those smaller publications, especially when they include a focus on celebrity culture. CNN and CBC have only ever mentioned Colon once each, and that was during a brief period in December when breakdancing was named an Olympic sport, which is what spurred the anonymous petition. Outside of that, Colon appears to rarely be covered in major sources beyond a passing mention, and I cannot find him mentioned in any major publications since the allegations. I also cannot find any information on if he is still involved with the Olympic committee. I think there is a concern with the fact that the petition was anonymous, but Colon appears to have admitted to having the conversations but denied that they were abusive or harassing. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:46, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

That's the point. Major publications aren't covering the allegations, and we probably shouldn't be. Colon has been written about extensively by NPR , The New York Times[7][8] , and New York Post[9], and New York Daily News. Even though the Post and Daily News are considered unreliable by RSP, I consider them much more reputable than those previous hip hop sources. He's also been covered by much more reputable hip hop publications like Source and Vibe. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Morbidthoughts, thanks for those sources. I had not noticed that your prior link had limited news sources to the past year, and so I had missed those. I think this is a situation where larger publications stop reporting on an individual after allegations of misconduct, which is why smaller sources can be appropriate. In this situation, the accusations were not alleging criminal conduct, the article subject admitted to engaging in the conduct but disputed that the conduct was inappropriate, and the three smaller sources that have reported on it appear reliable in the area of hip hop news. On the balance, I think the content would be appropriate to include but not strongly enough if others object. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• @Wallyfromdilbert: Additionally, you edited my comment here so that it no longer makes any reference to... well, anything. You trimmed it down to "eyes needed". Don't do that again. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 11:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  92.24.246.11: No one has edited your comment other than by adding the topic links template at the top (which is a common part of BLPN and considered acceptable) as can be seen by looking at the original [10] and the current. Do note the section heading is not considered part of your signed comment and so can be edited as necessary to comply with page norms etc (see WP:SECTIONHEADINGOWN) without the restrictions that come from editing someone's signed comment. You should never say something only in the section heading since besides editing, it's also very easy to miss such details as a lot of us have the tendency to ignore section heading as unimportant if we're already decided to check out the topic. Always make sure your signed comment is self contained and does not rely on the section heading. More generally BLP applies to everywhere on Wikipedia. Always bear that in mind when editing, and in particular, if you believe some detail is too poorly sourced to be included, consider carefully whether you can raise the problem without repeating the allegations you feel shouldn't be on Wikipedia in the first place. Nil Einne (talk) 13:46, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  Okay, but it would have been immensely helpful if wally could have tried communicating that with an edit summary, instead of silently deleting it with the effect of recontextualising without explanation. Thanks for doing that for them. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 14:01, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

  92.24.246.11, I meant to mention the section header change in my edit summary, but you could have easily put the content back into your comment if you felt it was important, which you did not do. In the future, please keep section headers short and neutral, rather than including your personal comments in them. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  Actually, no, I couldn't have. It is dishonest to edit my comment after it has been replied to, which is what you are suggesting. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  There are honest ways of doing so. For example, by using <ins> tags, as recommended at WP:TALK#REPLIED Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2021 (UTC) ;underlined text inserted at 20:56, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  Not really; remember, it was deleted without explanation, so readding it seemed likely to meet the same fate. If somebody had suggested placing it elsewhere I may have done so. But when it is silently removed I'm not really willing to return it just to watch it silently disappear again. In the end a different user has had to step in and hazard a rough guess as to the explanation; reading their comment and link, it seems likely, but the silence was deafening. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 20:58, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  92.24.246.11, that's a pretty disingenuous comment, and your contributions suggest that you should know that, as well as the talk page guidelines. It's time for you to WP:DROPTHESTICK unless you have a comment to make about the article content. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  If you're looking at my contributions you'd know that I have, in fact, tried to restore an edit removed with no explanation and it went badly. I'm not sure what's disingenuous about it: The situation seems identical to me, and I'm doing what I was advised to following that, which is to discuss it directly with you. I'm also surprised by the claim that I must, in the space of the few weeks I've been active lately (the first time in years, mind) have memorised every last policy and guideline. I know a lot of them but I have many, many more to learn. (By far my favourite page I've stumbled upon it that time is WP:SQUIRREL which neatly encapsulates my scattergun approach to not just the Wikipedia but to reading up on pretty much anything.)

  With that said, I do agree that trying to talk to you about it seems to be going nowhere: Even still, another user is the only one to provide any explanation. So this will be my last comment here as it seems clear there is no benefit to it. 92.24.246.11 (talk) 21:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Britt Ekland and Sammy Davis Jr.

The article hasn't credited the time Britt Ekland dated Sammy Davis Jr., the fact which was fully reported by world celebrities media in early 1960s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 177.33.141.132 (talk • contribs)

Neither or those articles are protected so if you have good quality sources supporting this you are able to add this yourself.--65.93.194.250 (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I believe 177.33.141.132 has mixed up Britt Ekland with Sammy Davis Jr.'s former wife May Britt. Fences&Windows 18:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Ed Henry

Ed Henry (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) "alleged affairs" are not well sourced entries and they are being used as defamatory on this person (Ed Henry).

Entries in his career area were pejorative misrepresentations.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zxbailey15:35, 5 June 2021 (talk • contribs)

The 2016 affair does not appear to be "alleged" and is mentioned in numerous major publications as the reason why he was suspended from Fox News for 4 months, such as [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17]. I added back the content about his 4-month suspension with some of these sources [18], as it seems particularly relevant that it was reported on by multiple outlets in 2016 and is now being reported on again in the context of the latest allegations against him. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, the sourcing here is appropriate and significant.VikingDrummer (talk) 08:41, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Andrew Pessin

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

Someone keeps repeatedly adding false, misleading, and defamatory material about Andrew Pessin, maliciously charging him as "well known for Islamophobia" based on distortion from various sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Miranda6391 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

The content was not appropriate as stated, but this was a major controversy covered widely by reliable sources and so should be included. I'll add a balanced summary tomorrow. Fences&Windows 23:03, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Dakta Green

It appears there are several frivolous claims on this article with no citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.62.50.16 (talk) 10:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Courtesy links: Dakta Green (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The offending material appears to have already been removed by Woodroar. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:56, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Jahrein

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

Jahrein a few weeks ago made a statement during his Twitch stream on Israel and Palestine conflict. His statements were edited by unreliable pro-government sources. Now a misleading text is added to the relevant article by User:Adigabrek. Although I had removed problematic text, he reverted my edits. This is a violation of WP:BLP. Not exactly for these websites but there is a there is a noticeboard discussion that states Turkish news sites are generally unreliable.[19]

The sources used in the article:

• A Haber: An unreliable, non-independent pro-goverment news site on Turkey.
• Habervakti: Another unreliable source.

--V. E. (talk) 17:48, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Visnelma: No sides are taken by the article, nor am I biased towards an anti-Jahrein view (infact I watch Jahrein), it is mentioned that his alleged statements raised controversy, and that he reejcted these allegations. It did raise controversy, so what is the problem here? ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 17:51, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

The problem is you are using non-independent, unreliable sources.--V. E. (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Does Wikipedia define A Haber as unreliable anywhere? I also saw you just added "non-independent" to your previous comment. It is not blocked like Sputnik is. What is the criteria for "unreliable" aside from your POV? Englighten me please. ~𝓐𝓭𝓲𝓰𝓪𝓫𝓻𝓮𝓴 𝓽𝓱𝓮 𝓕𝓲𝓻𝓼𝓽~^Contact 17:58, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, @Adigabrek:, I couldn't see in WP:RSPSOURCES, the sources mentioned by @Visnelma:. --Victor Trevor (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Victor Trevor: For a source to be unreliable, it does not have to be in that list. Please google the word "Perennial". If you really believe these government-linked sources are reliable just ask about them on noticeboard. No major news outlet in Turkey other than A Haber published an article about this topic. If the statement is true, what are they waiting for? If not this is just a manipulative article that is only published by one major source.--V. E. (talk) 19:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Visnelma: and @Adigabrek:, I have removed the "Hostility with Gaga Bulut" and "Jerusalem controversy" sections because all the sources use "allegedly" which is not acceptable for controversial claims per BLP standards. That said, the very brief discussion at RSN linked above cannot be considered to stand for a proposition that the sites quoted are considered unreliable by a broad consensus. Please discuss these reliability and BLP issues on the article talk instead of engaging an edit war. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:08, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

