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.

2022 pregnancy of a 10-year-old in Ohio

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

---

Good morning. Due to the urgency, I am posting this link on this site, as posting sources and URLs at 2022 pregnancy of a 10-year-old in Ohio containing the name of the suspect, who has never been famous nor convicted, seems to defeat the purpose of WP:BLPN. --Jax 0677 (talk) 14:10, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

The suspects name is now in the wiki-code in two places, both being urls of sources used in the article. Readers who do not look at the source wikicode will not see the name. I think WP:BLPNAME has been met, as the suspects name has been "widely disseminated". I think continuing to exclude the name from the article is wise, but am not overly concerned about the urls. If someone wants to replace the sources with equally reliable or better ones that do not have the name in the url, go for it! Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:49, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Agree with FFF, given that a simple google turns up the name instantly we don't need to be policing URLs. BLPNAME here is satisfied by keeping the name out of the article. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:58, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

We have higher standards than the media here, since search engines will.pick up on WP info better than from media sources. Just because a name may be widely disseminated by some sources, we have to take steps to avoid things like names of non notable minors particularly around BLPCRIME aspects. There are ways to hide names in URL (like via link shortener or using sources that give the same information without including the name in the URL). Masem (t) 20:01, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Do we have to take such steps? I don't think we do... For example we wouldn't not use an article as a source because it had the subject's name in the title, that would be absurd and wikipedia is not censored. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:05, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

We can "[redacted]" a name in an article title should that be necessary. Masem (t) 21:13, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

Has it ever been necessary? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen "[redacted]", but I have certainly changed "[name of person] was also charged with [crime]" to "A third man was also charged with [crime]". Herostratus (talk) 15:12, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Also this is not censoring. We strictly avoid mentioning non-notable, non public figures BLPs particularly when crimes are involved. Masem (t) 21:15, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

"Wikipedia is not censored" is a mere slogan, like "The free encyclopedia that anyone can edit!" This is censorship; we censor BLPs and other things all the time, for legal and ethical reasons. We censor things that go against the best interest of Wikipedia. Elizium23 (talk) 01:20, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

BLPCRIME uses the language "editors must seriously consider not including", so we do have some leeway to use common sense. If a suspect has already been named by just about every reliable source covering the topic, I don't think that we're pushing them further into the spotlight or implying guilt by incidentally mentioning their name in a linked URL. –dlthewave ☎ 13:58, 25 December 2022 (UTC)

• I don't think BLPCRIME is the sole issue nor a barrier at this point. I'd only ask if the suspect's name make the victim easier to identify? And if so, is there harm to the victim that would be a reason to keep it out of an article that will exist for the rest of her life? Slywriter (talk) 05:45, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yes, I think it does make it easier to identify her. According to the tabloids the suspect is the live-in boyfriend of the victim's mother; I see no reason to suspect they don't have that fact straight. I don't know how we can prevent the name appearing completely, though. Even putting [redacted] into an article title just draws more attention to it. I dislike the idea of disingenuously rendering titles so the change won't be as visible. And once there's a conviction, is it even possible to keep the name out? Valereee (talk) 18:52, 26 December 2022 (UTC)

  I think it's ultimately a losing battle, but I struggle with the fact that a 10 year old has an article that will follow them around forever when they did not seek attention. For them, this article is WP:BLP1E, but others have made it a noteworthy topic. For that and WP:DONOHARM, I'd lean toward never including the suspect's name in the article prose(even after conviction), but policing sources may be a bridge too far. Slywriter (talk) 04:24, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  Yeah. Also, arguments such as "simple google turns up the name instantly" and "If a suspect has already been named by just about every reliable source covering the topic, I don't think that we're pushing them further into the spotlight" and so on are bad, and of the order of "The other kids were beating that homeless beggar to death anyway, so what difference does it make if I joined in?". We can't control what other people do, only what we do. Introducing this kind of thinking into discussions is inimical to what we're trying to do here. Herostratus (talk) 06:07, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree. It's simply a matter of basic human decency. It's a 10 year old child! Just because the newspapers don't show any compassion doesn't mean we have to blindly follow their lead like a bunch of mindless automatons. Newspapers are foremost out to sell their product and make money, and if that means trampling over a small child then that's what they'll do, as disgusting as it is. We're not motivated by a system that puts financial gain over the well being of the victims, and especially children. As an encyclopedia, we're supposed to be better than the news outlets, not the same or worse. Zaereth (talk) 07:21, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

All this is basically the same logic we used on Star Wars Kid until the person themselves opted to state in a very public statement he was SWK as part of his reason to start an anti-bullying group. Prior to that, there were a fair number of sources that gave his name but we kept it out of the article despite the "ease" that it could be found. Masem (t) 13:56, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

Yeah and it's people like the Star Wars Kid and Brian Peppers etc. where BLP is most important. "We are not here to make people feel sad" was one of the guiding reasons we have BLP. A BLP violation on the articles on Barack Obama or Kim Jong-un or Jeff Bezos etc etc is bad ofc, but really we can't harm those people on that level. We're not going to hurt their feelings or damage their reputation or invade their privacy. Bill Gates doesn't care if we slant a sentence against him without an AAA-level ref. Private marginally notable persons, where we usually form their public face to a degree? It's punching down, punching way down, to give them anything but bending-over-backwards extreme consideration for them as people. We are a very big, much read, much linked to, much quoted, and therefore powerful, publication. Marginally notable private persons are helpless against us. I hate punching down. You all should too. Herostratus (talk) 15:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

According to the tabloids the suspect is the live-in boyfriend of the victim's mother we don't mention this in the article? Anyone who's read the sources to the point that they've ascertained that fact, also has probably seen the person's name by that point. All that digging has to be done offwiki though.

I don't see how the suspect's name can tell you anything about the victim, based on the info in the article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:16, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

We don't mention it because it's the tabloids, and even if it weren't the tabloids I'd argue against mentioning it for privacy reasons.

The problem isn't that people across the country avidly reading the tabloids will know the name of the accused and connect it to the kid. It's that in her neighborhood, at her school, in her church, everyone will know because the name of the accused has been made public and in every one of those groups, someone knows that person is a close associate of the family, which means they can guess who the victim is. And likely some will judge her for having the abortion, even if at this tender age she really wasn't even sure what an abortion is, and even if they don't judge her many will whisper about her. School life will be unbearable. Valereee (talk) 02:06, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

• Don't use the source because it's a junk source -- local news -- so we don't need to use it. I wouldn't say always exclude a source that has a problematic name in the URL, but if the source adds nothing of value to the article, which is the case here IMO, then there is no good reason to use it, and the inclusion of the name in the URL is a good reason not to use it. That they put the name in the URL demonstrates IMO the low quality of their newsroom editorial staff: it's in the URL because they put the name in the headline. Poor journalism ethics there. As far as a general rule about names in URLs go, I would say we should determine that on a case-by-case basis, but this is yet another example of why not to use local news as sources (as a general rule). Levivich (talk) 15:35, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  I love local news for filling in early life details! The subject was a 2006 graduate of Perry High School, where they participated in 4 years of wrestling and musical theater. :D Valereee (talk) 02:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)

  local news is not a junk source... Buffs (talk) 00:26, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  Seconded. Curbon7 (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  Well...it can be pretty junky. If we can find better sources for anything that isn't noncontroversial, it's better if we do. As I said above, it's great for a source for the fact the subject graduated in X year from Y high school and was a standout at Z activity. But in this case we're using a local source for information that can be easily found from a much better source who likely won't be putting the suspect's name into the headline and therefore URL. Valereee (talk) 00:39, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  Anything notable is very going to likely have a local news source first. It is an opinion, not policy (and certainly not agreed upon by society at large) that local news sources are somehow inferior despite the fact that they follow the same journalistic standards as national publications. Either a source is reliable or it is not. Such editorial decisions (are we really being so picky as to be debating the choice of a URL?) have nothing to do with any of our pillars for inclusion.

  Now, I think including the victim's name is absurd and completely unnecessary (especially in the case of a minor), but it is widespread and in media worldwide. It is not a secret and is not something we can possibly exclude nor should we. It's best to give a neutral presentation of the facts. Buffs (talk) 16:47, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  What news reports include the victim's name? I see plenty that include the doctor's name, but not the victim's. Lobster from Maine (talk) 16:57, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  Let's just start with EVERY mass shooting... Buffs (talk) 17:08, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Lobster from Maine, I think Bluffs simply misspoke; as far as I know no news reports are including the victim's name. Valereee (talk) 17:12, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Valereee:, respectfully, please let me make my own points rather than assume my intent. My point is not whether names are included or not, but rather what reliable sources state. If they state the name of the victim, we should do so as well. Conversely, if they do not, we should not. It is truly that simple. The same should apply to URLs. While I feel for the girl in question, the responsibility lies with those who broadcast her name, not those who say "_____ broadcasted their name." Buffs (talk) 08:36, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Buffs, oh, my mistake, I'd made an assumption based on what was likely the policy-based opinion of an experienced editor who was saying something both incorrect and contrary to policy.

  Incorrect: AFAIK the media is not mentioning her name, which is why I figured you must have misspoken when you said I think including the victim's name is absurd and completely unnecessary (especially in the case of a minor), but it is widespread and in media worldwide. It is not a secret and is not something we can possibly exclude nor should we. It's best to give a neutral presentation of the facts.

  Contrary to policy: But even if it were appearing in RS, I would never in a million years think we should mention by name a 10-year-old rape victim. Our BLP policies would tell us to be extremely cautious with naming any non-notable living victim of any crime, much less a sex crime, much less a minor, much less one of tender years, much less one who has had an abortion as a result of that crime. I really am very surprised that an experienced editor like yourself would ever believe that was appropriate. Valereee (talk) 13:52, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

  If widespread articles are using either the name of the victim or the alleged perpetrator, it's very hard to see how either name is "non-notable". I stand by my statement. If either's name is NOT widespread in the media, then they should not be included. It's best to give a neutral presentation of the facts. Buffs (talk) 00:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  No RS I know of is using the name of the victim. Even if they were, I would argue against repeating it here onwiki until I was blue in the face unless she herself came out in ten years. WTF are you even thinking here? This is a CHILD. Valereee (talk) 00:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• I've never seen us take extreme measures like link shortening to avoid a name in URL. In past cases I've seen avoidance of the name in article text, but it remaining in URLs, and sometimes the title of sources if applicable too. I think this adheres to the rule, as it's not overtly displaying the person's name. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:08, 27 December 2022 (UTC)

  Shortening a URL is weird. Readers don't go looking through urls in wikipedia articles so that they might find a secret encoded name in them. Why is this an issue? Lobster from Maine (talk) 02:33, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

  @Lobster from Maine, the issue is that the suspect's name is in some headlines and therefore in some URLs, and it is likely people who know the girl will recognize the suspect as someone who lives with the family and therefore can identify the girl as the victim. Which could make her life pretty unbearable. Valereee (talk) 17:13, 30 December 2022 (UTC)

• Just noting that I've trimmed detail and swapped sources so that the suspect's name does not appear in the article wikitext. I wouldn't say this was necessary, but I get this itchy feeling all over whenever I disagree with Valereee. Those that care should probably keep a close eye as the trial starts (scheduled for next week, but may be delayed). Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

  hahaha Valereee (talk) 13:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

"Alleged" rape?

Another open question on this article entails whether the alleged rape is "alleged" or not alleged at all. It seems that editors are claiming that they can objectively say in wikivoice that the child was raped even without benefit of a trial or conviction. This seems to be WP:OR, and WP:POV. It seems we should extend "innocent until proven guilty" as the law of justice in these United States, to any incident, no matter how heinous or how "obvious" a crime may be. Elizium23 (talk) 02:56, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

We're not stating that the suspect is guilty. We're following the sources, all of which label it a rape. 9 year olds can not legally consent to sex, so any such relationship is rape. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:08, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Until proven out by a court of law, we cannot make that assumption, per BLPCRIME. There's likely little wiggle room for anything but a rape charge, but until the court finds on this, we have to assume innocence. Masem (t) 03:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Any sex with someone under 13 in Ohio is rape, so regardless of someone being found guilty, she was raped. If a politician was shot in the head in front of a crowd we wouldn't say "the alleged assassination." The suspect is alleged to have done something, but the rape itself is a fact. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Until the court makes the determination (which is very likely to be that way), we have to assume that events are only assumed to have happened, not that they have happened. Absolutely we can say that this woudl be assumed rape (we're not questioning the girl's age and thus how it falls under Ohio state law) but there's still validity in court that needs to be worked out. Masem (t) 03:25, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, in order to call someone a rapist there needs to be a court finding. In order to say someone was raped we do not. Just as we can say someone was murdered without a court finding. Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered, yet no one was ever convicted. Does that make it not a murder? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 03:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

For Heavens' sake. Sex with a nine-year-old is not "alleged" rape. It is rape. Hell, I think it borders on a WP:CHILDPROTECT violation to suggest otherwise. In some states one could maybe get pedantic and say it's not, as a matter of law, automatically rape, because of one exemption or another, but it appears that the only exemption that applies in Ohio would be marriage, and there are no sources indicating that the victim was married to the alleged perpetrator or anyone else. BLPCRIME does not prevent us from calling a rape a rape, because BLPCRIME is only about how we describe people, not acts. How we describe acts is determined by WP:V and WP:NPOV. Are there any reliable sources that dispute that this was a rape? Any at all? The only original research happening here is the outrageous attempt to stick weasel words in front of what everyone on Earth, except a handful of Wikipedia editors apparently, agrees was a rape (whether it was perpetrated by the accused or someone else). This has to be the worst hill I've ever seen anyone choose to die on. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:20, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

It is alleged rape as what the actual events are yet to be confirmed by trial. it doesn't matter what RSes claim, we are following legal principles here to not make statements of facts that have yet to be determined by the court of law. Masem (t) 04:32, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Masem: What legal principle says that you can only call something a rape if it has resulted in a conviction? Could you please cite a textbook or journal article that explains this principle? I'm no lawyer, but in years of following legal matters and writing articles on the law, I've never heard of it. If such a principle does exist, my next question would be what Wikipedia policy or guideline says that we should defer to that legal principle? It's nowhere in BLPCRIME, which is about how we describe the accused. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:58, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

BLPCRIME says "Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction." which is the base principle here. Maybe it is about the accused, but like in this case, if we state in wikivoice it was rape, you've already accused the suspect of your guilt here. And from the law/media standpoint, this is what is known as "prejudging" which is something that is seen as unethical and can result in libel suits. Masem (t) 05:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Us saying she was raped is not the same as us saying that the accused raped her. Like, obviously. The only way we would be libeling him is if there were some way to have sex with a nine-year-old without it being rape, which there isn't. It's not the same thing as, say, calling a homicide a murder, where there's any number of reasons it might not be ruled that. Since you've acknowledged that BLPCRIME is about the accused, not the crime, I'll return to my earlier question: Do any reliable sources dispute that this was a rape? -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 05:26, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

She could have undergone artificial insemination, in or out of a clinical setting. It's telling that you are here assuming she had sex when you should know that is not necessary to become pregnant. So you're making several leaps of logic and you're assuming events you aren't privy to.

