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.

Paul Bernardo and Karla Homolka

So there's a lot of unsourced content between the two articles. They're serial killers and the main reason I care is because I grew up in Niagara Falls and St. Catharines. I heard a lot about them growing up, especially in my high school law classes. I tried to fix some of the content and I'd thought I'd be okay because I already knew the horrible details to some extent... but I'm not sure it's nessecarily the best course of action. I've had some nightmares since and that's typically a really bad sign that I should not be doing whatever I've been doing lately for the sake of my own mental health.

Anyways, the sourcing really isn't ideal. These articles have collectively recieved ~120,000 pageviews in the past 30 days so ideally something should be done. They're serial killers and I really don't want their crimes to be whitewashed, but at the same there's some potential WP:BLP violations that should be dealt with. Clovermoss (talk) 22:14, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Going to have a look, but it would be helpful if you could be a bit more specific as to where you think the problems are. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

@Dumuzid: Well one potential issue is the Scarborough Rapist cases subsection in the Paul Bernardo article, which includes a list of rapes that's almost entirely unsourced. The main thing that I think is not ideal from a BLP violations perspective is that there's a lot of unsourced content about their crimes between the two articles. I will say that nothing really quite stands out to me as glaringly untrue, but still. Clovermoss (talk) 22:38, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

There's been tons of stuff written about them and their crimes. Books, magazines, newspapers, TV shows, documentaries, the internet, etc., etc., etc. Not to mention, court transcripts, appeals, legal documents, etc. So, I suspect that sourcing will not be a problem. If the statement offered in the article is indeed true, I am sure there are many sources out there. But, yes, I agree that unsourced material should be sourced ... but, it should not be removed. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 06:58, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

@Joseph A. Spadaro: Yes. My point was more that I can't go through it all right now because of the nightmares. I tried to improve the articles and things did not go well for me even though I thought I would likely be fine... but I've also experienced trauma so it makes sense. I'm very aware that they did awful things, I don't want their crimes to be whitewashed. I just wanted to bring attention to it on here because there really shouldn't be the amount of content that's unsourced in the article (even if sources exist) for stuff describing rape, kidnapping, murder, etc. Clovermoss (talk) 09:29, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Yes, I understand your point. Thanks for bringing it to our collective attention. And thanks for your efforts. Best, Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:33, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Javier Milei

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

The opening sentence links Javier Milei with a political doctrine usually related to things like neonazism and racial supremacism, but the references are not valid: two are opinion pieces (and conspiracy theory opinion pieces, at that), and the third is an interview. Opinion pieces are not valid references for statements of facts per WP:RSEDITORIAL, and neither are interviews: they may be useful for "X says Y", but not for plain Y.

I explained this at the talk page, but the user that keeps restoring this material says that opinion pieces are not opinion pieces unless the newspaper places them inside an "opinion" subsection. There's more at the talk page, but this is the main point of dispute. Cambalachero (talk) 19:59, 19 July 2022 (UTC)

 Done, it turned out that the user was abusing sock puppets and got blocked. Cambalachero (talk) 03:30, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Takarafuji Daisuke

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

The article Takarafuji Daisuke states that Takarafuji is a sandanme (4th) division wrestler. This is false, he is competing in the highest division, makuuchi, fighting in the 2022 Nagoia basho right now.

Use of primary sources for full names.

Hello, so I recently started removing second names from Mixed martial artists that only had primary sources to back it up. It was my understanding that secondary sources are needed for personal details like date of birth, full names, etc. Editors at WP:MMA have raised a discussion here about my removal of full names, given I'm not the best when it comes to BLP, I thought I'd come here to see if I'm just misunderstanding or not. Thanks. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 11:37, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

BLP commentators will probably have a view, but in my opinion it's not so much a matter for BLP, and more to do with WP:V. The reference burden is generally on those wanting to restore content. If it can't be referenced then it may as well be fabricated. It seems to me that many of the articles listed aren't referenced at all. Arguing about unreferenced content is moot. When it comes to using primary sources, it all depends. A birth certificate, or many other public records, may not clearly indicate that it relates to the same person, and it may not include all the facts. I'd pull one example from the list of articles that I looked at: Dustin Poirier. Before looking into that document too much, I would accept an official-looking fight record as proof of a full 'fighting name'. It is not a record of a birth name. Thus, it's not referenced. I'm a big fan of WP:V, which is one of our most fundamental policies. Let it remain your guiding light. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 12:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

The relevant policy is WP:BLPPRIMARY:

Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses. Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies.

AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

In the context of full names, most mixed martial artists have their full names sourced by public documents from the athletic commission for whichever state/country they competed it. It's pretty rare to see secondary sources for full names in MMA articles. ♡RAFAEL♡^(talk) 13:00, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Correct, per BLPPRIVACY, we include full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object to the details being made public . BLPPRIMARY says that public documents aren't enough. Woodroar (talk) 18:09, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

As others have said, you're right and those challenging you are wrong. Whatever the supposed importance of these names to MMA fighters, if reliable secondary sources don't care about such details then there's no reason we should. It's inappropriate to use primary sources to source such details. Also, as always it's fairly ironic to claim some detail is super important but then be unable to find a reliable secondary source that mentions it. Either the person isn't notable or the detail isn't actually so important. Nil Einne (talk) 20:28, 23 July 2022 (UTC) 13:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

I've noticed an issue with UK youtubers where people will cite the UK company directory in order to get their legal full name, this is currently the case for Wilbur Soot. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:07, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yup, I've seen the same thing. In my opinion it is a violation of WP:BLPPRIVACY policy. And frequently involves an element of WP:OR. AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:14, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Not disagreeing with the above, but as a reminder that we do allow when the person themselves stated the information via an WP:SPS (eg on social media, as long as we know the account is verified). But that doesn't sound like the type of sourcing that had been used in these cases, so removal is appropriate. --Masem (t) 14:19, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Debbie Hayton

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

Could one or more editors please take a look at Debbie Hayton and Talk:Debbie Hayton#Removal of content. Three days ago I removed a lot of content from the article, listing my exact reasons at the linked talk page discussion. In short I believe there to be issues relating to WP:INDISCRIMINATE, WP:COATRACK, WP:SYNTH, and several WP:UNDUE and unverifiable claims. An editor has now twice restored this (first restore, second restore), which I believe goes against WP:BLPRESTORE as the content removal was justified by several policies. I asked the editor to self-revert per BLPRESTORE however they have refused pending discussion from other editors. Thanks. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:04, 22 July 2022 (UTC)

Removal is appropriate until discussion comes to a consensus. If there is no consensus, the disputed items should not be reinstated per WP:BLPRESTORE and WP:ONUS, let alone WP:BURDEN if there is original research. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:43, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. That was and is my understanding of those policy points. I've asked the editor who restored it what their understanding of BLPRESTORE is, however I have yet to receive a response. I didn't want to edit war over it, nor try to invoke WP:3RRNO#7. So I commented here. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:51, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

Since both of you are now alerted that this article falls under WP:GENSEX, you both or others can request arbitration enforcement if the edit warring continues slowly. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:16, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Heh, going down the WP:AE route seemed like overkill as it's not quite at a conduct problem yet, and guidance elsewhere is to ask here first. Hopefully next time Dskjt is online we can get some dialogue going on the content though. Sideswipe9th (talk) 15:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Tony Keeling

Recent decisions by Tony Keeling and his subordinates have led to great deal of frustration amongst youngters who have already used the wiipedia page as an outlet - it would be best to lock the article for a short period to allow the heat to die down. Examples of two instances today: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Keeling&type=revision&diff=1100011830&oldid=1100011421 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tony_Keeling&type=revision&diff=1100011830&oldid=1100010050 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davix (talk • contribs) 20:02, 23 July 2022 (UTC)

He does not appear to be notable enough for his own article and I have nominated it for deletion.[1] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:00, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Wendy Turner Webster

In the first sentence of this article,it states that Turner-Webster "opposes animal welfare". Surely this is an error. She is an advocate of animal welfare. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pure gallus (talk • contribs) 01:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Yup. I've removed it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Philip Weiss

There are two unsourced allegations accusing American journalist Philip Weiss of of ferocious antisemitism. The Wikipedia biography of Weiss cites accusations from two different articles written by pro-Zionist political adversaries of Weiss: one written by Elliot Kaufman; the other written by David Bernstein. Both of the articles referenced make outrageous claims, citing no sources to verify the truth of their claims and demonstrating their political hostility towards Weiss. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rodger Kroell (talk • contribs) 04:08, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

No comment on the specifics of the issue, but I would note that Wikipedia does not stipulate that sources we cite in turn cite sources for their content - that would lead to absurdities. AndyTheGrump (talk) 05:13, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

You're better off writing letters to The Stanford Review and Washington Post about this issue. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:41, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Little good that would do. Both sources are very obviously op/ed columns, and the news outlets will (rightfully so) argue First-Amendment to the death on such issues of their rights to print their opinions. Normally, an op/ed wouldn't be a reliable source, even if it comes from a reliable publisher. But they are reliable for the author's opinion. A good example of this is, say, a book review, movie review, restaurant critique, etc. This case is more along the lines of something like that. There may be a good argument about why we're singling out these opinions, as in, why is their opinions of any importance to the reader? I don't know. But that should be hashed out on the talk page. However, this is one case where we're using the op/ed in the correct manner, citing only the authors' opinions and attributing them correctly.