@Eggishorn: Reverting once is not an edit war. Nevertheless thanks for removing that section.--V. E. (talk) 18:12, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

That was more of a request than an admonishment, @Visnelma:. Thanks for that, though. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:18, 6 June 2021 (UTC)

Eggishorn, I don't see the word "allegedly" or similar words used in the sources when translating them with Google Translate, but I think it was appropriate to remove the content as it does not seem WP:DUE given the low quality sourcing about a few statements during livestreaming with the conclusions being merely that "these statements received criticism" or "were not received well". – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:01, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Christopher Massimine

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

I stumbled across this by accident as I've never heard of the subject. The article is poorly written in a number of respects, but there are now many new users who are fighting over certain material, and the present state of the article with respect to BLP violations is awful. As I attempt to follow it, there are at least two main disputes, whether Massimine was an associate producer of the Broadway play American Idiot, and whether he in fact did work for clients as an independent producer. As a result, we have such wonderful language in the article as:

"Massimine claims to have earned a Tony Award nomination for his work as a producer on American Idiot (musical) (although this has not been independently verified), produced concerts for major label artists, and claims to have developed high-impact promotional campaigns in recorded music, retail, and video gaming, yet many of the people he has named as past clients have denied knowing Massimine and insist that he did no work on their behalf." (footnotes omitted)

There is also one more issue at the end of the article:

"On October 16, 2019, a press release announced he was selected by the "NPAA" as Humanitarian of the Year. According to multiple news reports in June of 2021, there is no evidence of the existence of an organization known as the "NPAA" outside of the self-published press release announcing the award." (footnotes omitted)

There has been some discussion on the article Talk page about these issues, most of it by the newly created accounts.

There is also a disturbing statement on the userpage of one of the newly created accounts, Sophistrate:

"I used to publish/edit under the name Atomicskier, but recently took a renewed interest in Wikipedia after discovering that someone was using it as one of his many online vehicles to defraud employers. It has now become my personal mission to make sure this abuse of Wikipedia and its mission is rectified."

To date, Sophistrate has edited only the Massimine article. Indeed, this all started with the user's first edit attempting clumsily to have the article speedy deleted. The article before that point had nothing negative in it; in fact, it was a bit of a puff piece.

Hopefully, some more BLP-experienced users will address these issues. I'm not necessarily saying that some - or even all - of the negative aspects of the article are untrue, but we have to have strong, reliable sources to back them up, and we have to express them very differently from the way they are expressed now.

And then there's the MOS issues and that dreadful infobox ...--Bbb23 (talk) 13:50, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I've blocked two of them (Glenroy20 and Fawlkner18) for socking. --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆𝄐𝄇} 14:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

@Bbb23, Thanks for taking a look at this article. I agree, it's a total disaster. It was a disaster before the exposé brought him into the public spotlight and it's even worse now. I also agree that I'm not the best person to correct the errors because I'm not a highly experienced editor, and because I have a personal bias against the subject. However, I hope that experienced editors like yourself will continue to scrutinize this article.

In my opinion, it qualifies for deletion because there are numerous factual errors, irrelevant or dead citations, and it does not fit the encyclopedic standards of a BLP. I am certain that it was published by the subject himself. The article was published by Accounteditor and if you look at this user's history you'll see that all of this author's contributions, without exception, lend to the aggrandizement of Christopher Massimine. Following the negative press, this user began using the handle Fawlkner18 to suppress any dissenting information, and was justifiably blocked by jpgordon.

You may wonder why I have such a strong bias against Christopher Massimine. I have no connection to him other than I live in his community and it angers me that he has shamelessly exploited Wikipedia and other online media as a vehicle for his fraudulent self-aggrandizement. He has used these unchecked claims to weasel his way into a high-paying job that is in part supported by my tax dollars. In acknowledging my bias, I will refrain from any further edits to his page now that I'm confident it's going to be scrutinized by competent, neutral editors. --Sophistrate (talk) 15:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I went through the article to clean it up, and I removed most of the contentious or disputed content, along with a lot of the poorly sourced promotional content. I mentioned the recent news reports in relation to his investigation by his employer, the University of Utah, but I don't know how much else would be relevant to include. If material is only supported by sources coming from article subject, then it should probably just be removed, especially if there is a question about its accuracy. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Marek Kukula

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.

---

Should the Wikipedia biography of Marek Kukula mention his child pornography conviction?

As you can see from this version (where it had been included, and subsequently rejected, as a nominal "Personal Life" entry), it takes quite a lot of text to properly explain and fairly contextualize this event in a neutral fashion, based on what is available from the sources (I have no idea how to obtain the primary source court documents, should people prefer to go that way).

But as is also hopefully rather obvious, not mentioning it gives a hugely misleading impression, up to and including the inference that he is still actually employed as the Public Astronomer of the Royal Observatory. He obviously isn't, but that can actually only be inferred by the fact he no longer has an employee page on their website.

Nobody else seems prepared to admit, in print, that this man clearly lost his job because he downloaded child sexual abuse imagery, regardless of reasons or circumstances. The news of his conviction was only reported by the Daily Mail and The Sun, which I gather both can't be used by Wikipedia (an attempt to include the Mail as reference 17 was bizarrely completely rejected by the editing software, even though including it would lend credence to the reliability of The Sun reference, which it did allow, but bizarrely duplicated as a second copy of reference 16).

I personally am not seeing any reason why they cannot be used in this particular context, since both reports were virtually identical, and were published under different bylines, suggesting factual accuracy as a result of direct court reporting. I suppose they could both be the result of some elaborate fraud with one originating source, perhaps someone who wants to do Marek harm and has a means of fooling court reporters at not one but two national newspapers, and there is otherwise a perfectly innocent explanation for his apparent departure from the Observatory and indeed complete departure from public quotation as an astronomy expert. It certainly seems unlikely nobody would have noticed much less not acted on false reporting that directly attributed statements to a named lawyer, prosecutor and judge.

In case anyone is thinking that the best way to deal with this paradox is to just get rid of the article, that potential course of action was only recently debated, and it was concluded based on what could be said about this man from reliable sources, that he deserves a Wikipedia biography.

It may be the case, as the version which includes the conviction perhaps now shows, this was an error, and that when viewing it with that material in it, due to its necessary bulk in relation to what else can be said about the man, it does become rather obvious that this piece is not what anyone could reasonably call a biography.

Although what exists may be entirely accurate, it probably fails the fairness test, due to the prominence of the conviction material. And yet perhaps not - in terms of his career and public profile, the conviction is likely to be the single most important aspect of his life, and as has been shown by the material, was something directly brought about by his career choices. Documenting such things is what a biographer does, whole omitting them is what an autobiography would do (in general, the material might actually suggest Kukula is genuinely contrite and happy to own his mistakes).

That would potentially harm Wikipedia though, since it seems obvious that other biographies that are as brief as this, for other academics, and which are largely sourced the way this one was, from first person interviews given due to a specific single aspect of their career, are quite numerous on Wikipedia. It seems not quite right that the existence of these pages on Wikipedia should be determined solely by whether or not they later commit a crime that is only reported on by sources deemed unreliable by Wikipedia.

And it is worth noting that in this case, the crime occurred before he obtained the role that generated all that media interest, and it was only later, much later, that it was discovered and he was convicted. In extremis, as this example seems to show, taking the deletion approach, or indeed the keep but do not mention approach, could make it appear as if Wikipedia wants to be complicit in an attempt to shield pedophiles from the consequences of their actions, and prevent readers from obtaining a neutral account of what happened, and in proper context, without having to put money into the advertisers pockets of the Sun and Mail.

As I tried to convey previously, apparently successfully, this is not an ethical Google visibility issue, in that the harm is evidently already done, and people searching for this man's name, or indeed simply his apparently now defunct job title, will find the Sun and Mail reports are prominent in the results. Having a neutral Wikipedia page returned higher than them, would seem to serve everyone's interest, including Wikipedia's aspirations. Obviously, should Marek ever succeed in an actual Right To Be Forgotten case to alter the visibility of those reports, the moral case for keeping his Wikipedia biography should be reconsidered (although as I understand it, Wikipedia editors are broadly against any law that holds that the internet can and should forget certain things at certain times).