Now it's unfortunate that the evidence of the crime has been destroyed and left in another state. I hope law enforcement held on to some DNA samples; moreover, I hope her child's baby's remains get a dignified burial and some human respect. (BLP violation removed) Elizium23 (talk) 06:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Elizium23: I... You're joking, right? You're coming to BLPN, to a thread about BLPCRIME, to accuse a different living person (or people) of a crime? That's so outrageous that it almost makes me forget you started this comment by suggesting that a fucking nine-year-old underwent artificial insemination. Given your blatant political advocacy in this comment, and, again, outright BLP violation against one or more people involved, I think you may need to accept that you are not able to participate constructively on this topic. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 06:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

What a truly bizarre argument, but oh well:

BLPCRIME keeps us from calling the accused a rapist until there's a conviction.

COMMONNAME is how we refer to the crime itself, absent consensus for something else. I don't believe I've seen any RS calling this anything but rape. So -- again absent consensus to call it something else -- we call it what RS call it: rape. Valereee (talk) 13:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I very much agree. The act leading to impregnation was a rape, and there is no source that suggests otherwise. BD2412 T 14:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

(EC) Especially with the trial due to start soon according to comments below, I feel there's no point trying to get this changed this but I'd note there have been plenty of times when we ignore RS calling something a murder etc until a conviction has been secured when the alleged preparator is still alive and IMO there is a good reason it's something we nearly always do no matter how damning the facts of the case may seem. We've long debates about this e.g. Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive318#Stoneman Douglas High School shooting but also the RfC Wikipedia talk:Article titles/Archive 58#RfC: Shooting or Death or Killing or Murder? which resulted in this supplement Wikipedia:Naming conventions (violence and deaths). Assassination given as an example is a fairly different case since it's not something that generally carrier a clear legal meaning. Indeed in the case of Talk:Assassination of Shinzo Abe/Archive 1#Requested move 8 July 2022 there seemed to be a clear albeit brief consensus that murder was not appropriate but assassination was fine. There are also cases where many sources may continue to call something a murder even though a conviction of the sole perpetrator has been secured for a lesser crime e.g. Killing of Rachel Nickell and Killing of Natalie Connolly (warning details may be distressing) and we have IMO correctly ignored these sources. While it may be true that the limited consideration of a perpetrator's state of mind means there's a difference between how rapes and murders are decided based on the facts of the case, IMO there's still enough doubt that we should take the same care. And actually I have vague memory we've done the same for rapes too where the facts seem fairly damning e.g. the victim suffered brutal injuries or it was recorded on camera although interesting enough with the case of Killing of Ee Lee we only dealt with the murder aspect and still simply say rape. I don't think Elizium23 is helping matters my giving unnecessarily complex scenarios although I'd note that it seems clear Elizium23 recognises artificial insemination of a 9 year old would almost definitely be at a minimum a form of sexual assault. The fact that a 9 year old cannot consent doesn't mean that any sexual intercourse is rape, for example for IMO good reason in many countries a 11 year old cannot be charged with rape. While the pregnancy makes this unlikely in this case, it's one of the reasons why we do not make assumptions based on flawed understandings of how the law operates and why. In many jurisdictions, again IMO for good reason, someone with a significant intellectual disability also cannot convicted of rape, even if physically they are capable of impregnating the victim. And I'd note that besides the weird artificial insemination scenario, it's possible even if very unlikely for pregnancy to result from sexual assault that doesn't fall into the definitions of rape that apply in jurisdictions a specific crime occurred in. Nil Einne (talk) 15:44, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

exactly, and as we cannot use our own expertise ("all situations under Ohio law would call this rape"), we can't state it as fact until the court agrees that the factual basis of a conviction. That's why it is important that until the court passes this decision, we have to assert that the rape is alledged. Masem (t) 16:00, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

But we can use our own expertise to assert that the rape is alleged? Why would we ever be allowed to do that sort of WP:OR? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:17, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

+1 Valereee (talk) 19:50, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Writing at a middle-ground/conservative stance (something was alleged to have happened) is absolutely should be our basis when including contentious or controversial information, as per WP:YESPOV. There's no OR involved in that, that's the writing style that a neutral encyclopedia must take, even if all the major sources - who are not legal experts here - claim must be true. Its the reason MEDRS (and to an extent, SCIRS) exist, to point out that there are only certain soruces that can make authorative claims. Of course, if the media was reporting on the findings that were given out of appropriate labs, and reiterating their statements, that would be different. Masem (t) 20:27, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

"Yes, ma'am, I understand you are saying you've been raped. We can't call it rape until someone has been convicted of rape. Oh, that 'rape kit'? Uh..." Valereee (talk) 20:33, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

By the way, if anyone wanted evidence that the judicial system indeed uses the word "rape" to describe incidents that did not result in a conviction, a lawyer friend pointed me to Wright v. City of Ozark, 715 F.2d 1513 (11th Cir. 1983) (plaintiff "was raped by an unknown assailant"), as an arbitrary example. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 23:03, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Was it uncontested by the city that she was raped? Maine 🦞 06:06, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Masem, can you explain to me the factual circumstances by which it would be inappropriate or false to say the child at issue had been raped? Dumuzid (talk) 20:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

What about "rape" violates WP:NPOV? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:45, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

WTAF are you arguing Elizium23 ... ?!?! Nonconsensual insemination of a child is still rape! Children cannot enter contracts or consent. Parents can consent on behalf of children when it is in their best interest. (unnecessary and dangerous medical procedures???? not!!) Any sexual conduct (see: insertion without privilege) with a minor less than age 13 in Ohio is rape. Not even the doctor in that disgusting hypothetical has medical privilege of insertion!!!! 2600:387:15:1C11:0:0:0:B (talk) 23:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it contested, whatsoever, that some sort of sexual act by the specific person being tried for it actually occurred? Of course any sort of sexual relationship between a pedophile and a child is rape. Maine 🦞 05:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Adult and child. Not just pedos. 2600:387:15:1C11:0:0:0:B (talk) 23:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with those editors above who are saying that, per WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:BLP, we call it "rape" and not "alleged rape" because the WP:RSes call it "rape" and not "alleged rape". For example:

• NYT a 10-year-old Ohio girl who was raped not "allegedly raped"
• WaPo a pregnant 10-year-old Ohio rape victim and a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio not "alleged rape victim"
• WaPo2 a 10-year-old rape victim from Ohio not "alleged rape victim" and a man would be arraigned that morning for the rape of a 10-year-old not "for the alleged rape"
• NPR A rape, an abortion, and a one-source story not "an alleged rape" and A raped 10-year-old Ohio girl's abortion not "an allegedly raped 10-year-old".

Aside from Wikipedia policy, this also comports with common sense: if a child is pregnant it's because she was raped, because she cannot consent and thus any pregnancy would be the result of statutory rape. The fact that a rape occurred is indisputable because a child is pregnant. It's just like if someone is stabbed many times, we (the world, the RSes, and thus Wikipedia) all call it a "murder" even if no one is ever convicted for the "murder", as has been pointed out above.

The bottom line is this: sometimes, a crime has occurred, and RS state that a crime has occurred, even if no one is convicted of that crime. In such cases, we can also state that a crime has occurred (although of course we cannot state that a particular person committed it). We do not have to state that a crime has allegedly occurred just because no one has been convicted of that crime. That's not what our policies, or common sense, require. Levivich (talk) 16:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

That statement "that comports with common sense" is a legal analysis beyond the abilities of WP Editors to make, and thus not a valid step. And we have to stay away from saying things that maybe all RSes claim is true but do not have the authority to do so - here we need the legal evaluation from the court decision, the only agency that can make the evaluation. Even in the case of a person that appears to have died from multiple stab wounds, we cannot call that murder under a court of law makes that statement (that's why there's a specific set of rules of how we name "Killing of..."-type articles. Masem (t) 16:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

We say JFK was assassinated even though no one was convicted of the assassination. And WP:DEATHS says that you follow the common name even if there is no conviction, which is why we say JFK was assassinated and Nicole Brown Simpson was murdered, even though there were no convictions. So no, saying that a rape occurred is not legal analysis any moreso than saying that a murder or assassination occurred... those may be crimes, but they're not legal concepts, they're words that describe actions, they're not legal terms-of-art. And our policies do not say that we can't call something <crime> unless there's been a conviction. This has been explained multiple times above, but you're still repeating the same talking points. Levivich (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Those specific rules are for when there both

1. Is no commonname
2. Is no consensus for something else

In this case we have a commonname:rape is what RS are calling it. And we don't have consensus for calling it anything else, including "alleged rape". If you really believe you can get consensus for calling this an "alleged rape", start an RfC. Valereee (talk) 16:55, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Masem, you are dead wrong here, and youre missing the obvious. We cannot say an individual is guilty of a crime until that is adjudicated. We absolutely can, and should, say that a crime occured when sources report that as a fact. WP:BLPCRIME is about calling some LP something that has not been established. Ie a rapist. It is not about the existence of a crime itself. You are taking the naming on killing vs murder to extreme lengths here, and you are wrong in how you are doing so. We can say a robbery occurred. We can say a rape occurred. We can say all sorts of things because they arent labeling a living person as guilty of that crime. There is no requirement that somebody be found guilty of a crime to say that said crime even occurred. The requirement is that they be found guilty before we say they themselves committed said crime. There is an alleged rapist, not an alleged rape. nableezy - 17:35, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Nope, this is a critical factor. The media themselves are not legal experts in any capacity so we can't their own conclusions as whether a specific crime occurred or not as fact. Further, let's take a less orenous example: Mrs. Smith is found dead from a stab wound; obviously we can state she was killed. The police likely will assume she was murdered after a preliminary investigation, and they may take in Mr. Smith as a suspect despite his pleas he didn't. In that scenario, even if the press asserted "Mrs. Smith was murdered" (prior to a conclusion from the courts) and "Mr. Smith is a suspect", that is implicitly says Mr Smith murdered her. It is why in those cases, the media actually very carefully says "Mr. Smith is a suspect in the alleged murder of Mrs. Smith", which is valid, and for us, why her page would remain at "Killing of Mrs. Smith" (if that iwas how it was to be handled) until the conviction happened. What if the real case was that Mrs. Smith committed suicide after all was said and done? That's why we need the careful language.

Same thing applies to other crimes - they all may be the named crimes, but they aren't actually those crimes until a conviction is secures against those that do it. It significantly affects any person that is tied as a possible suspect to the crime, and thus must be treated in an "innocent until proven guilty" manner. There are other things that are factual - "the victim was stabbed multiple times", "the store was overturned and the safe looted of all funds" that suggest a crime, but there are slim outside changes that there are other things going on that we should not take any absolutes of judicial truth until the actual courts make the assessment. Masem (t) 18:01, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Masem has apparently never heard of the concept of "unsolved crimes". In Masem's world, a crime without a conviction isn't a crime at all. In the preferred approach of overstretched police forces all over the world, the way to reduce the crime rate is then to make it difficult for people to report crimes.

In the real world, fortunately, we can simply rely on reliable sources to know (and report) what has happened in this instance. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 18:12, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This isn't WP:MEDRS, and you are seriously misinterpreting the difference between calling a person a rapist and calling a crime a rape. Someone ping me if there's an RfC. Until then, I do not think we have consensus for adding "alleged rape" to the article. Valereee (talk) 18:28, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

In Ohio, state statute for 1st degree rape has strict liability for "sexual conduct" (defined here) with anyone "less than thirteen years of age". The girl is a victim of rape in the eyes of Ohio law. There does not need to be a trial and finding of guilty of a perpetrator for a victim to be victim of a crime. For example, the Uniform Crime Report (now NIBRS) does not even require an arrest for a crime to be labeled as such. Unlike homicide, we do not need a medicolegal ruling to determine that a pregnant 10-year-old had "sexual conduct" (WP:BLUE). EvergreenFir (talk) 18:40, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Thats nonsense pure and simple. Theres a reason not to say murder over killing, because that is an issue of intent and you can kill somebody without having murdered them. That simply does not exist here or in most other crimes. And beyond that, the real reason we need such a guideline is that because Wikipedians as a body are incapable of exercising discretion and understanding nuance, and it leads to some very fucked up anomalies. Like, in a topic I edit in, an Israeli soldier is almost never going to be found guilty of murder, regardless of the circumstances. So an unarmed autistic man shot in the back of the head is killed and not murdered, because the local jurisdiction will never charge much less find the perpetrators guilty of murder. But fine, we as a body need bolded lines to deal with edge cases, so we end up making this convoluted flow diagram specifically for when to use the word murder. But that simply does not apply here. And, as per WP:WEIGHT, the balance of reliable sources are emphatic that a rape occurred. We couch our wording for the living person accused of a crime. A crime occurs even if nobody is ever charged, even if nobody is ever convicted. And it does not require a court of law to say that some specific person is guilty of a crime to say that a crime even occurred. nableezy - 18:43, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Having a real hard time following your argument here Masem... It looks like you jumped the shark a long time ago and are now defending an undefendable position against overwhelming odds. You're wrong in both spirit and letter, drop the stick. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:15, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

This is just...a bad argument. A really dumb, bad argument. The fact that you can't understand how claiming a rape didn't occur until someone is found guilty for it is the most ridiculous BS reasoning ever is just...bizarre. And a real WP:COMPETENCE concern for this topic area. Silverseren^C 20:11, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Now now, Masem is undoubtedly giving his view in good faith, and I dont think dropping a competence link is appropriate. I do think he is taking WP:DEATHS to extreme, and absurd, lengths here, and there is literally nothing BLP related in saying a crime occurred absent a conviction. There is in saying somebody committed a crime prior to a conviction, but thats not whats at issue here. nableezy - 20:59, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

eh, not sure competence is an absurd question. This isn't a one-off, there's been doubling down. It's actually pretty puzzling. Valereee (talk) 00:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I meant the BLPCRIME claim is absurd, not the competence link. Though I do think it is misguided. Some people have very myopic views when the letters BLP come even on the fringes of the picture. I obviously disagree with Masem on this thread, but Ive also agreed with him plenty of othee times, so cmon lets accept that reasonable can disagree on what our articles should say without lacking the competence to edit. nableezy - 02:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Masem I don't think it's appropriate to apply the logic behind the WP:DEATHS guidance to a clear-cut case of statutory rape. When it comes to the killing of a person or persons there are considerations; was it a lawful or unlawful killing? Was it manslaughter or murder? Was it premeditated or a crime of passion? The answers to those questions have implications, not only on the potential sentencing of the perpetrator(s), but also how we describe both the perpetrator(s) and the victim(s). To use your Mr/Mrs Smith example, while in all cases Mrs Smith is dead, how we describe her death and anyone accused of it is variant on the circumstances that caused it.