Oh, and sources aren't required to provide sources for their opinions. They are the primary sources. Zaereth (talk) 00:34, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

A fair question is that while we do not allow SPS on BLP, we should be a bit careful on op-eds. Now, I don't think would apply to the WaPost which probably reviews op eds to make sure they are not grossly insulting, but I do wonder about the Stanford Review, which is a student-run newspaper. And if these are the only sources that are making claims about Weiss and antisemitism, that also may fall into UNDUE. --Masem (t) 00:48, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Good point. I didn't dig that deep. But that again begs the question, why are these people's opinions of any value? I mean, are they some kinds of experts? For example, I would put some value on Dr. Ruth's opinions of sexual topics. Not so much for Dr. Dre, or even Dr. Phil. I highly doubt a student-run paper has much if any value behind their opinions. Washington Post, maybe, but is the author someone whose opinion we should print? Most valued opinions come from people with some kind of credentials, be it a book critic, food critic, or whatever. Anyhow, without digging too deep, that's where the best argument for removal would be. Zaereth (talk) 00:58, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

To answer your question, David Bernstein (law professor) is the author of the The Volokh Conspiracy column that was published by the Washington Post so there may be political bias there. Also, The Atlantic comments Mondoweiss "often gives the appearance of an anti-Semitic enterprise" and gives multiple Weiss examples of why.[2] Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:57, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Accordig to his Stanford Review profile, at the time of writing Elliot Kaufman is "a sophomore from Canada who loves America. In addition to his role as News Editor of the Review, he is the President of the Alexander Hamilton Society and the VP of Cardinal for Israel. To sponsor him for US citizenship, please offer him a job". Call me crazy, but I think the bar for inclusion for an opinion in a so-called encyclopedia should be higher than "some undergrad wrote something on the internet once that agreed with a Wikipedian's opinion". Weiss get's mentioned only twice in Kaufman piece, amid a broader and tangential criticism of Mondoweiss. Rather than bending over backwards to attribute and qualify Kaufman's view as "According to Canadian Stanford undergraduate student newspaper editor Elliot Kaufman....", and presenting his view as having equal weight as David Bernstein's (actually more weight, as it comes first), the prudent thing to do would probably omit it. It's also amusing (and smacks of POV pushing) that the article devotes an entire subheading to allegations of antisemitism, and cherry-picks funding from the Unz Foundation, yet doesn't even summarize a single review of Weiss's books (reviewer's include Peter Godwin). I'm not defending Weiss's views, and realize he is controversial, but it appears strongly that Wikipedians want allegations of antisemitism to be emphasized as much as possible. The Tablet profile offers a commendable model I think for describing controversies while remaining impartial in tone and structure. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree about the student piece. I removed it. I think the “Allegations of antisemitism” section needs to go. If this were a well developed and NPOV article, perhaps this would be a criticism section. Thriley (talk) 04:07, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

If there is really only the Bernstein op-ed on that (and I'm not questioning his credentials), that's probably a good reason to not include at all, per UNDUE and given the weight of BLP. Multiple quality op-eds would be needed to include a section on that. Masem (t) 04:35, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

I have been reading Mondoweiss for many years. I cannot imagine Philip Weiss writing the offensive antisemitic statements attributed to him by David Bernstein. Mondoweiss is controversial because it features articles highly critical of Israel. This angers pro-Zionist intellectuals like David Bernstein to no end. False charges of antisemitism -- and unsourced quotations attributed to critics of Israel -- issued by pro-Zionists like Bernstein are a common feature of 21st century American society. This is something Wikipedia editors need to be conscious of.Rodger Kroell (talk) 08:16, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's the deal. I'll start with saying that I agree with Masem, that this is most probably undue and should be removed. Where we have an opinion we also need to make an effort to find opposing viewpoints, and if one is all we got, then NPOV can't be measured or satisfied. But here's where your argument falls apart: how do you define antisemitism? Is that the same as how others define it? It's a subjective term that is based solely on the opinion of the beholder. Some people are easily offended, and others may go out looking for it and invariably will find it everywhere. Others may be more resilient and aware of other possibilities. In some cases you get instances where most people's opinions agree. But there is no such thing as a false opinion, because opinions are not facts, thus that argument fails to persuade. The argument of undue weight, on the other hand, has persuaded me. Zaereth (talk) 18:56, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

"killed about 5 people"

Hi everyone. This seems a pretty serious BLP violation: [3] Should the revision be deleted? Robby.is.on (talk) 09:00, 25 July 2022 (UTC)

• I suppose, and I just did. But it's so stupid that I don't know if it's a serious violation. Drmies (talk) 15:16, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Robby.is.on (talk) 16:39, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

Joe Brown (judge)

• Joe Brown (judge) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

More eyes on this one, please. Persistent addition of problematic WP:BLP content with a dose of WP:OR in the narratives. Perhaps some of it stays, if well sourced and tersely stated. Right now it looks agenda-driven. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 04:47, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have reverted Itsaboutheritage's edits. I agree that it's all way too chatty, way too much tabloid journalism. Wikipedia isn't here to report on or reflect the views of the subjects of articles. Note also the post on the talk page, where the editor argues that they think it's noteworthy even without secondary sourcing to include the subject's appearance on some talk shot--that's not how it works. Pinging User:Sdrqaz. Drmies (talk) 15:27, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Thanks, Drmies. 2601:19E:4180:6D50:0:0:0:F5BD (talk) 03:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Hey, It's fine that you reverted. I did mention this on the talk page. I'm learning Wikipedia. If these are the rules, they're the rules. Itsaboutheritage (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Thanks, Drmies. Sorry I didn't reply in time, Itsaboutheritage, but I think that approach you stated is probably best. One of the limitations of Wikipedia is that as a tertiary source, it cannot be the quickest to report something – we need to be patient. If it's worth mentioning, a secondary source will eventually do so. Sdrqaz (talk) 03:35, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Implicit naming of a non-notable witness via a notable father

Does anyone here have a view on the inclusion in the "Beergate" article of this sentence: "The footage was taken by conservative journalist [fully named]'s son who at the time was a student at..."? This effectively reveals the identity of a non-notable person who witnessed the event, and I think may unfairly prompt readers to speculate that there was a possible political alliance and motif for his actions. -- DeFacto (talk). 08:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• I have a view, and I removed that irrelevant and BLP-violating factoid. Drmies (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
  • Drmies There are multiple reliable sources (including one in the article) identifying the person who took the footage, since he admitted it when it came to light in the media. Black Kite (talk) 20:01, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Black Kite, sure, perhaps--but we are not the media. Is it relevant to the actual event? If so, that should be made explicit, not left as a suggestion. Drmies (talk) 00:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Proxima Centauri, if you believe the son is like the father, and there is a "strong family connection" or something like that, that needs to be made explicit. Is it explicit in the sources? If not, what's it matter? Did the father have a role in shooting the video or publicizing it? Etc. Innuendo is for the tabloids, not for us. Drmies (talk) 01:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Drmies Actually, the son does not appear to be like the father, according to Guido Fawkes (which as a Tory-supporting site had no axe to grind here [4]). Any claim that the father distributed to video to Lawrence Fox and co, whilst totally logical (and claimed as such by one of the recipients on social media), would clearly be SYNTH without reliable sources though. Black Kite (talk) 10:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
        • If he was anybody else, I'd give him the benefit of the doubt instantly, but his father's involvement in promoting the art of the fake sting makes me a bit wary; indeed, the reason why it was covered in RSes is precisely because of that. Sceptre (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
• The identity of the son has been covered in reliable local, national and international media. It is covered in The Guardian, The Northern Echo and again, Stern (Germany) and the Novinky (Czechia). That seems to me to satisfy WP:BLPNAME. If those reliable sources consider the son's identity and his father's identity to be relevant, then we should follow what reliable sources say. (This is not tabloid innuendo, because these are not tabloids.) Bondegezou (talk) 10:40, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
  • The gist of BLPNAME is "Caution should be applied when identifying individuals who are discussed primarily in terms of a single event.", and it's still a single event, even if a motley few sources cover it. BLPNAME also says "When the name of a private individual has not been widely disseminated or has been intentionally concealed, such as in certain court cases or occupations, it is often preferable to omit it, especially when doing so does not result in a significant loss of context", I don't see a wide dissemination, and what context would be lost without naming this guy or mentioning who his father is? And I don't see WP:DUEWEIGHT there either, is that the only UK source covering it, and is that the sum total of all sources you could find? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
    • Caution should be applied doesn’t mean “don’t do it”: it means, think about. We are thinking about it. We can identify individuals discussed primarily in terms of a single event if there’s wide dissemination and RS coverage. International media coverage in the UK, Germany and Czechia seems to me to satisfy widely disseminated. WP:DUEWEIGHT, likewise, seems to me to be met by Guardian, Stern and Northern Echo. That’s 2 UK sources (3 articles), by the way. Those are the main sources I found that seem to meet RS. There is other coverage that doesn’t seem to meet RS, like Guido. Bondegezou (talk) 11:48, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
      • Sure, it doesn't say you must not add it, but neither does it say that you have to add it. The other question which is unanswered, is what context does it add that would otherwise be missing?
        Claiming that appearing in 3 or 4 likely reliable sources worldwide qualifies as "widely disseminated", is, at best, wishful thinking, in my opinion. I'd say that if it was widely disseminated, it would, at least, be covered in all the mainstream national UK media, especially BBC News, The Times, The Telegraph, and The Independent, and not just the one mentioned. -- DeFacto (talk). 13:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

I don’t see any policy support for your interpretation of widely disseminated. I don’t see why coverage by a major German magazine matters less than more UK coverage. I would’ve thought that international coverage is better evidence of wide dissemination.