If there were concrete and specific reasons as to why, in this specific circumstance, the reporting of the Sun and Mail cannot be relied upon to create a complete and fair biography here, I could be persuaded that not mentioning it might be wise. But I am not seeing any such reason, and as the proposed addition shows, it is possible to extract from them the relevant factual material, while not including their tabloid takes (not that anyone can seriously argue that images of boys aged between 10 and 14 having sex with each other are not fairly described as depicting "vile" child abuse in this day and age). Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 15:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

If the only sources that report it are deprecated sources, (despite the fact that the BBC/Guardian had mentioned him before multiple times), it begs the question if we need to include it. We are not here to right great wrongs, and while the conviction etc may all be true, we have to have usable sources to work from. DM and Sun are not usable sources, particularly for a bio. We simply can't included that until we actually have such an RS. (Yes, I find it rather odd that no other RSes have picked up on this. I don't know why they aren't even just giving even a brief paragraph to this) --Masem (t) 16:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Like I said, I am looking for a specific reason why these specific sources cannot be used for this specific circumstance, since it cannot rationally be argued there is any doubt at all that they are factually correct. They agree with each other, they are bylined and carry identical attributed quotes from identified people, and there is nothing out there that contradicts their contents, either the specifics, or the general supposition that this conviction is why he has ceased to have an employee profile at the Observatory, and indeed no longer has any public profile to speak of. The BBC/Guardian are under no actual obligation to make sure their subsequent editorial choices don't contradict their previous reporting. Wikipedia is. That is the difference between a newspaper and an encyclopedia, whose contents are in large part, "biographies". A biographer would include this information, whereas an autobiographer, and the Observatory, have the luxury of choosing not to include potentially embarrassing or damaging information. The actual need to include this information is beyond obvious, if Wikipedia wants this to be read as a biography. To do otherwise, is clearly quite literally deceitful (lying by omission) and potentially dangerous. While admittedly an unlikely scenario, and perhaps unfair to the man himself, but it's not beyond credulity that he could use this page to convince a child that he is still a respected academic with a cool job at the Observatory. The reliable sources document his interest in child engagement, and importantly, this was in pieces they wrote after he had actually committed the crimes that, his excuses aside, do suggest he is a danger to children. To omit that context from this biography, is what needs to be justified in the strongest possible terms. The mere fact that Wikipedia doesn't like the Sun or the Mail, doesn't really cut it. This is, for me, the oddest part of why the BBC chose not to report on this conviction. But the mere fact they are publicly funded and have a legal duty to inform and educate the public on important matters (such as, how well, or how badly, our museums and government are protecting children from readily identifiable pedophiles) sadly doesn't allow me to overrule (or even know) by what means they chose not to report on the conviction. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 17:21, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Let's start with a problem in the argument that you're framing, that there is an issue that we are not presenting Kukula as a pedophile (assuming these charges are true). This the "right great wrongs" argument we have to avoid. We are not legally or morally or ethically bound to inform readers about the crimes of any person, even for something like pedophilia, if that information cannot meet WP:V and BLP, which at this point, using DM or Sun would fail. If the mainstream sources that are reliable like the BBC and Guardian have decided to ignore this convict and whitewash it away, we are sorta stuck and cannot do anything about that since we're required to summarize from reliable sources. Again, why the BBC/Guardian and others have decides to ignore this is extremely odd to me as well, but we can't make a special case here. --Masem (t) 17:45, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

There is a moral duty here, I have already explained it. Wikipedia is an influential website, it matters if you are giving a false impression of people like Kukula when it comes to his potential risk to children. This page currently implies for example that he is still employed as the Public Astronomer, and will have to remain in that state under your explanation of Wikipedia's obligations to only reflect what the broadsheets determine as newsworthy. In terms of framing, I am still not seeing from you, any specific reason why Wikipedia would be "required" to ignore these reports, other than the title of the publications and the nature of the information. I understand a broad editorial preference for non-tabloids, but that is an internal decision, one that obviously has to be re-examined in a special case like this, precisely because it raises serious moral questions. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 18:20, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

That's where you're mistaken. There is no moral duty. See: WP:Right great wrongs. Daily Mail and The Sun are tabloid journalism, and we can't trust them. Simple as that. The Daily Mail has been caught lying so many times no one in their right mind would believe a word they print. If reliable sources haven't picked up on it, then we can't use it, and BLP policy makes that very clear. Zaereth (talk) 18:35, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

How am I mistaken? Nobody in their right mind would believe the Mail has EVER printed a false report that said a named person with a reasonably public job was convicted of serious offences, one which includes actual quotes from a judge, prosecutor and lawyer. The very idea is absurd. It has never happened, and if you think otherwise, please provide your proof. If there is any Wikipedia policy that supports such nonsense, it needs to be rethought as a matter of urgency. In this specific circumstance, with all the supporting evidence that the reports are true, and zero actual evidence to the contrary, and with a valid moral case established, there is actually no reason anyone would willingly choose to still think there is any valid reason to pretend they are fabrications. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

How? Read the policy I cited above and it will explain it to you. I never said they were fabrications. I simply said we can't trust the sources they came from. Maybe true. Maybe not. Who knows. The WP:BURDEN is on you to provide proof, not me. You do that by providing reliable sources (eg: sources we can trust). Insisting that unreliable sources are good enough doesn't cut the mustard. Our moral obligation is to get info right, and providing untrustworthy sources doesn't instill a lot of confidence. In journalism, trust and reputation are everything, and once you lose the people's trust, you'll play hell getting it back. As the old saying goes, "Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me". Zaereth (talk) 19:22, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