However in the case of statutory rape, such as the one that lead to this discussion, we have only a single way to describe the victim; that they were raped. Whether or not there is a known perpetrator, and whether or not that perpetrator receives a conviction, it does not change the fact that this child was raped. However that only applies to the victim. When it comes to a known perpetrator, BLPCRIME would naturally apply to that person, such that we (and the media) would describe them as an "alleged rapist", "suspect", or other similar terms. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:52, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

In America, this is not statutory rape. It's rape. U.S. Code Title 10 § 920b Ohio Revised Code Section 2907.02 2600:387:15:1C18:0:0:0:B (talk) 05:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• @Masem: to the contrary. A rape occured. Whether or not this person is found guilty or not of the alleged crime, it happened. If someone was shot down in a hail of indiscriminate gunfire, we would say the people killed were "murdered" regardless of whether a person is found guilty or not. Buffs (talk) 00:24, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• I'll say this. The fact that we even have an article about this is just sick. Sick. That we would take the trauma of a 10 year-old child and use it to forward some political agenda is absolutely disgusting. Zaereth (talk) 00:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  • Reply -

  1. This is an encyclopedia.
  2. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Pregnancy of unnamed 10-year old Ohio girl in 2022.

  --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Absolutely fucking disgusting. Zaereth (talk) 01:07, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Reply - @Zaereth:, why don't you renominate it for deletion? --Jax 0677 (talk) 01:15, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

disgusting or not, it happened. I see nothing furthering a political agenda here...it's a matter of how it should be described Buffs (talk) 06:04, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh please. Have you read the article? The rape is disgusting, yes, but that's not what I'm talking about. The only thing more disgusting than raping a child is using it for political gain. Now don't get me worng, because I am 100% pro-choice, and think the supreme court ruling is utter garbage. But this? This is a horrible way to go about trying to make that point. Typical mob-mentality, where an entire group of people suddenly begin to behave as a single sociopath. "The news agencies did it, so why shouldn't we." Hey, tell yourself whatever helps you sleep at night. Zaereth (talk) 07:48, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Reply - "Why don't you renominate it for deletion"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 07:52, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

This is where my issue is. I am sure, buried within the sources, is confirmation from an appropriate police official or medical official with authority on this case that they are going to call it rape. That's fine if that source exists (and I'm sure it does) but the bulk of editors above are saying, instead, "all these RSes call it rape, so should we." We would never do that if someone made a claim of a cure for cancer without an authoratative source (MEDRS), or cold fusion (SCIRS), as this is 100% in the world of legal elements, which newspapers and other major media sources are not. Implicitly, there exists an equivalent "LAWRS" - that in terms of matters of legal aspects, there are only some bodies of authoritative nature (like police and courts) that would allow us to say "X is convicted of Y" or the like. Even in a case like this, where we know under OH law that young girls cannot consent and thus any sexual activity likely would be deemed rape, there are potential mitigating circumstances that may change that, and we should be working solely on what the police/medical examiner have determined, and not this non-authorative voice of the masses. (I don't believe there's anything else this specific case can be called, though, but it would be far better not to flat out say the girl was raped, but instead "According to officials for X, the girl was raped." or similar language)

Which goes back to Zaereth's point, is that this is another example of the media using accountability journalism to create empathic works that are designed to draw in readers and rile them up against abortion laws, rather than simply reporting what happened. Abortion laws like Ohio's are bad, but we have to write neutrally and dispassionately, regardless of how much attention that thet media may give this story, and my take (having written a considerable part of the Dobbs case article) is that the situation around this girl is something that is far more comprehensive within the context of the Ohio abortion law (to understand its timing and implications better) than as a separate article. But because editors want to create articles about every little news event which the media covers, we get situations like this. And that's why we have so much nonsense around BLP, because of the mob mentality "the RSes say this, it must be right!" We're an encyclopedia, we required to summarize RSes to build up articles, but we are not bound to mirror them exactly, particularly when other core content policies are at state. Masem (t) 13:40, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Masem, in general I would agree with you about coverage of news events, but I would respectfully suggest that whether there should be an article at all is something of a separate discussion. You say there are potential mitigating circumstances that may change a finding of rape. What are those? Dumuzid (talk) 13:58, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

On "may be potential mitigating circumstances", i do not know the full extent if Ohio law or how it is prosecuted, so there may be, however exceptional and near impossible it may be, there may be a chance that an underage girl got pregnant may not be called a rape. I don't claim to be the expert here and thus I would expect to be told the answer by the police and other officials investigating the case, those that have the expertise and authority to.make that call. Definitely not the mass media in.isolation.

And it should be recognized that having the separate article is. As Zarathustra points out, harmful to the unnamed girl. Clearly the story around her cannot be avoided within the context of the OH state law, but the creation of a separate article while she is still an unnamed minor can be seen as degrading. Maybe once she reached adult age she will pound the ground as a pro choice activist and make sure her name is well known, ar which point we don't have to worry about her privacy. But until then the more we cover about the story, the more problematic this can become, and BLP's essence is to do no harm, hence why the separate article is a problem. Masem (t) 14:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, with due respect, your "potential mitigating circumstances" boil down to an argument from ignorance. As David Hume pointed out long ago, we could apply the same sort of skepticism to the proposition that the sun will rise tomorrow. What we are left with, by my lights, is a situation in which the reporting in reliable sources agrees with a seemingly conclusive logical predicate, and you are asking us to be cautious based on the fact that you can imagine an unarticulated chance that things may not be as they seem. I hope you can understand why that is unpersuasive. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:51, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Well I suppose a mitigating circumstance could be that the accused was an unwilling participant in the rape, for example that he was forced to rape the girl at gunpoint. But mitigating doesn't mean absolving, and in the very, very unlikely event (it has not been mentioned in any RS as a possibility) that this was the case, it doesn't change the fact that under Ohio law a rape occurred (because any penetrative sexual act by an adult on a 10-year-old is rape in Ohio). But since we are not saying that the accused in this case is the guilty party in the rape that undoubtedly occurred, there are no WP:BLP violations - which after all is the point of this board. Lard Almighty (talk) 14:59, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a major difference between saying "all the RSes are reporting that the police have identified it as rape" and "all the RSes call it rape". Again, I would assume that in the early sourcing of this story in the Juke-ish time frame, we have reports from RSes that state the police or similar body of authority are treating this as rape, which is what should be used. If we only had the speculation of newspapers, even with the e Tremblay slim possibility of the situation being anything other than rape, we are still dealing with alegal and possible BLP situation if we jumped to the same conclusion that the media made. This slavish following of mass media in areas they are not authoritative is where problems can arise for BLP and other areas. Here, there's likely no other scenario possible, but it creates a slippery slope to other situations. We need to be more cautionary here. Masem (t) 15:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I will just say in closing that this strikes me as stretching the principle to an inapposite degree, but reasonable minds may differ. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 15:20, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The RS are reporting what the police and prosecuting authorities are saying, which is that a girl who was 9 at time got pregnant. Under Ohio law, that can only happen as a result of rape, because any penetrative sexual act by an adult on a minor under 13 is classified as rape in that State. Unless you are claiming immaculate conception, a rape occurred. It really is as simple as that. Who is responsible for that rape has not been determined, so we would call anyone charged "the alleged rapist" until there is a conviction (to satisfy WP:BLP); but it's not an alleged rape, because of the age of the victim. It really is that simple and you need to stop flogging this dead horse. Lard Almighty (talk) 15:21, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

If Ohio state law says pregnancy can only happen as a result of penetrative sex that's against medical science since as I mentioned above it's possible even if incredibly unlikely for it to happen without. I don't think a flawed law, even a flawed law where the actions happened is particularly germane to anything especially since I'm not even sure why Ohio defines rape without considering perpetrator/s. Nil Einne (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

A 9-y-o cannot consent to sex, ergo the victim in this case - described in multiple reliable sources as a rape case - was raped. WP:SKYISBLUE and WP:COMMONNAME.Elizium23's comments above are reprehensible. And this would not be the first time that Masem has got completely the wrong end of the stick about a legal case, yet has continued commenting. (Assuming somebody was being charged with being 'Soldier F' rather than grasping that Soldier F is undergoing trial for their actions). Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 11:19, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Comment on the content, not the contributor. I asked a few questions and still didn't a full crystal clear answer for that Soldier F but still worked what I thought was how BLP should best be applied there. Masem (t) 13:44, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for clarifying (on your Talk page) that your questions were answered. I dispute that the situation was/is in any way complicated. Indeed, every other person who commented in the RFC was well able to grasp that Soldier F is being charged with murder; it was only you who persisted in stating that the upcoming trial is to determine if "Dave" is "Soldier F", as if there is a crime of being "Soldier F" that one can be charged with. I would respectfully suggest, given that issue and also your comments above, that you give consideration to staying out of discussions around legal areas. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 14:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This is not an "alleged rape", it is a rape by definition, so we should not mislead our readers that it is not a rape. Here, we most certainly do have a rape, but also an "alleged suspect" (not "alleged rape") to that rape. Alanscottwalker (talk) 15:54, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not an "alleged suspect". There are not mere allegations that a particular person is a suspect. There is a person who is suspected of raping the girl. Maine 🦞 17:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The girl was raped. There is a suspect. The suspect is alleged to have committed the rape. Any use of "alleged" should be restricted to describing the charge against the suspect, not the fact of the rape itself. BD2412 T 18:09, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Maine 🦞 19:14, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Well, to answer your prior comment, that's what I said, the person is alleged to have committed the rape, thus, in short, an alleged suspect. Alanscottwalker (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Refusal at WP:CR to close this discussion

Someone at WP:CR has refused to close this discussion. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:23, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Generally we don't need a formal close unless a lengthy period has elapsed and the participants in the discussion can't agree what consensus is. For me it looks like there's consensus not to use the term "alleged rape". Very few participants in this discussion are arguing it should be called an alleged rape. It also looks to me like there is no consensus to include the name of the suspect, and no consensus against removing URLs/headlines that contain the suspect's name. Anyone disagree? Valereee (talk) 18:16, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd say there's weak consensus to keep the suspect's name out of URLs/headlines for now. I didn't get a chance to say it earlier, but use of url shorteners is a no go; they're blacklisted. As long as it's possible to sub in sources that do not use the name in those spots, or trim info and refs that are unneeded, I'm happy to keep juggling. It might get harder as the trial begins, and more eyes on the article would be nice. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:29, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

FFF, so in addition to 'no consensus to include' you think we can go with 'weak consensus to exclude'?

Oh, itneresting on URL shorteners. I didn't know that, but obviously it makes sense. Valereee (talk) 18:35, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Obviously I'm not wearing my "uninvolved consensus assessor" hat, and I'm heavily weighing the "very sensitive BLP" arguments. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 18:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

It's okay, we don't have to be completely uninvolved to close a discussion. We just have to do our best and not have anyone challenge the close. :D If someone believes a close has been affected by involvement of the closer, they'll challenge it. But if we try to be very fair, we may not need a formal uninvolved closer. Valereee (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:LPNAME & WP:CHILDPROTECT. To protect victim we should not include the suspect name. He can be used to identify victim. 2600:387:15:1C17:0:0:0:C (talk) 02:23, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree with that. We should use the best source possible, even if that source contains the name of the alleged rapist. Maine 🦞 19:17, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

As I said earlier, "equally reliable or better". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 19:26, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Maine Lobster, when you find a better source that contains the name of the suspect in the headline/url, just bring it up, and we can discuss. Valereee (talk) 19:31, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

(redacted until discussion closes)

But is there any information in either of those that isn't included in sources that don't use the suspect's name in the URL? Valereee (talk) 19:37, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes. Maine 🦞 19:41, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Can you specify what information is included in those that isn't included in other sources? Valereee (talk) 19:42, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

(redacted until discussion closes)

It doesn't look like confusion about the suspect's name is included in the article, though? Is this literally not covered anywhere else, in the nearly three months since? Valereee (talk) 19:50, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't claim to have perfect knowledge, but I don't see it anywhere else. Local reporters are often more detailed on local issues than national ones, such as here. Maine 🦞 19:53, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

@Maine Lobster, and if there's something here that should be included in the WP article, that's an argument for including that source. But if literally no one else is even mentioning it, maybe it's just trivia, or never panned out. If the only information in this source that isn't included in other sources also isn't in the WP article, why would we use this source when it provides information that could identify the victim within her local community and possibly put her at risk? Valereee (talk) 20:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The hypothetical concern that the community does not somehow know and cannot find the name of the alleged rapist, despite the name being reported by CNN and by a major newspaper in the state, is odd. It probably should not be included in the article because of the lack of a conviction, but I don't see why we should ban it from being discussed on talk pages or linking to sources that mention it. Those sources are no less reliable than sources that don't include (redacted) full name. Maine 🦞 03:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

CR response

For the record; I declined to close this discussion (singular!) Noticeboard#2022_pregnancy_of_a_10-year-old_in_Ohio where the topic is about removing the URLs containing the subjects name and had concluded naturally. Quite honestly, I didn't realise that this entirely separate conversation was part of the same discussion you wanted closing. This new section about whether or not to use 'Alleged',in my opinion, should be happening on the article talk page, not here. But here it is, and it's ongoing so not appropriate to close anyway JeffUK 19:45, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Why is the name of the suspect listed in the discussion above?