Lots of editors at Beergate support the inclusion having also considered the relevant policies. We’ve discussed the matter at some length. You started a discussion here without even notifying the article’s Talk page, which looks a bit like forum shopping to me. Bondegezou (talk) 19:14, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

• • • • Bondegezou, the gist of the BLP is really clear here: we should be sparing in giving detail, and do so only if it matters one way or another. Your argument seems to be "it happened to be this way and a few sources wrote it up". That's just not enough. Drmies (talk) 15:01, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

It’s a basic Wikipedia principle that what’s due is determined by RS coverage. There is RS coverage. It’s in a number of different publications and has gone international. If you feel that’s just not enough, can you expand on precedent or guidelines as to what is or is not considered enough? Because in the opinion of several editors, this is enough. Bondegezou (talk) 19:18, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

The principle of due is that it's determined by a preponderance of RSs, but that is only a small part of policy. But that aside, all this wikilawyering seems to be evading the most pressing question, which is: what value does this name add to the article? We shouldn't include something just because we can. An encyclopedia is a reference source, which means we don't need all the boring details found in the newspapers and textbooks. What we do is summarize the sources, and that means cutting out all of the boring details, and whittling out anything that is not absolutely essential to the story. All we need for any article is the gist of it. The nitty-gritty. Now, as a reader and an outsider who knows nothing about this, I don't see a difference between the two sentences, except one is longer and gives me unnecessary details which leave me wondering, "So? who cares what the videographer's name is, or who his father is? What does any of that have to do with the price of rice in China?"

Now, the entire article reads like that. It's written like a newspaper would write it, filled with tons of details and unnecessary information that is basically just filler as far as I can tell. Contrary to popular belief, for the reader, it's always best to get the point across in the fewest words possible. Longer is not always better, and there are a ton of these boring details that can easily be cut.

So, the real question that should be answered is, why is this information necessary for the reader to understand the subject? I don't need that answer, but the reader really does, and it should be evident just from context why that information is important. Maybe it is incredibly vital, but if so then some key piece of information is missing, because it reads just the same without it. So, what is the logic behind keeping it? Zaereth (talk) 00:34, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the article as a whole is written in an overly newspaper-ish way. It has been a heavily edited article, with a lot of to-ing and fro-ing over issues like that. But that’s tangential to the point under discussion here.

Why is the identity of the student important? Beergate is not just about Starmer being at a gathering and there being questions as to whether that broke COVID regulations. The wider context to Beergate is Partygate, the breach of COVID regulations by Johnson et al., which ultimately played a large part in Johnson’s resignation. Much of the furore around Beergate was about Conservatives and supporters using the allegation (subsequently proved to be false) that Starmer had also breached regulations to distract from Johnson’s woes. In that context, some RS consider it notable that the source of the video is someone with links to Johnson, and someone whose dad has very strong links to Johnson. The father was one of many Conservative-supporting commentators who were critical of Starmer, yet he did so without mentioning his own connection to events.[5] That could be better explained in the text, yes. Bondegezou (talk) 07:18, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned on the talk page some time ago, there is a balance to be made here. There is, of course, the possibility that I.D. was simply on an innocent errand when he took the picture of Starmer. But there is a possibility that I.D. was being economical with the truth about what exactly he was up to that evening. This is seriously being discussed in reliable sources (i.e. Johnson is, or was, a family friend of I.D.; I.D.'s father is a notorious fake news peddler; and Johnson has spent most of 2022 either throwing dead cats on tables or wagging some dog to distract from Partygate).

My reading of BLPNAME is that naming I.D. is okay, as long as the encyclopaedic voice doesn't cast those aspersions towards him: nobody is suggesting any sort of criminality occurred, so BLPCRIME doesn't apply; I.D.'s name hasn't been deliberately suppressed; and there is a possibility that significant context may be lost, as I.D. being the one to take the picture is central to the argument that the whole affair was deliberately manufactured. Sceptre (talk) 19:00, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

There's an obvious contradiction here. If we aren't casting those aspersions towards him because there is insufficient evidence and coverage, then there is no reason to mention the name. It can't be "central" to an argument if there is no argument. Arguments covered in other places but which we don't mention at all are not of much relevance to us.

Also while BLPCRIME may only apply to criminality, the wider issue of not covering non criminal allegations if they are insufficiently sourced, not of great relevance and especially when the person is not a public figure, remain. The same as we would treat an extramarital affair (which if involving consenting adults in most cases in the Western world is not a crime) or claims of plagiarism (which in some cases could be a crime but often won't be) or cheating on a test (ditto).

I'd add that any source which thinks someone journalist's random son recorded something happening in mid 2021 which even the Daily Mail didn't give a fuck about, so it could be used by Johnson in 2022 when the shit hit the fan is so obviously silly that any source suggesting as such is probably not a reliable source.

Note that from what I've read which I admit isn't much, it seems incredibly unlikely that this whole thing was deliberately manufactured as this would suggest someone in Labour involved in the decision making was working with outside parties which is such an extreme claim to make that it seems to me to be approaching Pizzagate level of wackiness. The only other scenario I can think of is if the 1 hour takeaway delay someone contributed to the situation seeming worse on video, but that still suggest way too much conspiracy, work and ifs and buts for something which let's remember even the Daily Mail didn't give a fuck about.

Note that this is distinct from the possibility that the videographer didn't just happen upon the scene. There are other ways that could occur e.g. they were following the campaign or someone involved for a long time trying to observe something of interest. Or perhaps they somehow found out about the takeaway deliveries either from someone at the restaurant or delivery service or someone in the campaign. Which could even be without any sort of conspiracy if the person was e.g. simply careless with what they shared on social media. Whatever people may think about such things, it clearly doesn't make the recording something that was deliberately manufactured as what was recorded such as it didn't only come about because someone had set it up (i.e. deliberately manufactured or engineered the situation). Instead it was something that happened "naturally" or without mal-intent, no matter how the recording and release were engineered and used.

Nil Einne (talk) 13:00, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

One could argue (and indeed it has been argued) that the reason the Mail didn't give a fuck about it in 2021 is because it wasn't worth running when there was clearly no contravention of the rules; but then when Johnson got fined in 2022 the Tory party tried to spin it into something it wasn't, and the Mail gave it their best shot. But, of course, there's no reliable source for that, because those involved are hardly going to trumpet what they're doing. Black Kite (talk) 14:15, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

But that's precisely the point though. This was basically a non-story. It's therefore ridiculous to suggest the video was deliberately manufactured. It was simply a video of something which might look mildly bad that was recorded and was used as such at the time. There was no major conspiracy with recording the video which SpectreSceptre reports some sources mention, sources IMO we should probably not use for anything. The fact Daily Mail and others tried to manufacture a controversy using the video doesn't mean the video was manufactured. Whether the videographer was being entirely truthful with the context surrounding recording the video also doesn't affect that it was something which even the Daily Mail recognised was mundane. So the videographer's identity isn't of any real relevance since it was a mundane video that others, some with a connection to the videographer perhaps, later tried to blow up the video when the situation arose where they felt it might work. Nil Einne (talk) 19:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any need to be getting into conspiracy theories. I don't see any need to make comparisons to an extramarital affair (which if involving consenting adults in most cases in the Western world is not a crime) or claims of plagiarism (which in some cases could be a crime but often won't be) or cheating on a test (ditto). The son is not being accused of wrongdoing. That means that we should be somewhat more relaxed about naming him as no accusation of immorality is being made. It's like talking about Abraham Zapruder when discussing the Kennedy assassination. (Obviously, that's a limited comparison given the differing magnitude of events!) If random person Joe Bloggs had filmed the video, we probably would have named him and left it at that. But reliable sources have chosen to note the connection between the son, his father and Johnson for context. It seems to me that we should take our lead from RSs and do the same. Bondegezou (talk) 09:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

If there was a preponderance possibly, but as there's less than a handful, no. The question remains though, what value does naming him add? -- DeFacto (talk). 10:17, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

What DeFacto said. If the videographer's identity was discussed as widely as Abraham Zapruder then yes we would include it. Since it's not we don't and yes we should do the same for random person Joe Bloggs. Also again, you can't say there's no accusation of immorality then say sources are noting there's a connection between the son, his father and Johnson. Nil Einne (talk) 19:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'd also note that putting aside controversy over the recording, User:SpectreUser:Sceptre on the talk page said

To be honest, if people get the impression that Delingpole was trespassing just from reading the Wikipedia article (which I doubt would be the case; any speculation of Delingpole's physical position and whether he had a legal right to be there would, without reliable sources, constitute original research), then that's his own fault. If he was trespassing, nobody forced him to do so, and nobody forced him to go public with the video either.