In other words, you don't want to do what was asked of you. You simply want to fall back on this obviously absurd notion, in the absence of any actual facts about the reliability of these newspapers for reports of this nature, which would justify it. And you almost fooled me once about policy too with "Right Great Wrongs", since it seems to be perfectly fine according to that page, to wait for the mainstream media, which the Mail and the Sun most assuredly are. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 19:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'm about 75% sure these allegations are true, per Occam's razor. But given the sourcing and their penchant for sensationalist lying, I can never be 100% convinced until we have better sourcing. I would not include them. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 19:05, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  It's ironic perhaps, that it's an extremely serious thing to claim in print (Wikipedia is digital print for legal purposes), that a national newspaper would knowingly print a false report of this specific nature. Even if you're only 25% sure of your suspicion (it could perhaps be used to reduce the potential damages by 75%?). I am 100% confident, by contrast, that Kukula is guilty of the crimes attributed to him. My legal defence? See above. Two national newspapers. Corroboration. Direct quotes. Absence of any contrary evidence. No sensible reason to think this is the sort of thing the tabloids would just make up. Common sense alone is enough to beleive that these reports are true, and those who think otherwise, really need to start providing some concrete reasons why anyone would think they are not. Other than use of terms like "vile" and the headlines (which are not written by the journalists), there's nothing particularly sensationalist about these reports. Shocking, damaging, serious, yes. And it would surely be a very wierd meeting where the economic case was made that fabricating this sort of seriously damaging report about a person this relatively unknown, would be in the paper's best interest. Celebrity gossip, it is most assuredly not. As anyone can see. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 19:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  Both papers have been demonstrated in the past of fabricating quotes, not in situations related to crimes or the like, but they have been caught doing this. As such, there is a huge grain of salt to assume that they are being truthful here. It does seem very likely this happened given how his name has been scrubbed (as mentioned at the AFD, he's been seemingly made an un-person per 1984) but it is not our place to make assumptions without quality sourcing to work from that. --Masem (t) 19:30, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  "Not in situations related to crimes". Exactly. For very good reasons. So, to those who are trying to argue this is somehow the time and place they would have started doing that, and so Wikipedia should be taking these specific reports with a pinch of salt, especially when there is no other evidence to suggest they are false, I would love to know why. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  I agree with the others above that Wikipedia is not the place to WP:Right great wrongs, and that the sourcing is not adequate to include these types of claims. Also, I'm not sure how a 3-year-old conviction is "a matter of urgency". The Daily Mail is not a reliable source for factual information, and even if some information in an article is accurate, there is no reasonable way to determine how much is accurate and what is relevant to include from the article when no other reliable sources have reported on it. There is also the problem with using deprecated-tabloid sources to determine what is WP:DUE in an article, especially for a serious crime. It appears that publications like the BBC have simply decided not to report on the article subject anymore after his conviction, and while that will make it difficult to find reliable sources on the conviction, it also means that there will be significantly less information about the article subject generally. While I think that could justify using smaller, local papers or some lower quality sources, using two sources that have been deprecated because of purposely spreading false information would not be appropriate. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:31, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  The fact it has already been admitted above that the Mail has never fabricated a report of this nature, and for reasons that make absolute commercial sense even if the rest of their business is about sensationalism, is very reasonable way of deciding whether to trust this specific report or not. It really does seem like literally the only argument anyone can offer here to suggest this report is false, is that it came from the Mail. Which of course ignores the fact it was also reported by The Sun. And since their reports match, right down to perfect agreement between quotes, is yet more reason to assume that these specific reports for his specific circumstance, are accurate. Nobody will ever know why the BBC et al have chosen to treat it as a non story, but what is as plain as day, is that they would not have based that decision on the frankly absurd idea that it wasn't somehow important to his life. They are not in the business of documenting his life. They don't do biographies. Wikipedia does. Wikipedia's biography on this man is lying, by omission. He is being resented here as if he were still the Public Astronomer, which is absurd. "Right Great Wrongs" says wait for the mainstream media before thinking about updating Wikipedia entries with new, pertinent information. Doesn't get more mainstream than the Mail or the Sun in terms of the British print media. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 20:03, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  Mr Happy Shoes, popularity is not reliability. You are just wasting others time now repeating your same claims in these long comments and responses. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:11, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  And you are wasting my time by not acknowledging that "Right Great Wrongs" says wait for mainstream media before considering adding pertinent and important information, rather than, say, broadsheet media. The Sun/Mail are mainstream media, or are you seriously disputing that? I am repeating my points more generally, because people like you seem determined to pretend you didn't hear them. I am here to ask for a specific reason why these specific reports cannot be used for this specific purpose. And it can readily be assumed by anyone who arrives from now on, that I surely know and understand the general points about why Wikipedia prefers not to use tabloids. So please don't waste my time by repeating these rather useless generalisms. I want specifics. I want proof that anyone here has actually properly applied some critical thought here. I am looking for an explanation which would not produce an absurdity such as where it has been claimed it would somehow be fauthful to a Wikipedia core policy to knowingly falsely present someone convicted of these offences, as if they were still an employed and employable person in the public outreach field. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

On righting great wrongs

I was amused to note that in that very page that is being used to suggest Wikipedia must not pu push certain information, people are told "you'll have to wait until it's been reported in mainstream media." The Mail and the Sun are of course, the first and second most read newspapers in Britain. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 19:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Popularity does not equate to truthfulness. Fox News is one of the most-watched networks in the US, for example. --Masem (t) 19:27, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I am only telling you what that page says, and I quoted it. If it is inaccurate, change it. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

'Tis the nature of sensationalism. They make their money by making stories a juicy as possible. It's entertainment; not news. And I was gonna follow up with what Masem said, but am not a fast enough typist, so ditto. Zaereth (talk)

Which is frankly an absurd argument, in this specific context. Knowingly printing false reports about convictions of this nature for mere clicks, about people who were virtually unknown but connected to beloved public institutions, is a fast route to bankruptcy. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 19:42, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Mr Happy Shoes, this noticeboard is not the place to debate the general reliability of deprecated sources. If every response to your long comments above has agreed the sourcing is not appropriate for the content being added, then it is probably time to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Considering that your account was created a week ago and has solely been used to make edits about Marek Kukula's convictions, you may want to work on other areas to get more familiar with Wikipedia's sourcing policies, especially as they relate to biographies of living people. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 19:40, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I am not debating general reliability. I have been quite clear, this is an issue about a specific usage in specific circumstances, a point which is being largely ignored by those responding so far. It is they who are responding in general terms, seemingly because they don't seem to want to acknowledge how absurd it would be in these specific circumstances, to assume that these reports were knowingly false. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 19:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

The simple fact is: what you want is a breach of the core policies of Wikipedia, WP:V, WP:RS, and by extension WP:NPOV (because we have no way to determine balance and weight without RSs). This here is exactly why such policies were created in the first place, to separate us from the blogs and tabloids. In these specific circumstances, these are very extraordinary claims, and that requires very extraordinary sources.

The way around all this is quite simple: find the info in reliable sources. EZPZ. And if no such sources exist, the the solution is equally simple: leave it out. Now, if you want to change policy, you can go over there and discuss it all you like (but I'm not hopeful for your outcome). This is the very basic foundation of Wikipedia. Zaereth (talk) 20:00, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

No, the simple fact is, you are deliberately choosing not to engage with what is being said about the specifics of this case. If you're OK with that, fine, but it leaves me thinking that you genuinely seem to think it is or would ever be a Wikipedia "core policy" to knowingly, falsely present a man as a Public Astronomer and no threat to children, even when there are not one but two mainstream media reports (c.f. "Right Great Wrongs") which make it clear this is not the case, and where there is no credible reason being offered as to why they can't be assumed to be true. In context, this is a super ironic case of Wikipedia apparently wanting to ignore reality, to right what it apparently perceives to be a great wrong, namely that people read and believe the Sun/Mail, certainly for reports like this. Since we can certainly rest assured that there isn't a single person out there who is ever giving this man another job which involves access to kids, except those who, and we can only hope this is not the case, only get their background information on prospective hires, from Wikipedia. Maybe you disagree. Maybe you would hire this man, and not think twice about it. Is that how far you would be prepare to go, to defend what you are surely mistaken about, regarding Wikipedia's supposed core principles? Can you state for the record, whether you would hire this man or not, if you were looking to fill a role his experience lends itself to, according to his Wikipedia biography. And if not, why not? Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 20:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

That's correct. I'm glad you picked up on that. I know nothing about this case and really don't care, so I'm what we call a neutral, outside observer. I care only about policy, and notice that you are deliberately choosing not engage in policy-based discussions. If people are only getting info from Wikipedia, then they are fools, but I've never met anyone in an HR department who doesn't run real background checks. Nevertheless, that's really moot. You're using circular reasoning and argument from repetition as the basis of your arguments, and as those are fallacies they will always fail to convince others. My suggestion is: take some time to reformulate your premise, and come back when you are not so emotionally involved. It's best to begin on articles you are not so passionate about, at least until you get a good handle on how this all works and why these policies exist. Zaereth (talk) 20:32, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

"I know nothing about this case and really don't care". Exactly. I am not interested in anyone who comes here with that attitude, because they frankly aren't going to appreciate the serious potential harm they are advocating, apparently in the name of Wikipedia's core principles. It is important that you show you have read and understood the specifics of this case, before you seek to comment. Otherwise your comments on what is a specific circumstance, are frankly, irrelevant, since it obvious no policy exists in a vacuum, nor can they cover every scenario. The above was only an example. I have others, if you are unconvinced. They are all predicated on basic facts of life, such as people do trust Wikipedia, especially children. And pedophiles would know that. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

But without reliable sources, how can here be any specifics? I won't waste my time reading The Sun or Daily Mail. That's what I mean. Your logic is circular, meaning you keep beginning with what you end, which leave nothing. Even the MSM is, in my opinion, at the bottom of the barrel as far as reliability goes, and I would much rather see info come from far more reliable sources, like books by reputable publishers, but the MSM is considered reliable for biographical purposes.