If the goal is to remove the name of the suspect from Wikipedia, why is it listed on the discussion above at "19:47, 3 January 2023 (UTC)"? --Jax 0677 (talk) 22:55, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I've redacted. Up to an admin to go further. But it was added by a new editor. Slywriter (talk) 23:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I've undid your edit to my edit. I don't think there's anything like a consensus to ban mentioning the name of (redact) in internal discussions, even if we have good reasons not to include it in the article. Maine 🦞 03:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Because in order to have legitimate discussions about the use of sources and content we have to provide and discuss sources. We're past the point where providing a link to a source containing the name in a url should be forbidden. It's commonly discussed in sources, and project discussions and talk page discussions have different thresholds for BLP than articles. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 23:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

• Reply - @ScottishFinnishRadish:, then why is "(redact)" now in that statement above? --Jax 0677 (talk) 23:57, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

  @Jax 0677 Because Slywriter edited my comment without my permission. Maine 🦞 03:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I think BLP applies no matter where you are. From WP:BLP: "This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages." 2600:387:15:1C1B:0:0:0:9 (talk) 03:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

BLP does not require that a suspect not be named, it requires serious consideration be given to not naming a suspect prior to a convention. That serious consideration is what is happening. And enforcing a blanket ban short-circuits that. nableezy - 03:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Name serves no purpose to discussion and I will redact again per BLP Policy. Anyone taking issue can head to ANI as the name is now being willfully and intentionally repeated. This is a high profile page. Anyone can provide the source if editors need it to assess. That does not mean the name needs to be on wiki until consensus is reached. Slywriter (talk) 03:49, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia:TALKO is also policy, and you know that. An amdin (@ScottishFinnishRadish) and others have said that this is not required. Please stop editing my comments for the sake of Censorship. Maine 🦞 03:57, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Slywriter, why did you delete my comment that WP:TALKO is a policy? How is that comment possibly a "BLP violation"? Maine 🦞 04:05, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Was wrong edit reverted. I have reinstated redact as the name is a BLP violation and this a 10 year old girls life that we are discussing, so let consensus decide if the name should be on wiki. Slywriter (talk) 04:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You are deleting the name of an alleged rapist from a talk page discussing whether or not we should have that name in an article. Stop editing my comments in violation of policy. Maine 🦞 04:08, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

@Maine Lobster But you acknowledge that Slywriter can redact or, if necessary, remove outright your comments if the violate WP:BLP? This includes, but is not limited to, mentioning the name of the alleged rapist. —C.Fred (talk) 04:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The alleged rapist has been mentioned in major newspapers in connection with the assault. To choose to not include the name in the article itself is fine, but to censor it from discussion pages is absurd. To paraphrase Ian Hislop "If that's a BLP vio, then I'm a banana". Hemiauchenia (talk) 04:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, edits that violate the BLP policy can be redacted. But these edits don't, and multiple people (including an admin) have said this. Just because an editor claims something violates the BLP policy does not make it so, and there is nowhere near a consensus that the comments do. Maine 🦞 04:14, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

No I will not. It's a BLP violation of the privacy of a 10 yo girl. If the community decides otherwise it can be written on-wiki but until then it serves no purpose in the discussion. As I've said in edit summary, any admin can directly and unequivocally tell me it is not a BLP violation. Slywriter (talk)

You need to read WP:BLPTALK. It's not a blank check to remove anything negative about anyone you want whenever you please. It's very narrowly-defined, stating that Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate. Note that your removal here fails on almost every clause. First, the suspect's identity is not contentious, nor is it unsourced or poorly-sourced; it is widely-referenced and treated as uncontroversial in high-quality sources, eg. (redacted a whole big list of perfectly good sources - BK); likewise, discussing the name is clearly related to content choices (it is difficult to mention or search for sources without mentioning it.) The threshold for removing things from talk is higher than it is for removing them from articles, otherwise we wouldn't be able to meaningfully discuss whether to include things like this. --Aquillion (talk) 06:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Ding. It is not potentially libelous to say that some named person has been charged with rape and is facing a trial for the rape of a minor. That is verifiable fact. And the argument that you are protecting the child by not naming her accused rapist is one that still does not register for me. Especially given how widely reported that name is already. nableezy - 16:01, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

When did WP stop going by the sources? Selfstudier (talk) 16:13, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

If I was citing WP:BLPCRIME, your argument would be correct. I am not. I am operating under WP:DONOHARM and WP: BLPPRIVACY for the 10 year old victim who did not choose to be a public figure, who would fail WP:BLP1E, and the only reason she is stuck with an article about a deeply private matter is the poor choices of adult politicians, activists, and doctors to make her a political football in the US abortion debate.

The fact the issue does not register with you makes clear that a larger community discussion needs to occur about the privacy of minors especially victims as it is not appropriate for an encyclopedia to risk harm to a minor because editors feels well the newspapers and politicians are already doing harm so we can join in. Slywriter (talk) 16:22, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I completely agree with Slywriter on this point. Naming the suspect in the article or in discussions basically draws a map to the ten-year-old victim, and is of de minimus benefit to our mission as an encyclopedia. BD2412 T 16:31, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree, too, of course, we can have a meaningful discussion: "name of suspect" and the like, is just as meaningful for our purposes. And BLPTALK says to be circumspect in what you write outside the article. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 16:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I cannot seriously believe that it is harmful to the victim to name the person who is publicly charged with the crime. The idea that we are risking harm to the child and basically drawing a map to them is asinine. Otherwise all the reliable sources that have already named the suspect would be doing just that. You think CNN is putting a 10 year old rape victim in harm here? Should let them know that. nableezy - 19:25, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We don't run CNN, or any of the other outlets, all of which operate on a for-profit basis and are trying to draw eyes to their articles so they can sell advertising. More pointedly, as a matter of policy, we are WP:NOTNEWS. BD2412 T 19:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, we are a tertiary source that summarizes reliable secondary sources, like CNN and every other outlet that this article is relying on already. This argument about protecting the child makes zero sense. And I dont even give a shit about naming the victim in the article, but this virtue signaling redacting all mention of what is widely reported is stupid. nableezy - 19:32, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Nableezy, I do actually think it can harm the child further, even though media has already done that. A Wikipedia article follows someone around for a very long time. So I don't see this as an absurd discussion. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I think it's worth discussing. Valereee (talk) 19:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

How? Every source of any repute will decline to name rape victims. But they will always name somebody when they are publicly charged for the crime. I am unaware of a single serious source that will decline to name somebody charged with a crime with the supposed justification that it somehow protects the victim. I dont even get the logical basis for the argument. The we are drawing a map to the child bit makes zero sense to me at all. Even Reuters has that he, by name, has been charged. USA Today, the Independent, ABC News, and on and on and on. I dont see how youre going to have an article on the crime and not cover the arrest, trial, and verdict and potential sentencing. And youre going to twist yourself in knots trying to redact any article with the name in the headline, much less not name him in our article. I would take the child protection angle more seriously if there was literally any support for such a stance in other sources. But none of them view that as a potential issue, and probably all of them have policies on protecting victims, especially rape victims, especially minor rape victims. But none of them see any issue at all with naming the person who has been publicly charged and will be publicly tried for the crime. nableezy - 19:59, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Because a Wikipedia article lasts a really long time. The other stuff might be less easily searchable over time. Valereee (talk) 04:55, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

References

Suspect name now listed in links above and at Edit Warring Noticeboard

The suspect name is now listed in the links above [19:33, 3 January 2023 (UTC)], as well as here. I have added a request at WP:AN to permanently delete such edits. --Jax 0677 (talk) 08:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

That is absurd. This goes beyond anything we've ever done with regards to BLP before. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:02, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

HEB, I think it may not be absurd considering the specific circumstances. We have a child of tender years who has been raped and had an abortion, and she is quite likely identifiable within her own community because of the name of the accused. We can't put the lid back on the box, but I think it's worth at minimum discussing before we decide whether it's okay to have the suspect named in discussions. It doesn't really help anything, so why not just avoid using it at all? Valereee (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We are required to edit in a detached manner, if the specific circumstances are overwhelming for a given editor then they need to find a different topic space to edit. The key point is that if we can't use the URLs can we actually have a discussion? If I can't post a link to a CNN article because someone is going to come through and redact it how do we ever get to WP:NPOV? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not overwhelmed in the least. I'm just pointing out that this is an unusual case and it's not absurd to discuss before we decide whether it's okay to use the accused's name in discussions. I'm not saying your point isn't well taken, but the argument has been made (and I think it's reasonable) that unless a source that uses the accused's name in the headline (and therefore URL) is telling us something other RS aren't telling us, can't we just use a source that doesn't iclude the name? And if the source is saying something no other source is saying, maybe we don't need it? It's just a discussion, HEB. Valereee (talk) 19:17, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

How can we evaluate whether or not that source is saying something different if evaluating the source is forbidden in the first place? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Hey, if you've got a good enough reason, go for it. Like the NYT or WSJ is using a URL with the suspect's name, and literally NO OTHER RS is giving us the same information...

Is that what's happening that you're worried about? Because I haven't actually seen that happen very often. But if it does, yeah, I'd totally support you coming in here and giving us that URL that is so crucial. Valereee (talk) 05:01, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

We can't put the lid back on the box That's the crux, we go by sources. If the sources write things we don't like (irritating habit of theirs, I know), it's not up to WP editors to make moral judgements in compensation. Selfstudier (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We might come to consensus to avoid sources that use the accused's name in the URL, or at least as much as we can. That's what's being discussed. Valereee (talk) 19:18, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You mean a consensus to exclude entirely on pain of rev-del? "Avoid" is not what is being proposed or done. Lets talk about reality, and in reality people are redacting URLs. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:20, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The reality is that people have presented good reasons for why we should omit this information. And since this is a BLP, until people can come up with better reasons (and consensus) as to why it should be included it stays out. Enforced by redaction if need be. BLP is built on the presumption of don't do unnecessary harm. If we can work around these URL's then we should. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

What is the proposed workaround? I must have missed it. It seems that the proposal is simply not to acknowledge their existence in any way, which clearly not a workaround. Also welcome back from wikibreak! Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

For the name, the descrption "the accused" appears to be being used in this discussion without issue. For URL's it would depend on if the source is providing new content or not. And people could suggest content text and a note that the source includes the name of the accused in it's header. If a source isn't providing new content, why use the source, and if it is, is the content of sufficient encyclopedic value to include it. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:45, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

But how can we know if the if the source is providing new content or not if we're prohibited from posting links to it? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 19:47, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

People can propose content on the talk page. Note they have a source and the source has the accused's name in the link so they are not currently linking it. And editors can determine if the proposed content is worth including enough to actually post the link on the talk page or in the article. Heck we could even do a description of the link as in published by and date of publishing for people who may want to look it up themselves. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:55, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

How can editors determine whether the proposed content actually reflects the source without reading the source itself? If they can't determine whether the proposed content accurately reflects the source its not possible for them to determine whether the proposed content is worth including. Also note that you can't just say you have a source if the discussion is BLP, you are required to provide a link to the source. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:03, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

If editors feel the content is worthy for inclusion if true, they could post the link to make sure that the content accurately represents the source. Note, content need only be sourced if it is actually challenged or likely to be challenged. So prior to challenging whether the content fairly represents the source you would have to see if the content itself is of sufficient encyclopedic value to include. So, as a process, first propose content and possibly some clues as to where it is sourced. If it's possibly acceptable to include, then post the link to verify that the content is an accurate representation. Assuming that meets scrutiny then the content can be added to the article. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

BLP content always needs to be sourced, even just to discuss it on the talk page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:28, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Contentious material always needs to be sourced. And again, we can include description as to where the content is sourced to even without including a link. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:34, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

BLP material always needs to be sourced, whether or not it is contentious. If it is both BLP and likely to be challenged then an inline citation is required. You are currently arguing that we are prohibited from using such an inline citation. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

BLP material always needs to be verifiable. Inline citation (aka sourcing) is only required if challenged or likely to be challenged. And again we can include a description of the source to see if it's good enough to use for a citation. Creating limits is not the same as prohibition. --Kyohyi (talk) 20:44, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

How does one create an inline citation without the title or url of the source? As you said the inline citation is *required* in that context, so how can BLP both require the inline citation and limit the ability to create that citation? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We already limit the ability to create citations. If sources aren't up to par we don't include content and thus don't include the citation. This can include talk page discussions. If you want to include something that is being limited you can provide a description of what you want, and a description of the source, and note it includes the name in the link as to why you aren't currently linking it. --Kyohyi (talk) 14:28, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

If the source is RS, it shouldn't be limited at all. Selfstudier (talk) 14:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

What is, and is not a RS is always contextual. --Kyohyi (talk) 19:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Correct, and why deciding upfront that every RS is contextually inappropriate is complete bs. Selfstudier (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

But it isn't deciding up front. If it were, no source would ever be appropriate period. It's only sourcing that names the accuser which has to go through this process. --Kyohyi (talk) 01:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Google it. I see both sides of the argument on this. But fundamentally it's just not that important to an encyclopedia to name the suspect at this stage. This is all rather overblown. DeCausa (talk) 19:19, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think there is much support for naming the suspect in the article, the issue is more about not naming them in discussions, or using URLs that contain the name. I'm fairly certain that anyone interested enough in the case to read the Wikipedia BLPN thread about it doesn't need our help to find the name in the media. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:36, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The crime is not notable and would fail WP:BLP1E. The notability comes from the actions of third parties unrelated to the victim. This is not a biography about her. This is not an article about the crime. If those points were not true, I'd be far more sympathetic to the NPOV position being staked out here. The notability stems from the denial of an abortion in one state and the subsequent politicizing of events by others. Slywriter (talk) 19:21, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

If the crime is not notable then nominate the article about the crime for deletion. nableezy - 19:30, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The issue is the use of the child as a political pawn has made the initial denial of her abortion notable. Though I am looking at options within our policies to minimize mention and focus of the crime, which has been sort of coat-racked into the article and may be undue. Slywriter (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

The use of the child as a pawn? Im sorry, what? nableezy - 22:39, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

You're going to need to supply a source for that claim. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:48, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

This is quite likely identifiable within her own community because of the name of the accused bit is what makes no sense to me. The local news has reported the name. The national news has reported the name. You think the Wikipedia article not including it somehow alleviates any potential harm that may come to the victim? You think that the multiple unsupported premises that underlines all of this argument actually holds water? That a. the local community does not know who the suspect is, b. the local community does not know who the victim is, c. the local community gets their local news from Wikipedia and not the local news media or the national news media, both of which have included the suspects name. The possibility that all three of those are true is astonishingly small. nableezy - 19:29, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it alleviates it, no. It might make it slightly less searchable ten years from now. But I'm not actually arguing that we can never use any of these sources. I'm saying while we're discussing it, let's not. Valereee (talk) 19:37, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

We're not talking about minor local news coverage here... we're not even talking about national coverage. The guy's name and photo is everywhere... This is an international event. I've seen his name in all the national newspapers here and I live 6,000 km away from Ohio... I'm talking about newspapers that are absolutely considered reliable sources, not tabloids.