While this was over different text, it seems to call into question even more the claim that there is no impropriety implied. Nil Einne (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Sorru for spelling Sceptre's name wrong twice. Nil Einne (talk) 11:17, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

FWIW, Starmer's visit was public knowledge (there was, after all, a by-election on), so I.D. most likely found out that way. What is being said in RSes isn't that the curry was being forced into Starmer's mouth; what is being said is that there is a definite air that the Daily Mail (et al) deliberately over-egged the pudding in order to vindicate their man in the eyes of the public. And the videographer's identity is part of this argument, given his father's involvement in the fake news industry for the past ten years, and said father's promotion of the video as if some random concerned citizen sent it through a tips line. Sceptre (talk) 14:41, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure Starmer's visit was public knowledge, but that is largely irrelevant to the issue. While perhaps someone could guess Starmer might eat during the evening, this would still require recording him for a long time or specific information leaking that he was about to eat. (Recording rivals in part with the hope you'd catch something that will be useful apparently isn't uncommon in the US at least pre-COVID19 going by George Allen (American politician)#2006 where the person the racist insult was used against was one such tracker who went around recording a rival to the person they supported hoping we can assume to catch something which would be useful to the candidate they supported. And semi-ironically did when the rival use a racist insult against them.)

Also more importantly, you said above some sources said "the whole affair was deliberately manufactured". My point was this is clearly so unlikely that any sources suggesting it should be ignored. Whether or not the video was later misused, doesn't mean the whole affair was deliberately manufactured. As I think you now agree, Starmer eating takeaways was clearly not manufactured. Daily Mail was not overegging the video at the time of the recording, it was something that only happened a fairly long while later.

If the father's involvement is significant enough as reflected in RS to mention in the article, then it may be fine to mention in the article, but you earlier claimed it was not. I suspect this is unlikely since realistically, even if the father was aware of the events that became Partygate before the controversy blew up, and was afraid they might blow up, and so was trying to catch something similar they could use as ammo if it was ever needed, someone with such experience as you suggest would surely be smarter to use someone other than their son to record it, a son who would complain about how it was being used.

So again, the far more likely explanation is mundane, this wasn't some major conspiracy trying to catch something that could be use to defend Boris Johnson. Instead, either it happened to be recorded when someone saw something which they didn't like or perhaps it was simply one of the probably many things intentionally recorded that rivals of Starmer were hoping might reflect negatively on him. Either way even Daily Mail realised at the time it wasn't very interesting.

It was only later after Partygate blew up that supporters of Johnson/opponents of Starmer thought it would be useful and tried to use it. There was no planning to make that video so it could be later used in that way, and the takeaways and beer weren't part of some plan to harm Starmer/help Johnson. In other words, while the controversy may have been manufactured, most of the affair including the video was not. And so the videographer is basically irrelevant, in fact as indicated earlier, I suspect the Daily Mail and others wish to was someone else who recorded it.

Nil Einne (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

P.S. I realised I confused the Daily Mail with the Sun, the Sun were the who we know didn't think it was anything interesting at the time since they put it on page they use for boring stories. However, although we may not have a specific indication how the Daily Mail felt about the video time as I thought we did, I don't feel this significantly changes what I said above. Realistically, it's likely someone at the Daily Mail who's job it was to find interesting stories must have seen it and also thought it wasn't interesting. They and the rest of the Johnson supporting media or Starmer opposing media some of who must also have seen it didn't think it was interesting until the situation arose where it was useful. Nil Einne (talk) 19:46, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• All that is needed is that a key player was the journalist's son, and nothing more, not his name or anything else, per BLP. Just because that name is out there doesn't mean we are required to include, and as BLP is about minimizing harm particularly to people that were not notable before or not public figures, we shouldn't repeat the name, only the relationship. --Masem (t) 19:32, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Masem: note that the disputed text does not specifically name the son but does name the journalist. [6] However the journalist is only named in the context of it being his son who recorded the video. His involvement is not discussed in any other way. Nil Einne (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  As a journalist, he falls within PUBLICFIGURE, so there's less of an issue with his naming, but if its the case that all we're saying is that this journalist's son captured photos/video, and neither the father or son play into the events beyond that, then I completely agree removing both names are fine. Masem (t) 21:00, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

• The identity of the journalist is central to why it's notable; and he's a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, so it's reasonable for him to be named. I don't agree with the interpretation that doing so effectively names his son - by that logic we could never say anything about anyone because someone could figure out who it was. You could just as easily say eg. "we cannot say anything at all, because someone could click the sources and find out who it is." --Aquillion (talk) 21:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

  @Aquillion: if the identity of the journalist is central, then why isn't he discussed in any way in the article? As I mentioned to Masem, the disputed text simply mentioned the it was recorded by a journalist's son, the journalist is not mentioned or discussed in any other way. As far as I can tell from a cursory check of the history, this isn't because it was removed, it was simply never there. Likewise a cursory check of the talk page suggests to me there hasn't been any real discussion about this either. Instead, there was initial discussion about naming the videographer specifically, and this was then changed to simply saying he was the son or said journalist. There is some brief mention above about the role of the journalist, but if I understand correctly while those arguing say he had some role in promoting the story, from the sourcing available it seems to be fairly minor compared to the role of the Daily Mail and perhaps others such that they're not actually arguing to expand the section and discuss the role of the journalist in the story.

  I'd further note that while the journalist may have failed to mention it was his son when promoting it, that doesn't seem to have caught on as a major controversy perhaps because it's a minor thing compared to the great concern that the video was being blown up into showing something it didn't. It's possible the controversy about his failure to disclose is significant enough to mention in the subject's article, even if we do so, it doesn't mean we need to mention it in the Beergate article if it's too much of a minor point.

  As I said earlier, if the sourcing is there to suggest the role of said journalist is significant enough to mention, then it will probably be okay to mention that it was his son. Since I haven't checked the sourcing that well, I'm not saying the sourcing isn't there, but so far no one has specifically our description of the role of the journalist. If editors want to do that, I suggest they try perhaps initially excluding any mention of it being his son that recorded it to reduce disagreement. Once consensus is reached on suitable text discussing the journalist, it would likely be far easier to get consensus for mentioning it was his son who recorded it. But unless someone is willing to make the effort, I would remain oppose to simply mentioning it was some journalist's son who recorded.

  One hypothetical which recently occurred to me which tallies well with my comments above. Let's say it wasn't said journalist's son who recorded it but someone else, in particular a supporter of Starmer or perhaps even a someone involved in the campaign at the time. This seems a fairly plausible scenario since the evidence involved no one involved thought it was anything significant or that they had to hide. And so for the same reason, it seems likely that the person recording would not have been careful to ensure they recorded stuff which may make it more obvious that there was nothing wrong, it could be simply some random video they recorded. And so how much difference would this scenario make to what happened?

  The answer seems to be very little. Okay the person who recorded it did say they felt it was something wrong, but my impression is no one really cares about that, it was a very minor thing at the time. It was only later that it blew up as well discussed above and this doesn't seem to be because of anything the videographer said or did. Okay maybe the fact it was already sent as something negative, as a possible breach initially made it easier to find, but it seems perfectly plausible that even if it was simply uploaded at the time somewhere as a random innocuous video of something in the campaign, perhaps to some volunteer or staffers personal social media, it would have been eventually found by someone who was angered by it since they too felt there was something wrong. And it would have similarly made the rounds and then be re-found when it was useful and we'd be in a very similar situation. In fact, if Starmer's child or relative was a volunteer and had recorded the video, I suspect that Daily Mail etc would be making a big deal over this, and there would be argument over whether to include this which I'd likely oppose. IMO all these except the relative/child, which I use more to make the point, are perfectly plausible given all that we know. And they reflect why the videographer is so irrelevant to the story. Anyway having said all that, I think I've already said my fill so likely won't be commenting further.