I'll take one more shot at explaining this, using an analogy. Let's say some tabloid reports that consumption of honey will cure COVID-19. (Why not? It supposedly cures everything else.) Should we report that as well. Maybe they have doctors to quote or centuries of folk-lore to fall back on. Does that make the specifics any more reliable? Of course not. Unless a medically-reliable source confirms it, we can't report it. This is how we keep medical quackery out of articles (where there is a very real danger that we, ourselves, may cause harm), fringe science, celebrity gossip, and at the top of that list, falsely accusing someone of a crime without extremely good evidence. (That's where BLP policy comes into play.) You simply need better proof. I don't know how to make it any clearer than that. Even a child can understand that. Without it, any discussion of specifics is moot. The first step is providing reliable sources. Zaereth (talk) 21:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Why use an analogy when it is this exact case that shows your stance for what it is? Absurd dogma. Thwt is what I mean when I say specifics. Wikipedia is currently hosting a biography which claims the subject is still in a public engagement role, and poses no risk to children. That is all that is known, according to supposedly reliable sources. It contradicts all observeable reality however, wherein the institution no longer has an employee page for him, he has stopped being quoted in the media as an expert, and there are two reports in the two most widely read UK newspapers, quoting lawyers, prosecutors and a judge, that are both byelined, don't disagree, and which both say he was convicted of a crime serious enough to have him fired from that role and never hired to a similar one for at least seven years, by law. There is no information out there anywhere, reliable or otherwise, that offers a contradictory account. Least of all the persons and institutions that would understandably be outraged at such a fabrication. The most plausible explanation for these observable facts, is that this man has been fired or asked to resign (doesn't matter which, neither is claimed in the bio) as a result of this conviction. His desired career is likely over. His Wikipedia biography therefore, is misleading to the point of negligence. Like it or not, there are conceivable scenarios where this false Wikipedia biography could be used to either assist this man in further offending, or prevent an institution from properly protecting children. Especially if they, like you, contrary to all reason, and in all circumstances, choose not to believe a word they read in the tabloids. This is manifestly not a case of wanting to use Wikipedia to Right a Great Wrong, because as that very page says is acceptable, this would be a case of Wikipedia following, not leading, "mainstream media". What a child could understand, is why, even after being asked for specific examples of when the Mail and the Sun have EVER been caught fabricating reports of this nature, instead if addressing that with he inevitable negatory, you keep returning to your own circular logic, whereby Wikipedia is not in error, because it currently doesn't include any information from unreliable sources, and unreliable sources never make an error. Or worse, far worse, you recognise the error, but you would prefer to keep Wikipedia erroneous, than admit you have badly misjudged the media landscape of one of your choice source markets, where it would be absurd to the point of incredulous to hear that knowingly false reporting of this kind, namely court reporting of serious offences committed barely known individuals, would be considered profitable. Out of some warped prejudice regarding what you think you may have once read about honey, that was indeed perhaps misleading on a semi regular basis. And on a point of fact, those reports are of course never as inaccurate or misleading as is claimed. The unsurprising conclusion there, as ever, is that a newspaper is not an academic journal. But as any child knows, a newspaper does report on court proceedings. It is your choice to ignore that basic fact, or otherwise pretend these reports were written solely for some reason other than serving the public interest and without any due regard to the consequences of false reporting. It is your choice to potentially put children at risk, in addition to making Wikipedia just look ridiculous, rather than engage on the specifics of this case. You simply don't care, as you admitted. You think you have covered every case, even when shown a case you had apparently never considered. The drawbacks of dogma. This is why you should have been paying attention and properly read what was written, provided for your benefit, so that you could and should have given a useful reply, even if you still believed there was some logical reason not to assume these sources are reliable in context Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

To make it really easy: Daily Mail and the Sun are tabloids, not mainstream source (for the UK, that would be the Guardian, the Daily Telegraph, or the BBC). --Masem (t) 22:18, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

"Right Great Wrongs" specifcially refers to "mainstream media" not "mainstream sources". The reason is obvious. By definition, if something has already been mentioned in the two most widely read newspapers in Britain, and someone then wants to add that to Wikipedia, accusing them of being on some kind of improper crusade to put Wikipedia ahead of the media, is obvious garbage. You can accuse them of not using reliable sources, sure, but that's where you would then be obligated to explain why, in context, they are not reliable. You have failed to do that. Indeed, by admitting you have never seen them producing false quotes in this context, you have all but admitted there is no real reason to assume they are false. The ongoing failure to explain why the tabloid business model would promote falsehoods in this specific type of reporting, as you continue to lazily fall back on the same assumption that the reason they are presumed false is because they are tabloids, is just the cherry on top. You have indeed made it easy. Too easy. This is tabloid level argumentation, ironically. I will repeat my request for specific reasons why these specific sources cannot be used in this specific context because there is allegedly a reasonable case to be made they could be unreliable. Any reason will do, as long as its factual. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 22:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

There is no "reliable in context" when it comes to these sources. They are considered by Wikipedia policy to be unreliable. Period. And I use the honey example because 1.) I wanted something that wasn't real (although I suppose I could have used whatever it was Trump was pushing back when, but I like to avoid politics at all cost), and 2.) because I wrote nearly all the scientific parts of that article, except the medical. But I've seen how many people come there with their quackery, with the deep, inner, and urgent need to save the world out of some warped sense of morals. Sometimes the cure is worse than the disease. Anyhow, I find when I am too passionate about a subject, it tends to cloud my senses, and it's at that time that I am never more wrong. It's only when I can step back and look at it neutrally and objectively that my reason overcomes my passion. I still suggest taking some time to figure out how this all works before ever getting involved in something you are so passionate about. No matter how many ways you find to say the same things, there are a multitude of others here giving you the same reply, and that should tell you something. Zaereth (talk) 22:25, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I have yet to see a definitive policy statement to the effect the Sun and Mail are deemeed unreliable in all contexts. This is a specific issue about a specific usage. One that my reading of Verfiability and Reliable Sources seems to allow, given they talk at length about considering context and circumstances. That is perhaps why nobody here is doing that? Lest anyone imagine I am trying to argue they are misclassified by Wikipedia, I am not. For certain topics, they are less reliable than broadsheets, which themselves, are known to make mistakes. This is not one of them. People here have thrown up a lot of anti tabloid chaff, all in an apparent effort to deflect from the central point. These are two factual reports of a serious nature that are in total agreement, and they include quotes, and there are zero indications that they are incorrect reports. Zero. As much as it probably appeals to many here, to argue this is a realistic scenario for assuming the Sun and the Mail can't be trusted to do a simple thing like report on a court judgement, you might as well be saying they can't be trusted to print the date correctly. Absurd. Inane. Ridiculous. It is what it is, prejudicial garbage. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Most of that was deeply off-topic, and I hope you don't get any takers on the hypothetical. Do we need to add "Not a background check" to WP:NOT? The fact is that you have opened discussions here and at WP:RSN and have not built consensus for ignoring the unreliability of the Sun and Mail. Editors don't need to provide "credible reasons" not to assume that unreliable sources are unreliable. I second the recommendation that you drop the stick. You can hope other editors arrive who agree with your points and search for reliable sources. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 20:37, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Editors are required to prove they know the difference between a sensible position, and an absurd position. This is why I was able to show that Masem, contrary to these grand generalisms of claimed policy, doesn't actually have a single reason to think the Sun or Mail would have ever fabricated a report of this nature. Asking him that was a necessary part of the process. Hence presumably why he has departed stage left, rather than admit that, in the specific case here, he was wrong. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

On your first point, I disagree. No editors I've seen here are taking positions more absurd than just "These sources have proven to be unreliable, so we won't accept them." I am going to take Masem's lead and head backstage. Good luck with all your future editing. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

As you wish. Everyone can see the absurdity in claiming a source has been proven to be unreliable for a specific use, when nobody here is prepared to admit (bar one) that they have never actually seen that source be unreliable in that context, or have been prepared to acknowledge the very sound logical reasoning why they wouldn't. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 22:34, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• I'll note that my preferred version of the page would include this information, as I strongly believe that our bios should be just that, bios. In fact, it was Happy Shoes who found sources and made edits to the page that convinced me to change my !vote at the AfD from delete to keep.