This will absolutely be something that is talked about for decades to come, that books are written about, that TV documentaries are made about. The horse has long since bolted and the stable door is nowhere to be seen. By all means oversight the hell out of the article (I'd rather it didn't exist), but let's not pretend there is anything we can do for the benefit of the child and let's not pretend that mentioning the suspect's name in a talk page in any way violates BLP criteria. Catfish Jim and the soapdish 20:51, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

WP has much higher standards on the protection on BLP than the mass media. Just because they suspects name can be found "everywhere", we still must consider the BLP issues of the people involved who at the time are definitely non public figures. Masem (t) 20:56, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Nobody is suggesting naming the victim, and BLP is satisfied with respect to the suspect with the high quality sources that can be cited listing him as being charged with rape. nableezy - 22:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I would encourage editors to look at and note there are only two pre-teen rapes listed(I skipped any murder of... article). One with suspect and victim named,Kidnapping of Jaycee Dugard, as they have gone public and one where none are named, 2010 gang rapes in Cleveland, Texas where neither the convicted or victim are named. News reports will fade with time, Wikipedia is forever and readily available. Slywriter (talk) 21:10, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

As a comment, in the Durand case, that started as a missing child case, and when she was found they identified her rape and other abuse she received. The child's name is nearly always given in abduction cases to help find them, and in such a situation, it.becomes hard to avoid naming. In this case and the Cleveland case, there was no apparent abduction, so there was no reason to broadcast the name far and wide. Masem (t) 22:12, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

I dont think anybody is suggesting we name the victim. nableezy - 22:38, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Ummm... Its not our job to help find missing people. There is no reason to broadcast the name far and wide on wikipedia in either situation. The exact same protections apply. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 22:52, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

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

John Campbell (YouTuber)

I am concerned that this biographical entry violates https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons policy. Even a cursory read will indicate that this article is neither balanced nor unbiased. It focuses primarily on negative aspects of Campbell's YouTube channel, selecting negative information and sources only, including reference to comedians (ie Jimmy Dore) and derogatory personal opinions (David Gorski) as sources. These are not balanced out by any of the multitude of sources available that have positive things to say about Dr.Campbell. The article also claims Campbell "was praised" (he still is) and has "veered into misinformation" (This is an opinion, not a factual statement: Campbell always lists sources for the information relayed on his videos thus placing the onus on the reader to research for themselves). The item focusses unduly on what Campbell has been criticized for, without recourse to what he has been praised for. An overall reading has the distinct feel of a smear campaign or attack piece rather than an objective biography.

Unfortunately, while I understand the concerns over potential vandalism of the page, it appears to have been locked or semi-locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.238.114.93 (talk) 22:25, 31 December 2022 (UTC)

If an individual is most well known for spreading misinformation, then their article will cover that. Wikipedia doesn't permit false balance between two ideas if one is more widely accepted by the medical community. Are there specific sources you feel should be included? Thebiguglyalien (talk) 01:00, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

While we can't create a false balance (we'd need coverage of position aspects to be able to do) I think there's far too much spent in the "critizing" space that is beyond necessary. We can exaplain in one section that his views on COVID, vaxxing, and alt cures are not supported by major medical experts, but the longish quotes to point this out are rubbing the salt in the wound. --Masem (t) 01:57, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

I think there's a difference between pushing a fringe narrative on things and actually publishing things that he must have known were false, like the videos on the UK Covid death toll, the deaths from the Pfizer vaccine, and the NEJM article. Examples like that are simple disinformation, and we should not hold back from stating that he has done this repeatedly. Black Kite (talk) 10:57, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Stating he has given out misinformation on various topic must be included, but "we should not hold back from stating that he has done this repeatedly" is RGW territory and we can't go there. Wikivoice cannot be judgmental like that. Identifying the criticism leveled at him is fair game, but we aren't layer it on too thick while trying to stay neutral. Masem (t) 23:02, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree. I'm concerned that this article opens WP to legal risk. This isn't a subject matter I feel strongly about, but I think that it is drawing so much attention (See: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myp1R6qa0fA&t=1s ) that it's unlikely to go without legal challenge. I'm not sure what safety checks and balances are in place to address such an issue. Altairah (talk) 22:18, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Such things should be ignored. Legal threats are both not to be engaged with and, also, should not be a consideration for how we write articles whatsoever. If an exception to that is made, it would be a member of the WMF themselves enacting an OFFICE action. Otherwise, legal considerations should be null and void. We should instead be following our own policies and standards for writing articles and following what the reliable sources write about the subject in question. Silverseren^C 22:27, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

"Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to all 'applicable 'laws in the United States, to this policy, and to Wikipedia's three core content policies [...]"

It would seem by our own standards that we are in fact required to consider any and all legal implications. Altairah (talk) 03:52, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

A youtube video by some random guy, where we get a great view right up his nose, grousing about a Wikipedia page, is meaningless. Zaathras (talk) 22:36, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

The first paragraph states "but later veered into misinformation". This is someone's opinion, not based on facts. A review of Dr John Campbell's YouTube content would demonstrate to any reasonable person that it is well researched and provides important content for public discourse.

The article is quite slanderous and full of errors with political bias. Please open the page to editing so that these mistakes can be corrected. Zaddo67 (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Please not accuse other editors of slander (see WP:NLT) or bias. GiantSnowman 22:11, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

That random guy has nearly 300,000 subscribers, the video has over 200,000 views and 32,000 likes. I notice you are quite active on the JCY, and JCYT pages. Is this subject becoming a pet project for you? Altairah (talk) 03:59, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Views and likes are easily purchased and mean more or less nothing. It is unsurprising that antivaxer youtubers support each other. This link proves precisely nothing. MrOllie (talk) 04:09, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not familiar with the YouTuber John Campbell, but after reading the article it seems he is only notable for misleading and/or false claims in regard to COVID. If he is notable for other topics, ideas, etc. that should be included as the whole article is currently about COVID-19 and that all of his opinions on the virus were wrong. Grahaml35 (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see how an article where the second sentence says "His videos received praise early in the pandemic, but later veered into misinformation" would lead someone to believe "that all of his opinions on the virus were wrong." And I know the article has said this sort of stuff for a long time since I've read parts of it a lot of times sometimes from personal interest sometimes for other reasons especially its frequent mention at BLPN. But it is true that the subject seems only really notable for his COVID-19 Youtube videos with some initial attention early on and then I think even more attention from all sides later when his videos started veered into what's widely considered misinformation. Nil Einne (talk) 12:02, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Does/should ABOUTSELF extend to death confirmation via official channel?

I ran into an interesting situation recently at the article Fucking Trans Women, which contains a very brief biography of its author, Mira Bellwether. Bellwether died a few weeks after I wrote the article; this was officially announced by her partner through the latter's Twitter on the 25th, and on Bellwether's official GoFundMe (https://www.gofundme.com/f/help-mira-bellwether-survive-stage-4-lung-cancer) on the 26th. I saw no provision of policy or guidelines that would allow for citing either, and so held off (and reverted a few who added the death) until it was reported in Autostraddle on the 27th. This delay was significant enough that Autostraddle's editors mentioned it when naming the obituary among their favorite pieces of the year.

The Twitter post, that's solidly third-party, but should I have been allowed to cite the GoFundMe? That's not a rhetorical question. I see the case for and against. On the one hand, ABOUTSELF is about self. Once someone dies, they cannot make statements about themself (at least not in any way we can verify). On the other hand, if someone has designated something as an official channel of theirs, and that channel then says they have died, it seems reasonable to treat that as a moderately reliable source at least for that limited purpose, as an extension of their public persona. Hacks and hoaxes are a concern, but no more so than when the subject is alive—there's always a nonzero risk of either of those, which is part of the trade-off of ABOUTSELF. Furthermore, secondary sources reporting deaths of online figures are often just going off of the official statement anyways. (In this case, neither Autostraddle nor the one other RS obituary seem to have interviewed any family members or such.) And most significantly, I think, in some cases we just might never get an RS obituary. Eventually enough time passes that BLP (including BLPSPS and BLPPRIMARY) no longer applies... but honestly I think what happens in practice on such articles is people do cite the tweet or Facebook post or whatever, and no one notices or cares because these tend to be low-visibility articles.

So like I said, I really don't know, but would like to hear others' thoughts. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 04:47, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I can see a case for gofundme.com WP:ABOUTSELF per "there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity" in this case, but I'd consider that a local consensus issue (be bold and see what happens), sort of "place-holder" in the hope that a better source will appear. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:07, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

@Tamzin and Gråbergs Gråa Sång: I'm not convinced ABOUTSELF should be use for this sort of stuff as I've articulated before even if we put aside it's hopefully not self if talking about the subject's death. This recent case [1] IMO illustrates why.

I acknowledge that often media we treat as reliable secondary sources (or even legislative chambers) don't do a much better job as the much more famous case of someone faking their own death partially illustrates but this isn't unique to deaths and there's a reason IMO why we still generally rely on what they report within reason. As I've mentioned before, our hope is they at least consider whether they do need check depending on the circumstances and just as important, if reporting incorrect information is legally risky etc. And while their legal analysis for themselves may not hold to us, I do think we're much less likely to make a mistake when we rely on them then when we rely on random editor opinions.

I don't hold any weight to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS especially in this case. Yeah we have a lot of crappily sources articles but we shouldn't allow let alone encourage it when it comes up. Definitely it's very common that someone comes to say a subject died without any or with an insufficient source and all we generally do on BLPN is do a quick search and if there are no better sources tell the, sorry but we need to wait until there are better sources. Sometimes none even appear especially for people of very low notability (sports people is a common case IMO) or who were a small flash in the pan a long time ago. I don't think there's any harm in simply not mentioning a subject's death ever because we lack sources.

Actually my thoughts here are very similar to those on DoBs which I just got into a discussion about them elsewhere. Anyone with any experience at BLPN has probably noticed how far a lot of our articles stray from our DoB requirements. Heck you even get edit wars over DoBs that sometimes make it here and involving semi-experienced editors where the correct solution is to simply remove the DoB since none of the sources meet our requirements. I don't see an easy solution to the DoB problem other than fixing it when we come across it since plenty of editors think it essential biographical information and so allow it without sourcing sufficient even for general information let alone for DoBs. I definitely would not support relaxing our strict requirements for DoBs. I'd say the same for any problem we have stopping poorly source deaths in articles.

(Although because of our requirements and the tendency to fake DoBs to fake ages especially in certain fields, you do get the complicated case where sources linked to the subject have a date which is potentially incorrect but sources which suggest a different date are insufficient. In that case I can understand why editors are unhappy with us keeping the possibly incorrect date. Of course as an IP kept telling us in the past months it can even happen where RS generally present this likely incorrect date as well, in that case while editors can feel however they want, there is good reason why we stick with it.)

Nil Einne (talk) 12:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPSPS and "staff" profiles on self-published websites

Hello. Very frequently on BLPs, I see "staff" and "affiliated" profiles on organizations' self-published websites used as sources for BLP subjects. WP:BLPSPS notes "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article." which appears to prohibit the use of these sources for BLPs. A couple examples on one BLP, whose subject is affiliated with both Carbon Management Canada and National Research Council Canada [2][3]. I've asked similar on the Help IRC who multiple helpers likewise pointed out these sources shouldn't be used, but how do others interpret WP:BLPSPS? Saucysalsa30 (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this should be managed on a case-by-case basis. The website of a major, internationally recognized university that lists the person as a faculty member? No problem at all. The website of an non-notable organization that claims them as a member? Probably not. The National Research Council Canada has it's own level of reliability, so its membership lists should be so treated accordingly. --Jayron32 17:12, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Staff & affiliated profiles are almost certainly authored by/under the control of the subject. The BLPSPS prohibition should not be interpreted to forbid their use. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

Further: the (uncredited) author and the publisher of [4] are clearly not the same, so it's not a self-published source in any sense. Nothing published by the NRC-Canada is "self-published" in the sense of BLPSPS. It seems that you (Saucysalsa30) completely misunderstand the point of BLPSPS -- it's about "don't use RandoDude420's blog as a source in a BLP" (because obviously), not about independence / self-serving stuff (that's separate, in the next section WP:BLPSELFPUB). 100.36.106.199 (talk) 13:53, 4 January 2023 (UTC)

"Staff & affiliated profiles are almost certainly authored by/under the control of the subject."

Hi IP, interesting point, could you please clarify this statement or where this information derives from? Example: an organization I have affiliation with has a profile on their website of me and I have no control over it. This may be a misunderstanding of WP:BLPSPS on the basis of this assumption. Jayron32's view is more nuanced. Either way, such sourcing is primary. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 04:48, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Concepts like "primary" and "secondary" and "SPS" and all of that are meant to guide analysis of sources, not to determine an outcome of how one must proceed naively or blindly. Real humans still need to ponder and consider and think and weigh competing ideas and make decisions on how to weigh various factors when making decisions on what kinds of sources are OK for using with what kinds of Wikipedia information, all of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines in this area are meant to inform you not of what conclusions you must reach, but rather on the various factors that go in to making those conclusions for yourself. All reliability really means is "Can I trust this source to be accurate in what it says?" and ALL of the guidance Wikipedia gives us are various ways to assess that. The National Research Council Canada gives all of the hallmarks of a scrupulously reliable source for the kind of information in question. If all we're asking is "Is the NRCC's own website reliable enough to determine whether or not a particular person is a member or affiliate of said council", then yes, it certainly is. That's my assessment of it. The argument that the NRCC wrote its own website, and therefore cannot be trusted to accurately report its membership on said website, well, that's just silly. It's a highly respected organization managed by the government of a major world power. We can trust that when it says someone is affiliated with it in some way, they are. --Jayron32 05:21, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

The word “profile” can mean two different things. In my first post, I was referring to short biographical sketches of the kind often labeled “our team”, or your first link (CMC), or the brief resumes found on university faculty department profiles. These are almost always written by the subject or based on material provided by the subject, and the subject can generally update them (by contacting an internal website person and saying “hey this is out of date, can you add …”). Such things are the subject of BLPSELFPUB, not BLPSPS. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it's so simple as that. While for simple publication record and other career stuff I'd imagine there is no prepublication checking I aso suspect in most cases since it's on the university website they'll likely take some responsibility for it. So if someone's university profile says they got a degree from Baruch College and a MBA from NYU and a person emails the right people with strong evidence questioning this, they'll probably look into it and remove it if it's incorrect maybe also open a general investigation into this person if they remain on staff. (To be fair, getting through to the right person may sometime be hard.) But while many hosting services do have their own ToS, AFAIK they often do not extend this sort of stuff. E.g. Facebook has their infamous real name policy but I think if you claim you have a degree and MBA you don't, they're not going to do anything about it. So too Twitter. Even Blogspot and similar. (Not sure about LinkedIn they may take action.) Nil Einne (talk) 12:41, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, agreed. In contrast to these examples, there are many orgs that are little known or of no repute that would have to be taken at face value which would not be ideal. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:44, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• I think it's also worth considering whether it is WP:DUE if no secondary sources have made note of it. --Aquillion (talk) 08:26, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yes. 100.36.106.199 (talk) 12:56, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  Great point! I hadn't considered that. Saucysalsa30 (talk) 23:46, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Ivan Katchanovski's "false theory" on Georgian snipers

Based on this source [5] the article Ivan Katchanovski claims that In 2018, Katchanovski promoted a false theory that Georgian snipers had orders from Maidan leaders to shoot Maidan protestors. This theory was also promoted by Vladimir Putin. The template:Failed verification I added has been repeatedly removed by two users [6][7][8]. Is this WP:OR? And is it compatible with WP:BLPRS? Note the following:

• The text of the source doesn't mention Katchanovski. It deals exclusively with the The Putin Interviews by Oliver Stone.
• However, the source contains the picture of a tweet by Oliver Stone, in which Stone re-tweets a tweet by Katchanovski.
• In that tweet, Katchanovski does not present a theory on the Georgian snipers. He writes Another #Maidan #massacre #Bombshell : In #Israel TV #documentary, two more #Georgians state that they had orders from Maidan leader to shoot both Maidan #protesters and police in order to boost protests and overthrow Yanukovych #government in #Ukraine + link to a no longer available youtube video.
• Is tweeting a video by an Israeli TV a sufficient ground for being reported on Wikipedia as the "promoter of a false theory shared by Putin"?
• For those who want to go really deep into the matter: Polygraph.info (a fact-checking website produced by Voice of America, not yet listed at WP:RSP) claims here [9] that they've debunked an interview made by an Italian journalist to three alleged Georgian snipers who claimed responsibility for shooting protesters in Kyiv at Euromaidan. In a 2022 self-published paper [10] Katchanovski mentioned 7 Georgian snipers; probably three of these snipers are the same ones who were interviewed in the allegedly debunked report by the Italian journalist. So with a nice WP:SYNTH we are combining the tweet re-tweeted by Stone and published by Polygraph.info, the "debunking" investigation by Polygraph.info and the 2022 paper by Katchanovski to state in wikivoice that Katchanovski, by presenting his paper at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, by tweeting in 2018 a link to a video that no editors has yet been able to watch, has "promoted" a theory concerning 7 Georgian snipers, three of which according to Polygraph.info had lied in an interview; and we are also stating that that theory is shared by Putin.
• Final note: the article on Katchanovski presents a controversial theory of his under the heading "False flag theory". That theory has supporters and opponents, it may be WP:FRINGE or not. In any case, that theory is not the Georgian snipers theory. The two theories are different and possibly even incompatible (according to the first one, the massacre was made not by Georgian snipers but by far-rigt militants).