  Nil Einne (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Mandla_Lamba

This individual is the target of an organization in South Africa known casually as "The Stellenbosch Boys" with links into NASPERS and various other media brands IOL and News 24. This "post apartheid" organization is aimed at preventing various black businessmen from gaining traction in South Africa. The articles used as links in this article violate the Biographies of living persons since they are "Attack Pages". I recommend that this article be scrapped and that the user that originally created this be banned i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730

I will be submitting a variety of article updates over Mandla Lamba over the next few days and hope that this defamatory and libelous article not snuff the ideals on which Wikipedia is establish i.e. Collaborative and Neutral. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GettingBaked1983 (talk • contribs) 18:04, 26 July 2022 (UTC)

• GettingBaked1983, you will need to do a lot more groundwork to make this stick, particularly with the allegation that every one of these sources is somehow corrupt. That requires very specific proof. Having said that, the article is problematic, with at least somewhat sensationalist language and various other things. For instance, the images of Motsepe and Ramaphosa are not appropriate, certainly not in the DYK nom. User:BuySomeApples, I do not think this should be on the front page just yet. Drmies (talk) 01:09, 27 July 2022 (UTC)
  • That makes sense, the nomination should be on hold until the tone of the article can be worked on. That said, I'm a little skeptical that Independent Online (South Africa) and News24 are both compromised by an anti-black businessperson agenda. The only source that seemed unreliable to me was WP:FORBESCON. What kind of sources are you going to use to improve the page @GettingBaked1983:? You also probably shouldn't remove the existing sources until reaching consensus on the talk page, just in case. BuySomeApples (talk) 02:08, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

    Thank you for your responses. I am working on better content and will support with appropriate sources and keep the talks going as I aim to improve the accuracy of this page.

    GettingBaked1983 (talk) 05:54, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

    After this attempt to replace the article with a promotional, barely-sourced, and suspiciously technically competent puff piece, I've blocked GettingBaked as obviously either a sock of Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Gingie11 or someone in their employ. (One of their mercs accidentally said the quiet part loud recently.) It does seem like there's legitimate things to discuss here, though. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 09:58, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, looks like a lot happened while I was away. I will comment on three things:

1. Paid editors. Tamzin has already touched on the Gingie11 sockfarm involved with this article and the recent inadvertent admission of UPE. I'd like to also point out that there was another earlier round of articles on Simple English 123, so this isn't an isolated incident; there's a history of UPE hired for self-promotion and it looks like they haven't given up. This doesn't mean there aren't legitimate issues to be addressed, but it does mean we must remain cognizant that there may be bad faith actors attempting to abuse the process.

2. Sources. There are other sources besides IOL and News24 that reported on the subject. I ended up using primarily these two because a South Africa-focused editor offered them in the article AfD discussion as reliable sources that supported notability of the subject, and a quick check (1,2) indicates their size and market share as the online presence of a significant number of hardcopy newspapers as corroboration thereof. The secondary reason is that the sourcing seemed "enough" with a reasonable number of inline citations, so I wanted to avoid excessive ref-bombing with myriad sources.

One example of other sources that also had coverage is The Sowetan which I am given to understand comes from an anti-apartheid historic background. Also worth noting, the investigative journalist who was lead writer on the initial expose is no longer credited on the news article, but a bit of digging (not included in article due to OR) reveals it was Jacques Pauw, who "was a founding member and assistant editor of the anti-apartheid Afrikaans newspaper Vrye Weekblad".

Really compelling evidence would be needed to support the allegation that all these sources are somehow compromised; on the other hand it certainly wouldn't be the first time the subject of the article has blamed some kind of elaborate conspiracy against him.

The FORBESCON source mentioned by BuySomeApples was a miss on my part and as already indicated elsewhere, I'm willing to substitute other sources for it and remove any remaining unsupported and unverifiable content.

3. The article. My work may be imperfect, but trying to portray it as malicious to the point of warranting a ban is pretty far-fetched. I put in signficant effort to ensure that everything is supported by inline citations -- we report what sources say. In the last section, I sought to give balanced coverage to both allegations and the responses from Lamba and affiliates, including liberal use of direct quotes. Very recent activity and purported upcoming events were not included as TOOSOON.

In the content dispute department, let's discuss the subject of Motsepe and Ramaphosa: it is widely reported that Ramaphosa personally refuted Lamba's claim of a connection to them; coverage persisted well after the event, with the false claim receiving mention in subsequent articles such as those reporting on Lamba's arrest or court dates. I get that using their pictures in DYK when they're not the bold link is not optimal. But aside from that can someone please explain why it is not appropriate to cover this widely reported event or use photographs to illustrate the people, because I found nothing against it in WP:PUBLICFIGURE or WP:MUG and genuinely do not understand the objection.

As for tone, copyedits like this are absolutely welcome -- mea culpa, failure of NPOV on my part there. Other tangential issues: Drmies wrote in an edit summary: such overlinking is frequently a sign of poor writing Okay, I'll take the criticism about overlinking, that's certainly something I've been made aware of and need to work on. But "poor writing"? Care to elaborate more specifically on that and offer constructive criticism?

— 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 17:16, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

Well, several days have passed and zero discussion has occurred. Rather, Drmies has, over my reasoned disagreement, unilaterally deleted pictures of Motsepe and Ramaphosa from the article, leaving an unhelpful edit summary of no this is not acceptable, while offering no explanation with respect to specific BLP policy as to why they considered use of the photographs to be inappropriate. I object to this. The pictures used were not photographed in a compromising context (WP:MUG) and do not demean or disparage Motsepe and Ramaphosa, nor does the usage allege any scandal or wrongdoing on their part. The photographs help convey that Lamba built a reputation not just based on purported wealth, but also upon claims being well-connected to other big businesses and influential public figures. Although his claims gained some traction initially, they were subsequently shown to be not credible and widely reported as such. In the specific case of the Ramaphosas, the claim was personally and publicly refuted in an unusual event that was covered by cited sources. Such context is made clear in both article prose and the photo caption. Therefore, I ask @Drmies to please clearly communicate your reasoning behind the deletion of the photographs.

Aside from that, I've been holding off on making edits to replace the FORBESCON source in the references, and am also considering addition of The Sowetan as an additional source to help pre-bunk potential future claims along the same lines as OP above. I expect these should be uncontroversial, but will wait a few more days in case there are legitimate concerns. — 2406:3003:2077:1E60:C998:20C6:8CCF:5730 (talk) 17:17, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

You just cannot add pictures of people associated negatively with the subject based on this reasoning. It's not that complicated. What you are doing, esp. in the DYK nomination, is the equivalent of namedropping: posting pictures of famous people to attract attention to something that involves them only tangentially, if at all. Drmies (talk) 22:49, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

References

WP:BLPSPS, WP:FRINGEBLP, and WP:PARITY

There's been some discussion on Talk:Kevin Knuth about using a WP:SPS to provide criticism on a BLP subject. I'm interested in broader community input on using SPS in WP:FRINGEBLP, and if that violates WP:BLPSPS, or if it can be acceptable because of WP:PARITY. This isn't particularly tied into Kevin Knuth, but it does provide an apt example.

I'm of the mind that FRINGEBLP specifically says that BLPs on fringe-related subjects must adhere to the BLP policy, which specifically forbids the use of SPS. Taking PARITY into account, I can see some instances where SPS might be usable, but it should be the absolute minimum usage necessary to provide context and balance. I'm very interested in the views of the community on this. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 17:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP policy seems clear enough on this, and WP:FRINGEBLP explicitly states that WP:BLP has to be adhered to. Having to resort to questionable sources for content regarding fringe beliefs is generally an indication that discussion of such beliefs doesn't belong in an article in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 17:20, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Even WP: PARITY says that we don't suspend BLP for fringe topics. Upholding BLP is taking PARITY into account. --Kyohyi (talk) 17:23, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Ok, to start with, that article reads like a resume. The first source is a university profile; a primary source but ok. Source 3 is a simple profile from "The Conversation", which is not much different from the university profile. Sources 2, 4-11 are all papers he has written.

Now, the way this is written is: we are saying he has written papers on such and such a topic, and then using the papers he has written as evidence. There is nothing from secondary sources. No peer reviews. Nothing even about what he has written. Just that he has written. This is just OR.

Source 12 is the same thing. We're using the website he's an editor of to prove he the editor. Source 13 is SciProfiles, which is just a list of his published works, not much different from 1 and 3. The last three sources are the only secondary sources we have!

As for the blog in question. No, that should not be used. But in looking at the article as a whole, it all just reads like a resume --even the UFO section! "He is vice president of..." "He is a member of..." "He has been quoted in..." But it doesn't really tell us anything about the person, does it? It's all stuff a future employer might be interested in, but as the reader I want to know what he believes in. What was he quoted as saying. I want to know if this is a person or just a collection of job qualifications. As written, I would have to support the nomination for deletion. I really don't see much for independent notability. Zaereth (talk) 17:55, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

A big problem here is that there has historically been a WP:CRYBLP faction that advocates for special treatment in living person articles that removes WP:PARITY-based criticism but allows for all sorts of poor sourcing to support their fringe activities because WP:BLPSPS says that self-published sources by the subject are okay as an exception. Thus the BLP becomes a WP:COATrack for fringe theories. See the problem? Perhaps a way out is to remove all sources that do not stand up to the WP:FRIND standard. If we avoid all sources that are not reliable for fringe claims in BLPs, this would solve a lot of problems. jps (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

SPS by the subject of a BLP are only ok for uncontroversial factual claims (typically degrees, job titles, and dates), not for anything that involves an opinion (the fringe theories in question, or even the fact that the subject has promoted these opinions). For instance, the self-sourced "Education" section of the Knuth BLP is fine, but the description of what research topics he is known for in the "Academic career" section, sourced only to his own publications, is more problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:29, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I can agree with that. My particular opinion of articles like these is that they usually become pseudobiographies that are all about the particular fringe theory rather than the person who believes in them. This is often a big problem with the BLPs for scientists and professors and the like, because we very often have little in the way of actual biographical info on the person themselves. So Wikipedia articles often become a vehicle for them to push their theories, fringe or otherwise-- and other works in the guise of a biography. In an article about a person we need to know what that person believes in to be able to understand them, because that's a part of who they are. We shouldn't promote those beliefs, but at the same time, in a bio I see no reason to try and refute those beliefs either. If the article were about the fringe topic, then sure, but it's not. It's supposed to be a bio about the person, so all I need to know is what they believe.