But my preference to maintain WP's standards is stronger than my preference to have a complete entry on this man. I do not support the inclusion of any material drawn from these two sources. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:06, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

• You are being quite benign in how you describe this issue though. The goal here is not completeness in the sense you previously meant it. We still don't know, for example, what year he was born. I would support not using the Sun or Mail to prove when he was born, I would happy to just leave that out, on the very real risk they might have just made it up, or more accurately, not properly researched it. For uncontroversial information like that, nobody would be surprised to learn a reporter had just lazily copied that from an unreliable source when looking for filler, including of course, Wikipedia. People might not like to admit it, but even the broadsheets are guilty of that. Why? Because they're not in the business of writing biographies. The specific issue here is, on what basis are these specific reports being assumed to be unreliable? I don't want generalisms, it frankly isn't good enough to wave them away just because it's The Sun or The Mail. I want hard proof that there would be SERIOUS harm if Wikipedia was to incorporate this information, for all the very sound reasons given for why it can't just be blithely assumed to be wrong, after obviously removing the tabloidesque details. Because, and I am saddened nobody here seems to want to accept it, it is very easy to imagine a scenario where SERIOUS harm could result from Wikipedia presenting a false biography. Because, make no mistake, and I perhaps do now share some responsibility for this, this biography does now make a very seriously false claim, namely that this man is still the Public Astronomer. I did not find a single reliable source that says he isn't, presumably because that would involve explaining why too, so I would he interested to know how all those who seek to wed themselves irretrievably to policies and principles they claim make perfect sense to them, propose to square that circle. Or at least an actual admission that they don't plan to, and they don't give a damn what happens as a result of it. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 20:46, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  There is nothing false nor that will create serious harm about omitting a criminal charge about a person on their biographic page. It's missing information like his birth year, but its not "false" information. We should likely indicate he is no longer with the Royal Observatory (given that they no longer list him on his pages, knowing that he was listed before and reported that way before) but that's about the extent we can do. But to that end, all we can really say is that "he was ..." rather than "he is ...", we can't say why he no longer is. --Masem (t) 21:43, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  A lie by omission is rightly recognized as a pernicious form of false information, especially when done from a position of public trust. If it wasn't, President Trump was surely badly mistreated by the media. That is distinct from failing to mention a detail you already know is unimportant. On a point of fact, even stating this man "was" the Public Astronomer, a very important detail, would be an example of Wikipedia giving out false information under these alleged policies and principles. Why? Because you can't reliably source it! Hosted by your own petard. And more importantly, on what basis are you claiming that not mentioning this conviction won't harm anybody? Who are you to be so sure that this man, his life in apparent ruins, doesn't now want to progress his image based abuse, into real life abuse? He could easily convince a child, by showing them this page, that he is still an influential man with a cool job, someone worth conversing with online. And we already know at least, from reliable sources, that engaging with children was one of the favourite parts of his job. According to those allegedly unreliable sources, he is under a prevention Order for seven years, and that was done by someone professionally trained to asses risk. If you doubt it, there's his name, you can ask him if he has been falsely quoted. You won't, of course. And so who are you to say that being able to point to a trusted website that doesn't mention his conviction but does seemingly appear to be a sort of CV, doesn't pose a risk? I make no claim that any of these scenarios are realistic, but such is the nature of the offences, that even a small risk has to be taken seriously, and acted upon. It would be a low risk, high reward act, to set aside the utterly ridiculous prejudices against tabloids here, just for this specific case, and simply acknowledge how utterly unlikely it is that these reports are false. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 22:29, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  Lies by omission is only a valid argument when there is sufficient evidence that the info is probative and not prejudicial to the jury. This is not a courtroom, and there is no such thing as lying by omission in the context of a tertiary source (that's us). We give only what we can get within the bounds of policy. These tertiary writing conventions are not new to Wikipedia, but really go back as far as Pliny the Elder. "And therefore as a stranger give it welcome. There are more things in Wikipedia and policy, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Zaereth (talk) 02:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  Wikipedia routinely has to bat away accusations that it has failed to adequately serve its mission as an encyclopedia, by ommission. The precise area of failing to properly document notable academics is one such area. It was evidently a valid complaint, in recognition of the fact that there is necessarily a quite wide divergence between what your policy has previously allowed you to get, due to your heavy over reliance on broadhseet media, and what you can actually get if you simply apply a little common sense. How was that conflict resolved? Someone made the entirely sound argument that, while they could be prone to bias, it is unlikely a primary source like an employee profile on a man like Kukula, might contain false claims. As such, it was I who was able to save his biography from deletion, because it was I who rejected the utterly absurd notion that if The Guardian doesn't consider something worthy of note, then Wikipedia shouldn't either. You're never going to get around the central flaw of your argument here. You have got absolutely nothing to say regarding whether or not this information is accurate, other than your existing prejudice against these two newspapers. If it was prejudice based on relevant facts, an opinion that fitted these circumstances and the context, that would be one thing. But it isn't. You obviosuly desperately wish and hope that there is some convincing argument to be made that might convince people like me, who happily do not reside in the Wikipedia universe, but who do actually make their living out of knowing what is true and what is false, that these reports could conceivably be false. But you can't. If you could, you would have done it by now. I am confident that, contrary to what was claimed below, there is high public confidence that these specific reports, are true. It is up to Wikipedia to account for why they choose to believe otherwise. Can you? Or am I just going to be treated to more pointless generalisms? I have already dealt with one obviously false generalism on Wikipedia, and I now regret that it led to Wikipedia keeping the biography of this man. Because while others here might not care, I really do think that protecting children should be given a higher priority than maintaining a prejudice at any and all costs. Hopefully a child doesn't need to be harmed, for you to reconsider what lies behind yours and others efforts to hold some imaginary line here. What do people imagine are the consequences of acceeding that in this one specific case, these reports are likely true? Reading elsewhere, it appears these fears include having to report as fact that Amanda Knox is guilty, and copious images of breast appearing on Wikipedia for reasons of titillation (and I hate to break it to that person, but Wikipedia is already clearly in the business of hosting numerous images of breasts, and seems to have even less safeguards in that regard than the Sun!). Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 09:53, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

• Mr Happy Shoes, You are being quite benign in how you describe this issue though. Yes, I am remarkably not worked up over whether one little-trafficked article on Wikipedia on a relatively minor figure who no longer even works as a researcher (he's a writer now, according to his CV) has what might be either a scurrilous lie or (more likely) his most shameful secret laid out bare in a passive, encyclopedic tone.

  Perhaps you should emulate my example, accept the answer you've gotten from literally everyone else in this thread, and go on about your life, untroubled by the state of this particular page. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:47, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