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:39, 5 January 2023 (UTC); edited 03:57, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you seriously disputing that he promoted this conspiracy theory [11]? His entire researchgate page is devoted to this garbage. Volunteer Marek 01:57, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I honestly don't know. If you want you can open a thread at WP:FT/N and we discuss there about that. Because here we're discussing something different and the source you just shared is not helpful. The source you shared says something about the Georgian snipers that is incompatible with the thesis we are now attributing to Katchanovski through the nasty WP:SYNTH I explained above. The source says:

A retired Georgian general claimed that Georgian snipers linked to Mikheil Saakashvili, ex-president of Georgia, and senior members of his party and the government were involved in the Maidan massacre.16 Janusz Korwin-Mikke, a Polish presidential candidate alleged that Maidan snipers were trained in Poland.17 However, none of these politicians provided any evidence in support of their claims. And no such reliable evidence has been provided by the governments and the media in Ukraine, Western countries, and Russia

So if you want to support the nasty SYNTH on the article and make it somehow more compelling, more justifiable, then you need to find a different source. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:22, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• That "theory" was discussed already in this section of article talk page. It was debunked according to Polygraph and BBC publications (cited in the linked discussion). Yes, according to Polygraph.info that theory was promoted or supported by Ivan Katchanovski. But this is easy to check. As quoted in the linked discussion, Ivan Katchanovski himself recently presented this "theory" in Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Montreal, September 15-18, 2022. My very best wishes (talk) 03:14, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Gitz, we are either doing a WP:OR or a WP:SYNTH. We need a source that clearly states that Katchanovski's research was debunked (and especially how it was debunked).

Also, I don't understand that allusion to Vladimir Putin, if there are contacts between Katchanovski and Putin let's bring in the sources, otherwise we are just reporting allusions on a BLP, which is a very serious thing. For example, John Mearsheimer, like Putin, thinks that the reasons for the conflict in Ukraine are due to NATO's enlargement to the east.[12] Would you dream of writing in Mearsheimer's article that he thinks like Putin (and imply that there is complicity between them)? Please, let us try to maintain some professionalism and care in the BLP.

I am in favour of removing the whole sentence. Mhorg (talk) 12:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Since @My very best wishes says according to Polygraph.info that theory was promoted or supported by Ivan Katchanovski. But this is easy to check, could he please provide a quotation from Polygraph.info (or from any other reliable sources, really) saying that Ivan Katchanovski promoted or supported the "Georgian sniper theory"? By "Georgian sniper theory" I obviously mean the theory that was allegedly debunked by Polygraph.info and the BBC. If the BBC publication MVBW refers to is this one [13], then it doesn't mention Katchanovski. Thanks, Gitz (talk) (contribs) 15:01, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Using multiple sources to verify statements, such as that Ivan Katchanovski authored, supported or presented the false flag theory which includes "Georgian snipers" is not WP:SYN or WP:OR. To the contrary, we must use multiple sources to properly summarize views by living people per WP:BLP. Also, if someone promotes a theory, there is nothing wrong with using 3rd party RS (such as BBC analysis in this case) that say the theory was debunked/supported/whatever. My very best wishes (talk) 15:31, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Combining multiple sources to support unverifiable statements is the definition of WP:SYNTH. Your claim that according to Polygraph.info that theory was promoted or supported by Ivan Katchanovski. But this is easy to check is groundless. I've therefore removed (again) the contentious and unsourced/poorly sourced material per WP:GRAPEVINE [14]. If this removal is inapporopriate, any uninvolved editor can revert it and explain their reasons here. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:00, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd like to add that I don't understand why you, Volunteer Marek and Adoring nanny don't edit The Putin Interviews article to include the results of Polygraph.info's investigation: the source is entirely dedicated to Putin-Stone and doesn't even mention Katchanovski! I've already made this suggestion pn the article talk page [15]. Why do you insist so much on having this content in the article on Ivan Katchanovski? The only answer I could give is against AGF and I'll keep it to myself, but really, the amount of time wasted in these petty editorial squabbles is staggering. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 16:33, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• You say "Combining multiple sources to support unverifiable statements". This is not the case. To the contrary, the fact that "Ivan Katchanovski authored, supported or presented the false flag theory [of Maidan massacre] which includes Georgian snipers" (that is what I said) is 100% verifiable. It can be verified by quoting his own publication (as in this section [16]) and it can be verified by quoting secondary sources about his work as linked in the same and another section on talk [17]. This is not WP:OR. This is just the opposite.My very best wishes (talk) 17:04, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
• Oh wow, I haven’t seen this particular bad faith argument before. “Youre using multiple sources to cite something so by definition that’s SYNTH”. Jeez. Volunteer Marek 19:42, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  cite something? I don't understand what you mean. My point is: please, don't combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source. Are you saying that this hasn't happened in this case? Well, then please tell us which source explicitly states that 1) In 2018 Katchanovski promoted a theory that Georgian snipers had orders from Maidan leaders to shoot Maidan protestors; 2) That theory is false; 3) that theory was also promoted by Vladimir Putin. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 19:47, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• I think you seriously misunderstood the meaning of verifiability and WP:SYN. For example, Ivan Katchanovski himself said in his publication that "7 Georgian self-admitted members of Maidan sniper groups ... stated that their and other groups of the Maidan snipers ... received orders, weapons, and payments from specific members of the Maidan leadership and former Georgian government leaders and commanders to massacre both protesters and the police in order to stop a peaceful agreement that was to be signed by Yanukovych and Maidan leaders.". This is a 100% verifiable (and verified) statement. But is it "the truth"? No, it is not because the claim about "Georgian snipers" was soundly debunked in the publications by Polygraph and BBC. The Polygraph does refer to/makes a links to twits by Stone and Katchanovsky. But can we use the article in BBC [18] to debunk the "theory" about "Georgian snipers", even though this article does not mention Katchanovsky, but only fake "testimonies" he cited? Yes, we can - for as long as we simply say that the BBC article debunked the theory of "Georgian snipers" that appears on the page. We are not going to say that "BBC article criticized Katchanovsky" because it did not. My very best wishes (talk) 22:32, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

  The Polygraph does not refer to Katchanovsky: why do you say such a thing? And you reasoning above nicely shows the dangers of WP:OR and SYNTH, especially when editors are eager to jump to conclusions. Let me ask you two simple questions: how many Georgian snipers, 7 or 3? And why does IK's tweet (re-tweeted by Stone) speak "two more #Georgians"? Why 2 more? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 22:50, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

• You say: "The Polygraph does not refer to Katchanovsky" Here is link to the source (one that you just removed from the page again [19]). It refers to Katchanovsky by making a link to twits by Stone and Katchanovki, exactly as I just said above. The link is just above the words "However, Polygraph.info already debunked this claim". References, figures and links provided by RS are important part of RS. But you was told about this already multiple times on article talk page. The quotation above say "7". If he was saying someone different before, this is not surprising. Claims by proponents of false conspiracy theories frequently contradict each other. My very best wishes (talk) 13:36, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

  Polygraph does not refer to Katchanovsky. It contains an image: the picture of a tweet by Oliver Stone. In that tweet Stone is re-twitting and commenting upon a tweet by Katchanovsky, which by the way contains an entirely accurate information (he says that the Israeli TV has published a documentary about two more snipers stating that they had received orders to shoot). The guy who (according to Polygraph) promoted a false theory on the Georgian snipers is not Katchanovsky, but Oliver Stone (and Putin):

  Putin told Stone that Georgian snipers had been present on Maidan Nezalezhnosti, the central square in Kyiv, “completely ruling out” the possibility that ousted former president Viktor Yanukovych could have used force against the civilian population. Stone himself had previously repeated this claim on social media. However, Polygraph.info already debunked this claim, initially made by an Italian journalist who blamed the Euromaidan killings on Georgian mercenaries operating under the direction of former Georgian Prime Minister Mikhail Saakashvili

  Gitz (talk) (contribs) 14:12, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

No. When a reader looks at the online publication, he can see the statement by Katchanovski directly in the publication online as an image, without even making any additional "clicks". It is a part of the online publication, and an important part that serves as a proof of statements made by Polygraph. Hence, as follows from the Polygraph publications, Katchanovsky supported this theory. But of course the linked quotation on Twitter is not sufficient to understand what exactly Katchanovsky was claiming. One needs additional RS for that, and it is exactly what quotation on article talk page has provided [20]. My very best wishes (talk) 14:39, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Just a comment on the embedded tweet: I'd describe this as a quotation and not an image. Its text is part of the searchable text of the article, and it names IK. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Here is more of Katchanovski pushing this conspiracy theory [21] [22]. The fact that this particular conspiracy theory is inconsistent with his other conspiracy theories is besides the point - conspiracy theories rarely make sense or have logical consistency. Here is someone else describing Katchanovski [23] In closing, I’ll note that there are a lot of other dubious claims made by Katchanovski that I haven’t addressed. For example, he takes seriously the claims of some Georgian ‘protesters’ who supposedly ‘confessed’ inside Russia – to Russian authorities – that they were the snipers.. Now, it’s true that this isn’t Katchanovski’s “main” conspiracy theory, he just throws it in along with all the others, basically trying to muddle the waters. But the fact that he’s pushed is definitely verifiable. Volunteer Marek 20:02, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

Is it? Apart from anything else, could we use The Daily Sceptic as a reliable source? or would it fall under WP:UGC and WP:BLPSPS? Gitz (talk) (contribs) 21:08, 5 January 2023 (UTC)

If I were you, I would use more balanced language, especially when you are speaking about a living person. I personally do not care who was shooting during Maydan events, but when I did this, I found many publications about that "conspiracy theory".

Normally, if many publications can be found via google scholar that discuss "conspiracy theory", that means that theory is not a conspiracy theory (unless this view is being massively criticized by these publications).

Well, let's see how much of criticism can be found in these publications.

The first publication in the list was cited 61 times. Unfortunately, many publications were authored by Katchanovsky himself, which is not good. Some other publications are theses (which I also exclude). I analyze only the articles authored by other scholars (not Katchanovsky) and published in peer-reviewed journals, and my goal is to figure out if they support or debunk Katchanovsky.

• First article is: Volodymyr Ishchenko (2016): Far right participation in the Ukrainian Maidan protests: an attempt of systematic estimation, European Politics and Society, DOI:10.1080/23745118.2016.1154646. The list of journal's editorial board members dispels any doubts in a quality of this publication. The author says:

"Those few authors who tried to prove significance of far right involvement in Maidan protests were usually doing meticulous reconstruction of the most important events of mass violence based on publicly available evidence. Probably, the best example is the work of Ivan Katchanovski who worked through vast amount of published videos, audio-records, witness accounts about 20 February 2014 events known as ‘snipers masscare’ and pointed to involvement of Svoboda and Right Sector activists in a possible false flag operation aimed"

Does the author (Volodymyr Ishchenko) say Katchanovsky's theory is a conspiracy theory? You are free to check this publication and find any claim that may be interpreted in that vein, but I was unable to find this claim.

• Unfortunately, I have no access to Marples' article [24] If someone can drop a quote from it, that would be interesting to see.
• The "Lay adjudication in Europe: The rise and fall of the traditional jury" article is irrelevant: it just cites the article by Katchanovsky as a source for a totally unrelated fact.
• The publication in INTERNATIONAL CRITICAL THOUGHT, a international peer-reviewed journal published by Taylor&Francis (its editorial board can be found here, says

"the detailed research of Ivan Katchanovski shows quite convincingly that the deaths were the work of right wing agitators."

You are free to continue digging through this list, but the information found by me is quite sufficient for the conclusion that Katchanovsky's theory is by no means a conspiracy theory. It is quite possible that it is a minority view, and it may be possible that some new scholarly publications debunked this theory. However, the evidences presented on this talk page (for example, a reference to some government supported web site) are unconvincing.

By saying (without an ironclad evidence) that the living person is engaged in conspiracy theorising, you are discrediting the project as whole, and that is not what we all want. Paul Siebert (talk) 18:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't have access to this article either:

• Marples, David R. (2016-03-16). "Russia's perceptions of Ukraine: Euromaidan and historical conflicts". European Politics and Society. 17 (4). Informa UK Limited: 424–437. doi:10.1080/23745118.2016.1154129. ISSN 2374-5118.

However, in 2014 David R. Marples criticised Katchanovski's paper here [25].