Now this article is different because it really doesn't tell me anything about his beliefs, or anything else that would give me insight into him as a person. There's nothing being promoted and thus nothing to refute. Zaereth (talk) 19:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps a way out is to remove all sources that do not stand up to the WP:FRIND standard. If we avoid all sources that are not reliable for fringe claims in BLPs, this would solve a lot of problems. This is an inspired idea that I can completely get behind.

Either we note that the guy's a UFO proponent and move on, or we include details about his advocacy/beliefs, and treat those details according to WP:FRINGE, meaning WP:PARITY applies. Happy (Slap me) 21:21, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Knuth is best known for his advocacy of the notion that UFOs are most likely the work of aliens. His academic career is not the focus of RS coverage of him. His Newsweek opinion piece and The Conversation piece are cited in a number of media, usually with click-bait headlines about governments hiding evidence of aliens. His primary notability is in relation to his WP:FRINGE ideas and not his rather unremarkable academic career. If his bio survives, it shouldn’t be downplaying his ufology advocacy in favor of his non-notable academic works. - LuckyLouie (talk) 21:48, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

Then we use WP:FRINGE to guide how we write about his advocacy. The whole situations is remarkably simple, and I really don't understand the hand-wringing about this. There's no contradiction in the policy.

In this case, a well known skeptic commenting on Knuth's arguments isn't even addressing Knuth himself; he's addressing the arguments. As far as I can tell, BLP protections don't extend to arguments.

There's a world of difference between saying "X said something ridiculous" and "X is a ridiculous person". Happy (Slap me) 21:56, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

If we are writing about material in a BLP, it must comply with the sourcing requirements of BLP. We can't hide behind the excuse that when we write about some specific aspect of a living person, especially their beliefs, it is somehow not about the person. If we cannot provide neutral mainstream-POV sourcing for his beliefs, then per WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE we cannot cover those beliefs. If those beliefs are the only thing he is notable for, then we cannot cover him. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:11, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

I have never seen nor heard Knuth claim that all UAP are "aliens". That would clearly be preposterous. What he has said - quite clearly - is that the extraterrestrial hypothesis cannot be ruled out and should be considered as one possible explanation for some of the cases for which there is, as yet, no other feasible resolution. This approach is absolutely consistent with the scientific method. The Colavito quote in question blatantly misrepresents Knuth's words. This seems to be an effective tactic, since it'd appear that many now believe Colavito's misinterpretation of Knuth's statement represents the intent of the statement, despite that conclusion being absurd by any reasonable and objective reading of what Knuth actually said. Cosmoid (talk) 01:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

We aren't here to fight about whether Colavito is correct or not in his analysis (I happen to believe he is correct, but I'll leave that argument for another venue). The issue here is whether and how arguments from Knuth that are at least partial to allowing for the possibility of aliens being the result of UFO reports can be couched appropriately given that this position is so profoundly marginalized in the mainstream. It does the reader no good to pretend that this isn't the case. This is precisely why we have a WP:FRINGE guideline. It's because it's often the case that WP:PROFRINGE prose ends up being promoted if we aren't careful. jps (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

LuckyLouie stated "Knuth is best known for his advocacy of the notion that UFOs are most likely the work of aliens." This implies that Knuth believes that all UAP are the "alien" in origin - which is precisely the way that Colavito's comment, that provoked this discussion, misrepresented Knuth's position. The misrepresentation is clear. And that is why this is the place for that discussion. The offending comment was taken from the personal blog of someone with an agenda. As such, it should not have been included in the article. Cosmoid (talk) 01:21, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Moreover, I'll add that I'd have accepted the less egregiously misrepresentative aspect of Colavito's criticism appearing in the article, for the sake of parity (even though I now see that violates rules on SPS). This is not about preventing factual critique of one notable aspect of Knuth's biography - it is about preventing the inclusion of deliberate misrepresentations of the subject of the biography, which were published by a critic on their personal blog. Cosmoid (talk) 01:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, there is no objective measure we can point to here to decide that you have successfully identified a "misrepresentation" here. I am fairly convinced that Colavito is not misrepresenting Knuth, but it is not the place of Wikipedia editors to make that determination one way or another. Otherwise we are doing original research. If you want to show that Colavito is misrepresenting Knuth, you'll have to find a source which indicates that. But this is rather beside the point. Deciding whether and how to include text and ideas in an article is subject largely to a question of relevance rather than the judgement of the editor that the rhetoric is sound, for example. jps (talk) 01:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Knuth actually stated "A scientist must consider all of the possible hypotheses that explain all of the data, and since little is known, the extraterrestrial hypothesis cannot yet be ruled out."

Those were his actual words. Please explain how anyone could reasonably arrive at the conclusion that Knuth was intending to convey that, as a scientist, he considers all UAP data indicates all UAP are "aliens". Good luck - because that is precisely not what he said. Cosmoid (talk) 01:27, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Again, this is beside the point. But briefly, the reason that Colavito correctly identifies Knuth as holding water for his predilection for a belief in aliens being the cause is because by his argument any extravagant hypothesis can't be ruled out. The fact that he focuses on the "I'm not saying it was aliens, but it was aliens" discussion is the basic name of the game and basically has always been that way. jps (talk) 01:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

No - that's the way you choose to interpret it, based on your biases. What Knuth actually stated - in so many words - is there for all to see. Knuth has never claimed that any UAP case was "aliens" as far as I have seen, never mind all UAP cases. He has stated that he's seen accounts and some evidential data that, in his view, merit investigation and that, in the small subset of UAP cases that appear to exhibit extraordinary capabilities and cannot be readily resolved, extraordinary solutions cannot be immediately ruled out. That is entirely reasonable and in concordance with scientific method.

Come on, be reasonable. The suggestion that Knuth would believe all UAP are "alien" in origin is utterly absurd. People like Colavito - and apparently yourself - may desire to put those words in his mouth. But, you're simply creating a straw man. By all means, criticise Knuth for what he actually said. But, it's extraordinarily disingenuous to infer that "he said this, but really he must have meant that" just so that you can fit him into a box of your own creation. Cosmoid (talk) 02:10, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This may be the last time I respond to you since, again, this is not relevant to this discussion, but you aren't really dealing substantively with the point that the "U"-boosters entertain aliens because that's what interests them in spite of "U" taken at its most straightforward admitting literally any wild hypothesis. They rarely entertain, I don't know, huldufólk as a possible explanation, for example. Knuth sure doesn't. jps (talk) 03:54, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

To say Knuth isn’t pushing a fringe view is to ignore his many appearances on UFO conspiracy podcasts and the like. He’s even a featured speaker at events such as Phenomecon: Utah's Paranormal Conference "We Believe". - LuckyLouie (talk) 01:50, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This chosen tactic of WP:PROFRINGE always perplexed me. They will, on the one hand, argue that they are being conservative in their proposals, but insist that they not be judged by the company they keep. "I don't agree with everything that is said at the woo-woo conference, but I think they deserve to be heard." We only have a limited amount of time in this mortal coil to entertain ideas. Why these ideas? They must find something they think is worth considering. The irony is that I do as well! It's just that I think agnotology is fascinating and they categorically reject the proposal that their pet idea falls under that umbrella! jps (talk) 04:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Appearances and even featured speaker status do not make someone notable. What has been written about him in reliable sources? I'm not talking about sources that simply quote him or use him for a soundbite. I mean, has any reliable sources taken enough notice to actually write about him?

Just to be clear, when people use the word "fringe" it is often done with a negative connotation, as if anything fringe is automatically something psychotic. When Alfred Wegener first proposed the theory of plate tectonics, he became the laughing stock of the scientific community. His theory was fringe at the time, but only because it hadn't been accepted yet, but now it's gospel. Ask any astronomer if they believe there is life somewhere out in the universe, and you'll get an almost unanimous "yes". With all the billions of stars surrounding trillions of galaxies, the odds are too great. Besides, it would give a great boost to the evolutionists to shove in the face of all those intelligent design-ers out there, and billions of dollars in space explorations is done in search of life. But you ask those same astronomers if we've been visited by spaceships, and most are likely to say the odds are greatly against it, although few would probably give you a direct no. I think Richard Feynman said it best:

Some years ago I had a conversation with a layman about flying saucers — because I am scientific I know all about flying saucers! I said "I don’t think there are flying saucers’. So my antagonist said, "Is it impossible that there are flying saucers? Can you prove that it’s impossible?” “No”, I said, “I can’t prove it’s impossible. It’s just very unlikely”. At that he said, “You are very unscientific. If you can’t prove it impossible then how can you say that it’s unlikely?”