  I cannot emulate your example, because to me, it does matter a lot that there are seemingly quite a few people here who do seriously want to live in a world where there is even a 1% chance that these reports might actually be a "scurrilous lie". To me, and no doubt to a lot of people who are not indoctrinated to Wikipedia's ways, such a viewpoint is absurd, to the point of offensive. To me, this is nothing but the product of some serious prejudice. A level of prejudice thet almost guarantees Wikipedia should never ever be trusted to be an encyclopedia, because such naked prejudice will always utterly destroy any goal of neutrality or sense of moral duty. It troubles me a lot that I have apparently had a hand in the current state of this particular page, because to me, it does matter if there is even a 1% chance that the subject could use this obviously false biography and Wikipedia's general reputation as a trusted reference work, to continue his offending. People here are genuinely acting as if their prejudice against tabloids should take precedence over the protection of children. It's abhorrent. It is irrelevant whether or not this article is little trafficked. It would only need to be viewed by two people, an offender and a victim, to enable a crime to be committed. As a mere platform, Wikipedia can rightly claim it played no part in that outcome, it would be entirely down to these absurd prejudices of the individuals involved, the people who are quite happy not to engage on the specifics or the context, in defence of this prejudice. But I would advise anyone who cares for Wikipedia deeply enough to spend time holding the line on these prejudices, especiallly if they genuinely see this as an inconsequential matter in the grand scheme of things, to think very carefully indeed about what a tabloid could really do to Wikipedia, if the worst happens. Even more so if it emerges, as has happened a lot recently, that there are far worse revelations to come, crimes that have been committed by a person with this sort of interest and who is in a position of trust and power, and could have potentially been prevented, if, for example, certain laws were in place. The sort of laws that the tabloid press tend to like run campaigns over, and which tend to offend the liberal instincts of Wikipedia people, who would, I imagine, be quite affronted at the idea it might be worthwhile to do a deep dive on a candidate's web history, before giving them a job like Public Astronomer. After all, something must have triggered a police search. Wikipedia might wish not to be seen as a background check resource, but if it doesn't, it might like to ponder how and why it has come to be the single most comprehensive resource on this man's life and career, and yet has deliberately chosen not to include information that has been published by the two most widely read newspapers in Britain, and where there is no realistic prospect of it being untrue. Sure, popularity is not reliability, but not for nothing does Wikipedia aim for ubiquity and broad acceptance as a trustworthy resource. Other than Wikipedia therefore, and the only next step for anyone who wants to know more, is to be proactive. Not really an option for those who don't have the money or the legal power to do anything but a Google search. It is a shame therefore, that the end product of Wikipedia's naked prejudice against tabloids, in this and no doubt other similar cases, which admittedly would be few and far between, is that to get the likely truth, to assess a simple thing like the risk posed to a child, without recourse to direct and perhaps illegal methods, one has to specifically search the internet for any pertinent tabloid stories that are probably true but which Wikipedia prejudices would have everyone believe is mere fake news, celebrity tittle tattle, next weeks fish and chip wrapping. Another win for the Murdochs of this world, who are indeed gleeful at any opportunity to show Wikipedia editors lack the ability to make serious judgements with regard to who is a serious journalist and who is merely a peddler of scurrilous rumour. Wikipedia better hope and pray that there is nothing more to this story, is all I can say. People are even acting like including this information would be automatically damaging to Kukula, as if they can't even conceive if a worked where Wikipedia is the place a person should be, if they want to know what specific terms relating to this man's crimes and sentences actually mean with regard to his future employment prospects or his overall risk level. How ironic, that they should show so little faith in Wikipedia, as a nominal public information resource. People here infact should frankly be quite ashamed that they have effectively ceded much of the future direction of this man's life over to the tabloids, who have indeed been quite happy to use terms like vile. Wikipedia is under no such obligation. Wikipedia is meant to be a factual encyclopedia. It's a shame is chooses not to see any pertinent facts here at all in these reports, regarding this man's biography. And only for reasons of obvious, absolute, immovable, prejudice. I happily judge anyone who doesn't seem to be as interested in these issues as I am, both in the child safety and the purpose of an encyclopedia angles, especially if they're claiming to have the best interests of Wikipedia at heart. For shame, is my verdict. Nay, that is my professional opinion. I am no Judge, but according to Wikipedia, neither is the woman who convicted this man. Ooops! Damn those prejudices. Mr Happy Shoes (talk) 10:47, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

  Two things:

  1. First, I'd recommend reading the Wikipedia general disclaimers (bottom of every page). Wikipedia does not vouch for the veracity of the information of every page. We strive for that but we know in our open editing model that actual mistakes and false information (by vandals) can leak in and not be caught. We try hard to stop that, but we realistically can't, so we do not present ourselves as the end-all of knowledge and caution all users that, if they are doing serious work, WP is only a first point of reference and not the last. If someone for some reason is doing a background check related to this person, and they only use Wikipedia for their source, they're doing a terrible job and ignored the warnings that WP gave them.
  2. As a hypothetical, what if neither the DM nor the Sun reported on this? We'd still know something was amiss due to the un-personing of him from the website and all the other factors we can see, and I would not be surprised that through the grapevine we'd learn about the pedophila conviction. But we have zero usable sources to work from. What then, what would you ask us to do? We absolutely will not violate WP:V and BLP to report on speculation that we can't source properly, so I think you'd agree we'd have to leave it out in that case. So here now we have a case where there exists two sources, and while there's very little chance those sources are making this up to a degree, we know they have a history of falsefying things in the past, so those sources are very circumspect - not necessarily for this specific case, but they've tainted all uses. So just as if we had no sourcing all together, we have to treat the situation as having no usable sources all together, and simply work from being aware behind the curtain that all this happened, that we absolutely want to try to document it, but that we have to have ironclad BLP-meeting sources to do that, otherwise we fail BLP's mission. --Masem (t) 13:55, 8 June 2021 (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.

Adam Beniquez

• Adam Beniquez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Article, including categories, contains numerous egregious violations of WP:BLPCRIME since he only appears to have been convicted of one murder. Notability would be questionable once cleaned up. He also has an entry at the following article;

• List of nicknames of serial killers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

That article is significantly lacking in inline citations, and contains many names who don't even have a Wikipedia article. 195.89.72.16 (talk) 08:52, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

The article subject is not a public figure, and so I removed the accusations that did not result in convictions per WP:BLPCRIME. Based on a brief review of the article, I tend to agree that the subject's notability seems primarily tied to the additional accusations (that it does not appear he was ever even charged with), and that he would probably not be notable simply on the basis of his one murder conviction.

For the list of serial killers, I think all of the names that are not bluelinked need to be removed. Those types of lists are only for notable individuals, and if a person is notable, then they should have that type of information explained in an article before including them in a list article. I'll try to clean it up at some point if no one else gets to it. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 16:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I just deleted the names that were not sourced or bluelinked on the list of serial killers article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:02, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Howard Milstein

Howard Milstein was written by and is updated by a relative and employee of the subject. Information that she thinks would reflect poorly on the subject is not allowed to appear.

I was an employee of Milstein's company for several years and worked with the writer. However, I'm not an experienced Wikipedia editor and I'm not sure if this is a proper subject for this noticeboard. I apologize in advance if that's the case.

These are some of the news stories that I'd expect to be deleted by the person who monitors the page:

The acres of vacant land in Niagara Falls, undeveloped for decades (2000) (2013) (still undeveloped in 2019)

The family disagreement that led to lawsuits in 2000

Milstein was one of five bankers picketed by Occupy Wall Street

A bill introduced by Michael Grimm would have benefited only Milstein's privately held bank, Emigrant Bank

Emigrant Bank found guilty of promoting subprime loans in 2016. Milstein was deposed in the suit, as was reported in The New York Times.

Would you suggest I add them and see what happens?

Addison0372 (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2021 (UTC)Addison0372

References

There looks like a decent amount of promotional material in the article that could be removed, and Addison0372, regarding the sources you cite, there is definitely useful information there that could be added. Most of the articles look reliable, although you would need to be careful with some of the speculation in them, and any of the information that was included would also need to be neutral per the WP:NPOV policy. I don't think the HuffPost source for the Occupy Wall Street protests is useful since it only mentions Milstein once, and so I don't think the information would be WP:DUE. The "The Greer Journal" website looks like a personal blog, and so that would not be reliable, but the relevant information looks like it could be cited to the New York Times article mentioned there anyway. I'm not sure how the WP:COI policy works for someone who was a former employee like you, but you could also propose revisions on the article's talk page. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:41, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Removal of section on arrest of 20-year old protester

By this edit, I removed a section on a 20-year-old individual who was accused of actions in a protest in connection with the George Floyd matter. The article was a stand-alone, then merged into the linked article. I did so under the policies stated in my edit summary; I don't believe this arrest and charge of an individual in this event qualifies for a compliant BLP. Kablammo (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the removal as it does not appear the individual is a public figure and I don't think there is enough to say she is notable for the arrest. The whole article seems a lot like WP:NOTNEWS. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Agree this was a proper removal for reasons stated. The removal begs if we even need said article but that's not a BLP question --Masem (t) 00:48, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Mikey Wax

Article was highly promotional and very poorly sourced, with many additions from IP users. I tried to trim down the most egregious content, and highlight where better sourcing (or just sourcing at all) was needed. Edits were reverted several times by an IP user (who geolocates to the subject's area, so potential COI), so requested semi-protected. Then, an editor who had been dormant for several years appears to revert the edits again. Would be helpful to have more eyes on the article. Not at all clear that the subject meets notability standards, but, if he does, still quite a bit of work to be done. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 20:06, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Tomer Eiges

Could someone look at Tomer Eiges? I saw this in the NPP queue. The topic is probably notable, in that this is a publicized controversial death. However, the name of the person is not (yet?) widely published. Are joods.nl and pensiontimes.co.uk reliable sources?--Eostrix  (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:02, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

sahle-work zewde

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahle-Work_Zewde At the end of the first paragraph of sahle-work zewde's biographical page, it says, "She is old and has more than a thousand bodies"- I assume that this is a joke? Because I've never contributed before, I didn't feel confident enough to remove it myself. Thank you all most sincerely for the work you do; it is very, very much appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:DE:E718:500:40AC:CEA5:2D91:C9C2 (talk) 11:49, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Taken care of. Woodroar (talk) 12:53, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Brendan Eich

What's the appropriateness of saying Brendan Eich is "known for" "opposition to same-sex marriage"? It seems that this was covered in media during his appointment as Mozilla CEO. The documentation of Template:Infobox person says that parameter should briefly provide the claim to notability of the person. Despite controversy, it's difficult to claim that the co-founder of Mozilla and creator of JavaScript's claim to notability is opposing same sex marriage. It's equivalent to saying Jeff Bezos is known for tax avoidance, Elon Musk for promoting Bitcoin, or Donald Trump for building a wall. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:56, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Well. That is what he's most known for if one looks outside of the group of programmers and crypto-nerds. Your comparison to Musk and Bezos doesn't hold water because Eich isn't in their class of publicity or social impact, so that's a straw man.