Editors acrive on the talk page (not me) have compiled a list of sources and also written a paragraph, later removed, on the reception of K's theory. For your convinience, I post it here:

The analysis in this paper was cited favourably by scholars including Free University of Berlin's Volodymyr Ishchenko, Richard Sakwa, Cambridge University’s David Lane, Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira, UQAM's David Mandel, and Stephen F. Cohen, and by former diplomat Jack Matlock as well as The Nation, Jacobin, and Jyllands-Posten.. Katchanovski's original paper was criticised by scholars David R. Marples (who called it "not academic", "chaotic" and "politically driven"), University of Calgary's Bohdan Harasymiw, Taras Kuzio and Serhiy Kvit, as well as media outlet The Bulwark.

Among those who apparently accepted K.'s theory, the most surprising is Jack Matlock, former US ambassador to the Soviet Union and an academic at Princeton. Amon the notable authors: Richard Sakwa (Emeritus Professor of Russian and European politics at the University of Kent), Stephen F. Cohen (Professor Emeritus of Politics at Princeton University and New York University) and Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira (Professor of Political Science at São Paulo University, named "Brazilian Intellectual of 2005" by the Unión Brasileña de Escritores, awarded the Order of Rio Branco, the Order of May, and the German Cross of Merit), plus a few non-notable readers at Cambridge and Frei Univerisitaet Berlin (Ishchenko).

My personal view is that Katchanovski's theory is minor but not WP:FRINGE. Sooner or later a discussion at FG/N might be necessary, because we cannot leave the main articles Euromaidan and Revolution of Dignity in the poor conditions they are in now: with regard to the massacre they are a disorderly and unintelligible collection of news reports, all published in the immediate aftermath of the event (i.e., in 2014). We don't even report the findings of the 2015 report of the International Advisory Panel on its review of the Maidan Investigations.

Somewhere in my sandboxes I have a few notes/sources on this (I should ask VM's help to find them ). In re-writing the section I believe we should follow and expand on the balanced approach of D'Anieri, Paul J. (2019). Ukraine and Russia : from civilized divorce to uncivil war. Cambridge, United Kingdom. ISBN 978-1-108-48609-5. OCLC 1097455586.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)

There is considerable speculation concerning who was shooting at whom on February 20. There have been allegations that a “third force” was shooting at both sides, trying to spur on the conflict, from high in the Hotel Ukraina, overlooking Instytutska Street and the Maidan. Some point to Georgians, some to Ukrainians, and some to Russians. The chaos of the day and the intense efforts at disinformation that have ensued have made it impossible to disconfirm these theories. The most sophisticated effort to address the issue, carried out at Carnegie Mellon University, found conclusively that at least some of the protestors on Instytutska Street were killed by Berkut forces on the ground

Final note. I believe all this is off-topic here. Katchanovski's theory is that the shooting were coming from the Maidan-controlled buildings. If he is right, the question "who was in those buildings?" remains open. One possible answer is "Georgian snipers". The text of the article now says that he in 2018 he "promoted" the theory of the Georgian snipers by sharing a tweet that Oliver Stone re-twitted and a newspaper published. It is nonsense and should be removed

Gitz (talk) (contribs) 00:58, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Marples https://doi.org/10.1080/23745118.2016.1154129 does not mention IK in the body. There is a passage describing The Russian version of events in relation to the Maidan, which includes this sentence: Other reports focused on the actions of the Berkut police against demonstrators as an ‘anti-terrorist' campaign (the same term later used by the Ukrainian government to describe the attack on separatists in Donetsk and Luhansk regions) – armed extremists were shooting police officers, aiming for the head or throat, innocent people were murdered, women were humiliated, buildings and cars destroyed. Next to aiming for the head or throat is a footnote, which says: This accusation finds support in the paper by Katchanovski (2015). The full reference for that is: Katchanovski, I. (2015, September 3–6). The ‘sniper massacre’ on the Maidan in Ukraine. Paper prepared for presentation at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, San Francisco, CA. In other words, in this text Marples barely mentions IK in passing, and does not help us determine if this is a conspiracy theory or true. It does help us know that IK is seen as in line with or echoing Russian propaganda. BobFromBrockley (talk) 11:57, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

It is also not "surprising" that Jack F. Matlock Jr. would endorse IK, even if only in passing. Read the last paragraph of his BLP. Like Sakwa, he consistently follows the Russian narrative. In other words, support for IK follows partisan lines.

I also don't think we should give weight to Luiz Alberto Moniz Bandeira here. He had no relevant expertise on the Maidan, Ukraine or criminal investigations of crime scenes, and again should be seen as taking the anti-Western partisan line. BobFromBrockley (talk) 12:04, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

• His theory is not only about "Georgian snipers" or directions of shots. Also, it is not only about something he published in 2015. He continue promoting his theory today. As he claimed most recently, i.e. in 2022 (cited in this section, this is a false flag attack theory, according to which some unnamed "Maidan leaders" gave weapons and payments to the snipers to prevent "a peaceful agreement" between themselves (sic!) and Yanukovich. My very best wishes (talk) 18:51, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

references for 'Ivan Katchanovski's "false theory" on Georgian snipers'

References

Arthur Graaff

This page - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Graaff - consists of fabrications, distortions and half-truths. Books are mentioned that don't exist, the mentioned sources tell a different story than is presented by the compiler of this page, all kinds of family claims are made which are simply not true, and so on and so on.

I suggest that a Wiki veteran who knows Dutch checks every sentence on this page to make the necessary corrections.

The main compiler, "Webnetprof" has a very bad record at nl-wiki, where he is banned indefinitely. See: https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitragecommissie/Zaken/Blokkade_Webnetprof https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Logboeken?type=&user=&page=Arthur+Graaff&wpdate=&tagfilter=&wpfilters%5B%5D=newusers — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.95.90.103 (talk) 14:37, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

User:86.95.90.103 Could you please give an example of something on there that you feel is a distortion, fabrication or half-truth? considering this edit by the IP user [[26]] I would be very reluctant to take their concerns seriously without strong evidence. JeffUK 17:19, 8 January 2023 (UTC)

IP 86.95.90.103 - Bit far-fetched 'comment' ('C'est le ton qui...'). Remarkable in view of the many refs, esp. of the last few days. The Rembrandt-book and the encyclopedia refs don't worry me, neither do the refs to well-established persons/institutions such as Beate Klarsfeld, NYT, Deutschewelle, Yad Vashem or the Simon Wiesenthal Center a.o.. A quick look shows the blockade is from 2013 - looks like digging up old skeletons - don't disturb the dead. Please refrain from undocumented blanket accusations. 2A02:A450:2D2C:1:25E2:317:A86B:7385 (talk) 11:20, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

A few examples:

"In 2012, then German president Gauck recognized Graaff's campaign to get Dutch war criminal Klaas Carel Faber, living freely in Germany, back to prison in Holland.[1]" Note 1: "Interview mit der niederländischen Tageszeitung „Volkskrant" anlässlich des offiziellen Besuchs in den Niederlanden ('Interview with the Dutch daily 'de Volkskrant' in connection with the official visit to the Netherlands')" (in German). 5 May 2012. Retrieved 30 December 2022.

Arthur Graff isn't mentioned at all in that source.

" and had several other relatives who were anti-fascists, among them an uncle who was murdered in the Dachau concentration camp in April 1945.[2]"

Note 2: https://www.oorlogsbronnen.nl/tijdlijn/Christiaan+Graaff/86/3446

Arthur Graaff isn't mentioned at all in that source. In fact: the poor young man wasn't Arthur Graaff's uncle; he was a very distant relative, as can be seen here:

https://www.droog-mag.nl/2020/ag/christiaan-graaff.html#no

https://www.droog-mag.nl/2020/ag/Kwartierstaat-van-Christiaan-Graaff.pdf

https://www.droog-mag.nl/2020/ag/Kwartierstaat-van-Arthur-Graaff.pdf

"Two distant relatives from then Southern Rhodesia, the brothers Dewhurst and Stafford Graaff, fell in action as voluntary pilots in the RAF combating the Nazis. [3]" Note 3: https://www.cwgc.org/find-records/find-war-dead/casualty-details/2952915/dewhurst-graaff/

Yes these two were not relatived to Graaff at all. See: https://www.droog-mag.nl/2020/ag/familieclaims.html#RAF

Then: "He is known for successful campaigns to end the remembrance of Nazi war criminals on the largest Nazi cemetery in Europe (Ysselsteyn 2021), to end an exhibition promoting Nazi design in 2018"

No nazi celebrations or remembrance services were held on that particular military war cemetery, which isn't a Nazi cemetery, just as CWGC cemeteries were RAF bomber crews rest, aren't "war criminal cemeteries". Arthur graaff also didn?'t end a Nazi design exhibition. That particular exhibition in the Design Museum in Den Bosch was even opened on Mondays, because it attracted more audience than expected: https://dtvnieuws.nl/nieuws/artikel/tentoonstelling-nazi-design-in-den-bosch-ook-maandagen-open

The Yad Vashem claim is not substantiated; and yes: Arthur graff attracted some limited international press attention - but that doesn't mean that his actions were succesful. 86.95.90.103 (talk) 17:00, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Take notice:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2A02:A450:2D2C:1:25E2:317:A86B:7385

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1C02:10E:A600:4C74:E0AE:AE1E:7E5A

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/93.117.253.102

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1C02:10E:A600:BC2B:EA24:7378:C634

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1C02:10E:A600:C8F2:15AA:766A:F978 *

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1C02:10E:A600:B0D3:75CF:EB96:566F

All these different IP-addresses were - with one exception - only used to add misleading information on the Arthur Graaff page. Information that can only originate from the subject, who confessed in the past that he uses "Webnetprof" as an alias.

• The one exception is this page, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinrich_Boere , where https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/2001:1C02:10E:A600:C8F2:15AA:766A:F978 added:

"The editor of the Dutch WW-II-site Nieuws-wo2, Arthur Graaff, covered all court sessions, interviewed the judge and prosecutor, and wrote a blog about the trial, called 'Aken Blog'. His father, a former Nazi-prisoner, lent him his car, and paid for the travel and lodging

This ""Dutch WW-II-site was a very marginal thing, hardly worth mentioning. 86.95.90.103 (talk) 19:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The article was originally written by user Webnetprof who has admitted he is Arthur Graaff. I have made several edits, correcting and removing things that had source references that did not support the article text. Several of these have since been undone. I don't want to get involved in edit war, nor do I want to spend the time on this article that is full of lies, exaggerations, half-truths, and fantasies. Advice on how to proceed is welcome. Wammes Waggel (talk) 19:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Even ignoring the CoI issues, there are significant problems with the Graaff biography - notably a great deal of unsourced content, including some claims about legal proceedings. Given the issues raised here, I wonder whether it might be wise to at minimum draftify the article, and remove all the unsourced negative/positive content. As for anything that actually cites a source, it probably needs looking at by a Dutch speaker. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:01, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I am a native speaker of Dutch, and corrected/removed several statements citing a source. However, Webnetprof et. al. have undone at least part of my edits. So that does not help. Wammes Waggel (talk) 21:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Now at AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Arthur Graaff. AndyTheGrump (talk) 09:44, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

References

User:Joaziela

Regarding these edits: [27], [28],

and these replies: User talk:Joaziela#January 2023, Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#swastika-armband, User talk:GizzyCatBella#Nazi Ukraine historical negationism in Anti-Ukrainian sentiment plus Joaziela contributions at Talk:Anti-Ukrainian sentiment

 // Timothy :: talk  17:19, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue Please describe the issue - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:28, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't want to repeat the content, but I think above mentioned article contributions are poorly or unsourced additions of serious claims to a highly visible page. I think Joaziela's replies also contain poor or unsourced material about a LP and their replies show a strong POV they are unwilling to let go despite multiple editors responding to them.  // Timothy :: talk  17:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Material is sourced (it did happen), however, the way Joaziela composed it, is problematic from NPOV point of view and in my opinion, it’s WP:UNDUE. - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:47, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@TimothyBlue

Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada without taking part in discussion, with no explanation you deleted the information, it’s look like propaganda, Wikipedia is not a place for such a behaviors. You said that it’s poorly sourced, the official statement of Ukrainian parliament it’s poor or 3 websites articles from 3 different countries that I put are poor... Facts are that Commander-in-Chief promote Stepan Bandera, it was officialy promoted by Ukrainian parliament, that been international scandal mostly in Poland and Islael, because Bandera is a part of Volhynia genocide of 200 000 Jews and Poles, and they deleted it, but in internet nothing disappeared and also censorship and propaganda shouldn’t happen on Wikipedia, it’s like historical negationism this shouldn’t happen Joaziela (talk) 17:50, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@Joaziela The bottom line is you need consensus for your desired additions and you don’t have it right now. (see talk page of the article) - GizzyCatBella🍁 17:53, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Joaziela also seems fond of making personal attacks in their replies.  // Timothy :: talk  17:46, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBellaabout it weight, imagine some German general or maybe minister of defense is taking selfie with Hitler picture, then Bundestag put it on it's Twitter. Would it be a huge scandal? Yes, it it as well with Ukraine so yeah it very wort mentioning Joaziela (talk) 17:56, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

The coverage of the incident was narrow because the picture was quickly removed, and the photo was not posted by Zaluzhnyj himself but by someone from the Verkhovna Rada. We don’t know who posted it. Look, this happened, it was a minor incident and I don’t think it’s worth mentioning it in the BIO article. That’s all. - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:07, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Again German analogy: “Federal Ministry of Defence (Germany) publish selfie with Hitler portrait, this been retweeted by Bundestag official account” it was for a long time at Commander account, then also at parliament, official ones. When it’s get to some serious people it get removed. But also what the difference how long it was there, important it that Commander took the photo with war criminal and publish it and it was also published by parliament https://twitter.com/Dispropoganda/status/1610003321288548352 and the coverage wasn’t so narrow, maybe also it was narrow it down, because before it was the same guy that had something swastika-like and it’s really not making good PR for Zaluzhny, but Wikipedia it’s not about creating good PR for anyone (during war or not), but publish facts, and the fact is how it’s stays and made international scandal and if you still don’t get it please get back to German analogy Joaziela (talk) 18:23, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Once again to emphasize enough: it’s scandal enough that he took selfie with genocide criminal, publishing and than promoted by parliament account are just huge unbelievable further scandals and any try of silence it is genocide denial and historical negationism Joaziela (talk) 18:31, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, enough, you don’t need to repeat yourself (please) - GizzyCatBella🍁 18:38, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

So please discuss on topic Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada on content, substantively, not attack me. From what you write I understand you mean that Bandera is not a war criminal and selfies with him are okay, you didn’t put any of arguments for that claim. Instead again you decided to attack me on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Joaziela and personal attacks really please stop bullying me and discuss on matter in talk, not on me Joaziela (talk) 19:10, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

Quote - you mean that Bandera is not a war criminal and selfies with him are okay - I didn’t say that.🤦🏻‍♀️ - GizzyCatBella🍁 19:15, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

After my “Germany analogy” you said in that discussion only: “Bandera is not Hitler (not even close)”, with emphasis on underscore on “not even close”.