But that is the way that is scientific. It is scientific only to say what is more likely and what less likely, and not to be proving all the time the possible and impossible.

The problem is, these are all great opinions to have on the Flying Saucer article, where we can worry about parity and all those good things that any theory should really have. A biography about a person should be about the person. Take the J. J. Becher article, for example. This is what a biography should look like. Do we spend a lot of time promoting his phlogiston theory? Do we need to spend a lot of time debunking it? No. We save that for the phlogiston article and use the bio to describe the man.

And really, when you're talking about flying saucers and aliens, you're no longer in the realm of science but off into the realm of modern mythology. You may as well try to refute Jesus, Buddha, or Scientology. Those who believe will regardless of what you tell them, and those who don't, won't.

But this article is not about any of that. It's about a person, isn't it? This is yet another example of why I think we need much, much higher notability standards for BLP articles. We should never even create an article about a person unless we have enough biographical info to make a decent C or B-class article. That's what would save us a lot of these problems. Save stuff like this for the UFO articles and create a bio when secondary sources take an actual interest in the man himself. Zaereth (talk) 03:59, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Anti-Armenian sentiment in Azerbaijan

• Anti-Armenian_sentiment_in_Azerbaijan#Statements_by_President_Ilham_Aliyev

The entire paragraph was synthesized and written in a biased tone. The information was cherry-picked from primary sources and a few secondary ones. Sources cited are either primary, not-RS, or unrelated secondary sources.

• ANTI-ARMENIAN XENOPHOBIA AND RACISM IN AZERBAIJAN is a highly partisan source which represents the side of the conflict. thus it is not reliable for Azerbaijan-Armenia-related articles, especially if we are speaking of BLP. The entire report's sole purpose is to demonstrate xenophobia and racism in Azerbaijan; therefore, the authors who are unknown were biased and seemingly cherry-picked information to prove their point. The transparency.am who published the report on their webpage is not third-party, reputable, or academic.
• Oxu.az - again, the entire content and implications of the article are ignored, and only a few words are cherry-picked from the article.
• www.aljazeera.com does not state much but is used to support long statement synthesized from several primary sources.
• ARMENOPHOBIA IN AZERBAIJAN this is the partisan and self-published report written by the authors who hold the side of the conflict. Academia.edu is a place where almost any can publish their paper.
• All other sources I have not listed are primary sources (twitts / transcripts) whose context was neglected, and the material was cherry-picked from them.

I believe the mentioned paragraph violates the BLP policy because, in Wikipedia, particularly in the case of BLP, we must reference peer-reviewed reputable academic sources and be neutral. All of this must be reported by independent RS; otherwise, it is considered original research and should not be included in Wikipedia.--Abrvagl (talk) 07:18, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Everett Stern

The page is under attack by an individual and they are stating I committed a crime. I NEVER committed a crime and I have NEVER been convicted of a crime. I have served the United States with the highest honor. I testified to the January 6th committee and that is not in the article. I am entitled to due process of law. I did not do anything wrong and again have Never been convicted of a crime. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Everettstern (talk • contribs) 00:26, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The allegation has been reported by NPR [7], so it's not unsourced or poorly sourced. Whether it is due at this stage is another question. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:30, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I have never been convicted of any crime. To have it in the Wikipedia like this is not right. I testified against General Flynn and that was in the New York Times and Guardian and that was not put in the article for me testifying against the January 6th committee. I have a right to due process. This is libelous as it infers I committed a crime. Everettstern (talk) 00:33, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

You have never been convincted of a crime. However, you are currently accoring to NPR: set to be arraigned in a Pennsylvania court Thursday following accusations [you] masqueraded as a public servant while pulling over a vehicle occupied by four young women in late March, according to a police affidavit.. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

This is an accusation. That is it. To have it in the top of the Wikipedia completely destroys me when I did not commit a crime. Everettstern (talk) 00:35, 29 July 2022 (UTC

If it was just a baseless accusation, then why are you being formally charged? Whether or not you committed a crime is up for the court to decide. That said, the coverage of this has been pretty thin so far. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

That is not what happened. They were on my property. I used a Tactical Flashlight to get them off. I said I was a federal candidate! Not a Federal Agent! Everettstern (talk) 00:37, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

The facts are not being presented accurately. Even according to the story. Everettstern (talk) 00:38, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Please add to the article that I testified to the January 6th committee against General Flynn as reported in The Guardian and New York Times. If this is going to be reported against me then this is fair. Everettstern (talk) 00:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure if WP:PUBLICFIGURE is being met here given every story I could find on this is authored by Bryce Schuele from Fresh Take Florida ("a news service of the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications"), published to two local NPR affiliates and one local newspaper.[8] We have to ponder about NOTNEWS also since the news stories are not more than 24 hours old. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:22, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Here's an article from the 23rd by a different author about Sterns' bail conditions: https://www.dailylocal.com/2022/07/23/senate-candidate-facing-charges-can-travel-freely-judge-says/

Here's the Court Summary [Redacted]

Here's the docket: [Redacted]

The complaint that the page is "under attack" is not in the least supported. It is a lie that the article claimed he committed a crime. No version stated this. The claim was that he was arraigned, because... he was arraigned. This is not an attack, it is simply relevant and well-documented information about a political candidate. A published description of his innocence claim was then appropriately added, fairly airing his views.

The account bringing this complaint seems to claim to be the real person, and if so he has been curating his own wikipedia page for years, while keeping it filled with misleading information not backed up by any sources, and now, complaining loudly about factual accurate edits. Battling McGook (talk) 18:53, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Note that I'm unsure if those court summary and docket links are permanent links. They may be tied to the search I ran on their website and might expire. Not sure how to check this or how to cite these documents. Battling McGook (talk) 19:34, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I have put back the section and added additional information and references. References now include three articles by two authors, as well as a link to the PA court docket. Battling McGook (talk) 22:28, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I have redacted the court documents per WP:BLPPRIMARY. Please don't post those anywhere on Wikipedia, including talk pages and noticeboards. Zaereth (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I'll abide, but I have to confess I'm a bit baffled by this rule. There is no personal information divulged in that docket. Only factual things relevant for use as a source, such as arrest date, hearing dates, etc. I can see how transcripts would be problematic. Or records that divulge his address or something like that. But I see none of those issues in the PA docket record. Battling McGook (talk) 05:27, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

That sources is NOT an NPR source. "This story was produced by Fresh Take Florida, a news service of the University of Florida College of Journalism and Communications." It is a work of a college paper, and for that reason, that is a terrible source to include such a claim. --Masem (t) 21:05, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I have moved the criminal charge to the body of the article, and included detail of the incident/his denial of the accusation that was published in the cited source, as recommended at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Denial. Endwise (talk) 01:31, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

List of serial rapists

I started a discussion about List of serial rapists (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) on Jimbo Wales talk page. Frankly, I am disgusted by this page, which looks like a scoreboard of the most prolific rapists. It is sorted by number of "proven cases". One of the problems is that "proven cases" is not defined and it is immediately apparent that the numbers in "proven cases" are not "proven" in any sense. Just as a convenient example, the most recent addition was yesterday by Adakiko. The person added has been convicted of 9 sexual assaults, but the "proven cases" reads "9+". There are also "proven cases" like "1000+", "950+", and "14-24". It should be obvious that claiming that someone has "proven cases" of such a heinous crime as rape is a violation of Wikipedia policies.

Another issue with this list is that "rape" is a somewhat loose term. As Wikipedia's rape page says "The definition of rape is inconsistent between governmental health organizations, law enforcement, health providers, and legal professions". Having a scoreboard of cases like this encourages people to lump cases together to make a single, higher number. One entry says Erik Anderson was "Convicted of sexually abusing and assaulting 60 boys by frotteurism and oral rape". The "proven cases" number for this entry is 60. The page on Erik Andersen (child molester) actually says "The more serious offenses he is alleged to have committed include oral sex, which in some cases borders on the Norwegian criminal code's definition of rape". So he was not convicted of "rape" at all, let alone in 60 cases.

A further issue that needs to be dealt with is that the list includes people who have been accused of sexual assaulted or charged with sexual assault but not convicted. I pointed out the example of actor Danny Masterson (which was removed) but there are others, like Richard Alexander (exonerated convict) (listed in the table as "River Park rapist"), a man who was exonerated by DNA evidence after he was wrongly convicted of two sexual assaults. Peter Nygård is another example of someone charged but not convicted.