I'm curious as to why you came here, rather than opening a discussion on the talk page, which you were asked to do. I'm curious why other people don't! But I guess that's too much work, so we open discussions elsewhere, and try to lawyer out of it, or accuse editors of having conflicts of interest? Bah. Jorm (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Because I preferred outside eyes on the issue? Given on the talk page you've pretty much ignored everyone arguing otherwise, edit warred the content in, and accused of vandalism anyone who disagrees with you on the content? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't think the controversy is appropriate for the infobox unless it is central to the person's notability, especially when it only became a controversy because the individual was otherwise notable. I don't think the cited sources are not adequate for the content either, as they are news stories from when the event happened that are not discussing what the article subject is known for generally. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

Viktor Fedotov et al

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

I brought this up at ANI, where it was suggested I crosspost here as well. This article and these others all were written in quite an attack-y tone, and included a lot of detail about the subjects' business interests, political connections, etc. They've been largely cleaned up now, but ProcrastinatingReader felt, and FWIW I agree, they could be looked at in more detail. Any advice welcome! Thanks, --DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:38, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Pierre Kory

Pierre Kory There seems to be an ongoing defamation campaign against Pierre Kory related to his involvement in researching medication against covid-19. The Wikipedia page claims his views to be unproven and erronous solely based on a single source from the associated press which seems rather opinionated in nature. Attempts at moving the article from an authoritative style to an objective factual style are frequently revoked with claims that doing so would be less neutral and from a biased point of view. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ColourScreen (talk • contribs) 16:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

No comment on the specifics of article content here, but a few general points. Firstly, describing disputed content as 'defamation' and other contributors as 'biased' is inadvisable, to say the least, if one wants a disagreement to be settled amicably. Secondly, since this dispute seems to concern Kory's controversial opinions regarding the the treatment of COVID-19, this dispute is almost certainly subject to Wikipedia:General sanctions/COVID-19, making the need for proper conduct in any dispute even more necessary. And finally, I'd suggest that new contributors, if the wish to get involved in discussions over controversial subjects, might do well to first familiarise themselves with Wikipedia policies and guidelines. In particular, after looking at the talk page for the disputed article, I'd recommend that ColourScreen read WP:NOTFORUM. AndyTheGrump (talk) 16:46, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

It is alarming that ColourScreen, in addition to their WP:RGW-style tirades,[20] is promoting quackery in Wikipedia, linking to Youtube videos boosting Ivermectin as a COVID treatment, and which have an antivaxx theme, that have nothing to do with Kory.[21] Also links to content which has been banned from Youtube, and has taken refuge on advoacy sites.[22] With the sanctions in mind this is probably worthy of some admin scrutiny. Alexbrn (talk) 17:23, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Having looked into the biography in question, it seems that there is indeed an issue with the content. Or rather, with the way a couple of new contributors, including ColourScreen above, have been editing it. A it currently stands [23] the article is clearly misusing sources to imply things they don't in fact state. Specifically, it cites a source [24] as supposedly 'vindicating' Kory's views on the efficacy of Ivermectin in the treatment of COVID-19 while said source actually makes it clear that Ivermectin is not recommended for such treatment. Put simply, the disputed content, as added by the two new contributors, looks like partisan spin.

Having said that, I'm not sure this is really a matter for WP:BLPN. Nothing I've seen in any version of the article looks much like 'defamation'. If the newcomers can be persuaded to tone down their invective, it might be possible to make some progress towards settling the matter. AndyTheGrump (talk) 18:06, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Probably this results from some widely-spread twitter calls to arms[25] a few days ago. This has been a cause of problem editing on COVID-19 topics for a while now - not sure how Wikipedia can respond effectively, as each time it is causing a huge waste of editors' time. Alexbrn (talk) 18:19, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Can we not at least agree it is only fair that a video in which Pierre Kory expresses his opinions on the topic is referenced, when the main sources of the article are heavily against him. I don't see what it changes that it was banned on youtube, at some point you should stop cherry picking what researchers are legitimate based solely on their agreeableness with government agencies. I do not believe that Pierre Kory or anyone associated with him are telling things that they know to be false. It is only fair to the public interest that these view points aren't heavily censored. I am not familiar with that tweet, but it is the case there has been a recent surge in physicians discussing treatments online, calling them fraudulent only due to a lack of formality is insane. All counter claims to the effectiveness of the drug say nothing more than that research so far is lacking. Wikipedia seems completely in tune with the narrative pushed by Merck https://www.merck.com/news/merck-statement-on-ivermectin-use-during-the-covid-19-pandemic/ even though they hardly discuss at all the trade offs between side effects and potential boons, I hope in a couple of years when the narrative has settled that you will honor an official apology. ColourScreen (talk) 18:41, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Why would we need a video of Kory stating his views? I don't think any version of the article is claimed to be misinterpreting his views. You two have been arguing that his views have medical validity which is a different thing entirely. Insinuating that we are all in the pocket of Merck isn't a good way to illustrate that you desire neutrality. Notfrompedro (talk) 18:51, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

I suspect that most people's hopes regarding the effective treatment of COVID-19 are likely to be more based on their effectiveness than on securing hypothetical 'official apologies' from Wikipedia. This isn't (or isn't supposed to be) a forum, or an inline game. It is supposed to be an encyclopaedia, and whether individual contributors are right about disputed content doesn't really matter that much. If people find that difficult to deal with, they should probably ask themselves whether they should be contributing at all. AndyTheGrump (talk) 19:04, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

You are decrying his person by describing his ideas as unproven and false, I have nothing more to add. ColourScreen (talk) 19:13, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Unproven isn't an insult. Everything is unproven until evidence shows one way or the other. You are implying that unproven=false but that is not what the article is saying. Notfrompedro (talk) 19:16, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

The creator of the article, Magnovvig, made it these 10,630 bytes on 15 February. The article was factual and sourced with chapters: Education, Career, Covid-19 steroid controversy, MATH+ protocol, I-MASK+ protocol, Books, with reference to the FLCCC Alliance he co-founded, and to 4 articles Kory wrote. Then Alexbrn started to contribute, well, mostly revert previous contributions to make the article thinned to 5,919 bytes on 1 March 2021. Paul E. Marik, other cofounder of FLCC, was erased with the comment “what's this got to do with Kory?”. He dumped the link to the simple and detailed article, containing references to 3 articles signed by Kory, explaining those MATH+ and I-MASK+ protocols, under the pretext “trim non-WP:MEDRS”. He dumped Kory's founding co-signed article giving Clinical and Scientific Rationale for the “MATH+” Hospital Treatment Protocol for COVID-19 under the pretext “trim original research from primary source”.

I see no rationale for an article about Pierre Kory to be trimmed of any publication he made. The last version left by Alexbrn has a link to Kevin J. Tracey whose article cites 46 publications by Tracey! Alexbrn dumped links to 4 publications by Kory just to leave such judgements like his “advocacy of unproven treatments” or to “promote fringe theories”,or to be the one who “erroneously described ivermectin”. As a minimum must be put back in the article what Kory has written! Ceveris (talk) 20:24, 13 June 2021 (UTC)