I would like this entire scoreboard of rapists to go away, but I don't think that is likely to happen, so I am asking for adult supervision some attention by responsible and careful editors. Thanks. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 16:12, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I've commented in both places but agree this list is a problem as is. It needs to be trimmed to only those convicted, or to cases of where the identity is unknown, and that the main sorting should default to something alphabetic or chronological that doesn't "rank" these (though with sortable tables, the reader may opt to see it that way). I also agree that this should only be for convictions of rape under the appropriate local laws, and the counts should only include those they have been convicted with , not possibly higher numbers. --Masem (t) 21:03, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Masem and Jimbo Wales (suggests date sort) on a different sort order. I would suggest by last name. Dates are often vague, unknown, and/or have a range. So a date sort would require more discussion. Should a new section on talk:List of serial rapists be started on which sort order?

Polycarpa aurata (talk · contribs · count) also started a discussion on Talk:List of serial rapists#"Proven cases" column removed. This in addition to here and on the previously mentioned Jimbo Wales: List of serial rapists which, BTW, Jimbo replied to. This is the third venue. I believe this is getting into the realm of forum shopping. WP:FORUMSHOP

Polycarpa's original addition above I am asking for adult supervision some attention by responsible and careful editors. (strike out added with original edit) could easily be seen as a personal attack. This is unnecessary.

Polycarpa for some reason, doesn't remove entries that are not convicted rapists. Richard Alexander (exonerated convict) aka River Park rapist. I just removed the entry. Adakiko (talk) 00:33, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Polycarpa did not add a notice to the article's talk page per suggestion above. I added one talk:List of serial rapists#Notice of discussion on BLP/N. Adakiko (talk) 01:03, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

@Adakiko Thank you for adding that note. I'm not willing to fight with a bunch of people who can't see the problem with making a scoreboard for serial rapists. If you don't like how I'm doing things, report me to the Administrators Noticeboard. Polycarpa aurata (talk) 02:42, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

• The list is now ordered chronologically. Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

  @Anythingyouwant Thank you. Now can you work on getting "proven cases" defined? Polycarpa aurata (talk) 03:17, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Sanjay Kumar (business executive)

An IP has been repeatedly adding a claim that this individual has died recently. I haven't been able to find a source confirming that. Is anyone able to track down confirmation either way? Nikkimaria (talk) 02:49, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

I cannot find any reliable source that verifies his death. I have semi-protected the article for one week. Cullen328 (talk) 16:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Mel Alexenberg

At the top of the Wikipedia page on Mel Alexenberg, there are three requested changes made in 2021. All three requested changes have been made in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines. Please remove the three requests from the top of the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malexen (talk • contribs) 06:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

One of them still stands in that this wikipedia page looks like an WP:AUTOBIOGRAPHY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 07:39, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Buddy Hart and Buddy Joe Hooker

I've come across a problem that I've never seen before and therefore have no idea how to correct it. I'll cut to the chase: Buddy Hart and Buddy Joe Hooker are the same person. I made a couple edits to the Hart article, then immediately discovered after some quick Google research that they're definitely the same person. If you read both the Hart and Hooker articles on Wikipedia, you'll see that their info is the same. The Hooker article even includes content about his use of "Buddy Hart" as a stage name early in his career. Also, if you search for Buddy Hart on IMDb, it redirects to Hooker's listing, whose description says "aka 'Buddy Hart". Hart/Hooker started his TV career as "Chester Anderson" on Leave It to Beaver from 1957 to 1960, then as an adult became a stuntman. He was credited as Buddy Hart as a minor, then as Joe Hooker, Buddy Jo Hooker, and finally Buddy Joe Hooker. I found this article which gives a great summary of the name confusion. In any case, can someone with expertise on this type of problem please fix it? I assume you would either merge the two articles, or redirect the Hart article to Hooker? Thanks. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 16:44, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

• I've redirected Hart to Hooker as the former article was completely unsourced anyway. Black Kite (talk) 10:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, BK. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:FDF2:3EB5:8751:7A62 (talk) 13:05, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Jessica Matten

The current version of Jessica Matten, which I've reverted before, states that she is "s an actor of Chinese Canadian and self-identified Indigenous actress."

The body of the article says "She is the daughter of Theresa Ducharme and self-identities as Cree/Ojibway through her grandfather without sharing his communities, and now self-identifies as Red River Métis, an Indigenous culture separate from Cree and Ojibway." The source used doesn't mention her, although Ducharme is her mother who is described as a Métis activist here.[9] Sources differ about her father, eg [10] says Chinese British. And [11] says "she is also of Chinese, Ukrainian, British and French as well as of Métis/Saulteaux Cree descent."

Confusing to say the least with some OR thrown in. Doug Weller talk 07:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Lead now says "an actor of eurasian and self identified mixed-indigenous Canadian heritage." Doug Weller talk 10:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

:Sorry, can’t get reflist talk to work, just says something about thee lua module so refs keep dropping to bottom. Doug Weller talk 13:09, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

This should work. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:50, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

The lead sentence should emphasize her nationality (Canadian); not WP:ETHNICITY. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts happy with that, but are these reliable sources, and if so for the text they back?[https://newlegacyinterviews.wordpress.com/][https://indiancountrytoday.com/archive/canadas-pocahontas-theresa-ducharme-is-a-powerhouse] Doug Weller talk 18:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

New Legacy seems self-published and not RS. ICT seems reliable but does not mention Matten (or Yee) so there are synthesis concerns. There is also a profile about her in Elle that verifies parts of her background.[12] Reading her article talk page, we should respect WP:BLPNAME and not go into detail about her family without strong sourcing just to "prove" that she is indigenous) Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

References

Georgina Wilson

• Georgina Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Kirby Ann Basken (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Mutya ng Pilipinas 2006 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• List of Mutya ng Pilipinas titleholders (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I tried to correct this article with real facts, but they keep changing it back. It was not Georgina Wilson who competed in Mutya ng Pilipinas 2006 and won the title of Mutya ng Pilipinas Asia Pacific International 2006. It was Kirby Ann Basken. I should know because I'm Kirby's mom and I was there when she won the title. Would appreciate it if this can be removed from her biography, thanks.

<https://www.facebook.com/opmb.live/photos/mutya-ng-pilipinas-memorable-momentsthe-theme-of-this-years-search-is-beauty-tou/190673464354028/?_rdr>

https://archive.ph/mmhuR — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtvasquez827 (talk • contribs) 11:25, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

It appears that on April 4, 2022, two related articles were vandalized by IP editor 103.89.236.160 to remove Kirby Ann Basken's name, which had been there for many years, and replace it with Georgina Wilson. The first disruptive edit in each of the two articles are here in Mutya ng Pilipinas 2006, and here in List of Mutya ng Pilipinas titleholders. Then, on April 5, these changes were made editor Faytatrenjoshua in Georgina Wilson. Faytatrenjoshua was then blocked indefinitely as a sockpuppet on April 10. Please wait for a response from editors who are far more experienced in cleaning up messes like this. Also, please note that Kirby Ann Basken has some serious problems with sources; there aren't any. I removed the lone reference, which was clearly unacceptable, as well as all the external links, which violate WP:ELNO. I would also suggest you familiarize yourself with WP:BLP, WP:OR, and WP:COI. Good luck. Stoarm (talk) 15:51, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

• On the one hand, looking at the sources in Mutya ng Pilipinas 2006, the claim that Basken won is corroborated by the cited source.[13] On the other hand, the cited source is a forum and not reliable. I'd like to find a reliable published source to verify this and put the matter to bed—and photographs on a Facebook profile do not qualify. —C.Fred (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Not sure if you came across this ref. Stoarm (talk) 16:43, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

@Stoarm: That's exactly the kind of source I was looking for. Thank you! —C.Fred (talk) 18:45, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Pat_Corrales

Pat Corrales' Wikipedia page lists a date of death, but he is not deceased. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pat_Corrales — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.63.80.219 (talk) 16:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Rolled back. —C.Fred (talk) 16:02, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

Cassandra_Clare

Plagiarism accusations have been added yet again, after being ruled a BLP violation many times in the past leading to the article being semi-protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oryu~enwiki (talk • contribs) 00:52, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

Why is it a BLP violation? Seems reliable sources have picked up on the drama: [14][15][16]. Endwise (talk) 01:07, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

If you look back thru history it has all been previously arbitrated. There is already coverage of the Kenyon lawsuit higher on the page. Oryu~enwiki (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

From a scroll through the talk page, the last time the plagiarism stuff was substantively discussed was in 2013, about 9 years ago, and before the 2016 lawsuit. So I'm not convinced we can just say that this has been previously dealt with. I didn't see that it was duplicative of the (shorter) bit in the personal life section though, you're right about that. Endwise (talk) 01:25, 2 August 2022 (UTC)

A little googling leads to Cassandra Clare's version, which states the plagerism claim was dropped from lawsuit and copyright claims were settled. Though can't find a source to verify. Do think this is a problem that needs to be addressed, as we can not hide behind reliable sources said when they fail to do the neccessary follow-up. At a minimum, her statements should be included as a rebuttal or the section should be removed as Wikipedia can not verify the current status of the claims. Slywriter (talk) 01:54, 2 August 2022 (UTC)