Not even close mean opposite, opposite to war criminal is hero. And because there are some opinions like that in Ukraine. Even gives Bandera Hero of Ukraine order (you might again say “quickly removed”). And you didn’t participate in discussion on subject, but go with crusade against me personally creating 2 discussion topics- I might understand it like you also think Bandera is a hero and it’s nothing wrong with Commander of Ukraine army taking selfie and publish and later parliament. I ask you in discussion what you mean by that, you have to admit only saying “Bandera is not Hitler (not even close)” is little disturbing, because war criminal is close to war criminal, of course proportional, but genocide is genocide Joaziela (talk) 20:29, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

There seems to be some sort of a communication breakdown here. Are you using Google Translate or something? I'm not commenting on the specific issue that has you all worked up. However, I do think there is a lot of meaning being lost in your translation. For example, the phrase "not even close" does not mean "opposite". "Not even close" is an idiom, which means "used to to highlight a large disparity between someone or something and the other people or things concerned." For example, "A wolverine is not even close to a bear." It doesn't mean they are opposites. It simply means there are great differences between them.

I don't see anyone here that is arguing with you. So why are you arguing with them? As far as I see, they are saying that the way you worded it is not good for an English encyclopedia, and I agree. (Maybe good for Russian Wikipedia, but not for English, because it sounds emotional and unprofessional.) As far as I can tell, everyone is saying that the information probably does deserve mention, but we need to be more careful to say it properly in English, and we need to follow the WP:NPOV policy and give it proper weight. That all needs serious discussion to figure out. You need to go to the article's talk page and discuss it like civilized adults, and not get so emotional about it. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the last point made by Zaereth about going to the article's talk page (with a caveat: Russian Wikipedia is generally good-quality and no more emotional and unprofessional than us). However, we can't blame Joaziela for being emotional and invite them to discuss on the talk page since they were the ones who opened a discussion there; the editor who reverted them didn't reply on the article's talk page but opened no less than two threads here and at WP:AN/I. So being a bit upset is not at all surprising in these circumstances... It's clear that there was no BLP violation: the edits were likely UNDUE, but the sources were adequate and the wording not offensive. This discussion is over the top. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 01:44, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Wat, wat, wait. You misunderstand me. I'm not saying that Russian Wikipedia is emotional or unprofessional. I'm saying that the way Joaziela phrases things, like the omission of things like articles and prepositions, these things are perfectly good syntax in Russian, but when too literally translated into English it then comes off as emotional and unprofessional. Without any vocal tones or facial expressions, all we have is the connotations of our words to convey emotion, so even in fluent English the emotions are exaggerated by the reader, so we have to be very careful when we choose our words. This tends to happen a hundred-fold more when translating something too literally from another language; the emotions often come off far, far stronger than intended. Zaereth (talk) 02:00, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

You're right! sorry for my misunderstanding about ru.wiki. Gitz (talk) (contribs) 02:02, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

No problem. The thing to keep in mind is that it's a two-way street. It's quite likely that Joaziela is reading some hostility in the above replies that was also never intended, so I think it's important for everyone to take that all into consideration, on both sides. Wars have been fought over simple miscommunications. (That's the reason dictionaries were invented in the first place.) Everyone can all work together if we just stop letting the language barrier work against us. Zaereth (talk) 02:36, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Really, please don’t patronize me. Yeah, I’m too emotional woman who don’t speak English, is payed by Putin to edit Russian Wikipedia (sarcasm). I had to admit I get little to emotional (nothing to do with being a woman) and answered to quick from phone. And I don’t know the language- the Wikipedia jargon. That my biggest sin for sure.

@TimothyBlue and @GizzyCatBella focus on opened a thread on BLP and ANI to roast me not discuss at topics talk at all.

“Not even close” matter: it is encyclopedia, not a feuilleton. It’s not place for idiom, rhetoric and jokes. We only writing, you had your miscommunication above and you been communicate. @TimothyBlue and @GizzyCatBella don’t used topic, but created new thread personal about me. I could feel attacked and censored.

Attention! I really gonna play rhetoric big: “Not even one Israeli died in the Holocaust” (sic!) and technically it’s true, The Holocaust till 1945 and you could be citizen of State of Israel only from 1948. But if you read such a thing you would think you read Holocaust denialist.

David Irving belief even that Hiter knew nothing of the Holocaust, some Ukrainians have positief feels for Bandera. But common sense and international consensus is that Hitler knew about Holocaust and Bandera is involved in killing Jews and Poles at Volhynia.

Genocide it’s not to joke about. Bandera had Volhynia genocide, as Hitler had Holocaust. @GizzyCatBella could go idiom “not even close” again, but it’s not competition how is “greatest genocider by numbers”! Some will say that Hitler is also not even close by numbers to Mao Zedong- but genocide is genocide, not a competition.

But the matter is lack of communication, not participate in topics talk, delete someone’s work without arguing and roasting on creating BLP and ANI.

If you assume my syntax and passport it’s not Russian, Ukrainian or Polish, but really it’s encyclopedia and there shouldn’t be any national point of view and surely no genocider competition, but also no historical negationism and denial. More dialogue on subject which is again here Talk:Valerii Zaluzhnyi#Bandera and Verkhovna Rada with a lot of sources and again another for of proposed text. Not roasting by starting new thread Joaziela (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Listen, Joaziela, I don't know your gender, nor do I care. I'm not sure why you are bringing it up, but it has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I'm not patronizing you. I'm saying that you do not seem to be understanding what we are saying, as indicated by your replies. For example, your tendency to argue with people who are agreeing with you. I am saying one thing and you seem to be misinterpreting it as something completely different. It's called a a communication breakdown. We are talking right past each other, not to each other. Zaereth (talk) 20:19, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

This goes beyond undue weight and is verging into disinformation and demonization. Maybe you’re not familiar with the subject, but on the other hand all the info is in Wikipedia.

Bandera did not commit the massacres of Poles and was not a “genocide criminal.” He was not a Nazi party member. He was not Hitler. He did commit terrorist acts in Poland before the war, and he was also a freedom fighter because he tried to establish a Ukrainian state for which the Nazis put him in a concentration camp, and the Soviets assassinated him. He was an extremist, but he was one of few Ukrainian figures with agency because the genocidal extremist Nazis and especially the genocidal extremist communists outlawed and murdered any Ukrainian community leaders that didn’t already have an underground network when they started the war by destroying Poland.

He’s a controversial figure in Ukraine, and one thing Ukrainians do is use him to bait the “Ruscists,” because it gives them conniption fits. After the 2014 invasion there was an “I am Bandera” campaign that a lot of Ukrainian security services participated in because they were sick of being labelled “LGBT Jewish Nazi drug addicts” by Russian propaganda.

If you refuse to understand the context, don’t expect other editors to humour you.  —Michael Z. 22:29, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure who you're responding to, but I'll assume it's me. I don't know the context, and I don't see that it really matters at this point, because the disputed sentence is: "On January 1, 2023 posted a selfie with a portrait of Nazi Ukraine hero Stepan Bandera (celebrated the 114th anniversary of the birth of ultra-nationalist and antisemite whose followers engaged in a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Jews and Poles during World War II as Volhynia genocide), retweeted by Ukrainian parliament Verkhovna Rada account, deleted after strong international criticism." is practically nonsensical. It comes off as bordering on patent nonsense. What is it supposed to mean? Who cares? It should have been deleted for the simple fact that it makes no sense. That needs to be fixed before we can ever get into discussions of context, disinformation or weight. I should be able to tell what this means by simply reading it, without having to click on all the wikilinks and go reading up on all the background information. As written, it's just gibberish. As such, it's not really a BLP issue, but I was hoping to help those involved see that nobody seems to be communicating properly with the other. The replies are, as they say in Latin, non-sequitur --They do not follow. This is the English Wikipedia, so contributors at least need a competent understanding of the language to be able to contribute and hammer out solutions. Zaereth (talk) 23:04, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

I was responding to Joaziela’s comment starting with “Once again to emphasize enough.” I find their argumentation objectionable because they repeatedly decry “historical negation” while at the same time investing themselves in revisionism by continually falsely demonizing Bandera as “genocidal.” A debater conducting themselves thus should be disregarded.  —Michael Z. 23:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it's like Benedict Arnold. Is he a traitor or is he a hero? It all depends on who you ask. Americans would say traitor, while Canadians would say hero. (Mexicans would say "Benedict Who?") Who is right? That is not for us to say. We simply report what is found in reliable, secondary sources. We do this, not indiscriminately, but by weighing all the sources against each other and apportioning the article accordingly. It's really very mathematical, dealing in percentages and all, and you can picture it as something like a pie chart. And we try to do this all with a neutral (non-passionate) tone, meaning we don't use a lot of emotionally charged adjectives and adverbs to describe these things. (Third-person objective mode.) We don't need to get into matters of who is right and who is wrong. This is not a place to carry on these disputes. We just report them. Zaereth (talk) 01:52, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Was Benedick Arnold a fascist leader and convicted terrorist? 🙂 - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:56, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Zaereth 🤫 - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:57, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Not for me to decide. Check the sources. These discussions need to be about the sources and not our own personal conclusions or judgments. Zaereth (talk) 02:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Zaereth I just asked you a simple question. It was you who compared Bandera to Arnold (🤦🏻‍♀️), not me 🙂. - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Is your point that it’s okay to spread lies about Bandera but not Arnold in discussions? Because that is the point being discussed. No one said they’re the same. (Or maybe they both committed genocide, eh?)  —Michael Z. 03:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac what do you mean spread lies about Bandera? What are you talking about ? GizzyCatBella🍁 03:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac Oh, I know what you mean.. because Bandera was in German jail while his pal from his organization was slaughtering thousands of civilians, (mainly woman and children 🤫), then Bandera has nothing to do with that genocide. Got it. 👍 - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:34, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac you said above - because he (Bandera) tried to establish a Ukrainian state - what kind of Ukrainian state 🤫? GizzyCatBella🍁 03:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Please allow me to clarify. I have no freakin' clue who Bandera is. I haven't bothered to look at his article yet because there is no point in getting that far into this discussion at this stage. Therefore, there is no way I could be comparing Arnold to him/her. Perhaps there is a third possibility; something else I'm comparing? I see no need to dig that far because this is a very simple fix at this point. This is all about a nonsensical statement that Joaziela added. Deleting that statement was the right thing simply because it was patent nonsense, meaning that all the words are understandable but when put together like that they are unintelligible. Now I have no dog in this fight. I am here solely because I monitor this noticeboard, but I see no problem here that is anything other than a simple content dispute at best, and therefore this is not the place to work it out. I was trying to help, but it's just talking in circles. Zaereth (talk) 03:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Zaereth 👍🙂 - GizzyCatBella🍁 03:21, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella I got your number. Someone who shows up to openly defend any lies as long as they shit on Ukrainians and anything Ukrainian as “Nazi” and “genocide,” and then throw in some ha ha, wink wink, smiley smiley. —Michael Z. 04:27, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not some open forum for people to come soapbox about their personal opinions. If you have sources that show these are "lies" then great. Please discuss them and we can add it to the article. If others have sources saying they are not lies, then great, We can add that to the article too. Nobody cares if you judge them to be lies. Nobody cares if I judge them, or any other Wikipedian. We are nobodys, so the world doesn't care what we think about this subject. All people are doing here is giving a lot of talk but saying nothing of substance. At this point, I think someone should just close down this discussion, because it has gone off the rails and is completely unproductive. Maybe this is a good candidate for Arbcom. Seems like an area where some discretionary sanctions are warranted. Zaereth (talk) 05:11, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Zaereth You said you know nothing about Bandera. If the subject sparked your interest, here is a straightforward recap, worth reading.- GizzyCatBella🍁 05:58, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

The text article is not a problem. @Joaziela and @GizzyCatBella are knowingly repeating disinformation in discussions, including these notice boards. It has the effect of normalizing the false demonization of Ukrainians as “Nazis” and committing “genocide.” It contributes to this becoming a haven for hate speech.  —Michael Z. 15:10, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac - ''GizzyCatBella knowingly repeating disinformation" Please strike it or back it up with a diff. Thanks - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:16, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@GizzyCatBella please strike or delete your innuendo supporting Joaziela’s falsehoods and I will alter my responses accordingly.  —Michael Z. 15:29, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac diff please - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:33, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I’ll not indulge you by rehashing and bargaining over the details. Please just strike or delete the offensive language.  —Michael Z. 16:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

@Mzajac This is important detail. You accused me of:

• knowingly repeating disinformation
• openly defend lies

I’m asking you to back your serious accusations with diffs, so I can understand where I was knowingly misinforming and spreading lies. You refuse. So now what? - GizzyCatBella🍁 16:42, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Alba Baptista

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

---

Hi, the Chris Evans stans are out in force vandalizing her page again. I fixed one issue but y'all know they're persistent. Can it be protected? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:14D:457F:1BC0:7D5D:163C:A7DC:77C7 (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

Vandalism reverted and protected for two months. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 21:07, 7 January 2023 (UTC)

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

Olivia Wensley

Hello,

I'm the subject of the "Olivia Wensley" page and there's reference to libellous claims made by two of my political opponents.

I believe the inclusion and the emphasis on my Father in Law in the article is unfair - I'm not linked to him professionally whatsoever. I had no involvement in his businesses, and was in high school at the time and didn't know him.

I was the subject of a smear campaign concerted by two of my opponents, this was later proven to be based on misinformation.

Further information here https://crux.org.nz/crux-news/lewers-mayoral-campaign-shown-to-contain-serious-misinformation-police-involved/

Last line - I never "retracted" my comments re suing for defamation and libel due to a smear campaign. I absolutely reserve my rights and still have grounds to sue if I choose to.

I note that some of the recent contributions seem to be linked to an IP of a party who is involved with one of my opponents in the campaign.

I've been subject to harassment by these people for months now and it seems to be continuing even though the election is over.

I'd really appreciate if someone could please make the article more balanced and fair.

Many thanks! 🙏 Olivia — Preceding unsigned comment added by OliviaWensley (talk • contribs) 22:11, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Hello Ms. Wensley -- I have gone ahead and changed the line about retraction, as I agree that was not what the source actually said. I am afraid I have bad news insofar as it appears to me (from afar) that your Father in Law was, in fact, an issue in the campaign rightly or wrongly. I think the relationship needs at least a passing mention, but it is certainly possible others disagree with me. I also need to do some more reading, but will continue as I am able. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

For a start you need to find a better source than Crux, which has recently been quite heavily censured by the Media Council in QLDC-related matters (see paragraph 21 near the end of https://www.mediacouncil.org.nz/rulings/andrew-tipene-against-crux-publishing/ ). But the other thing to consider is whether you really want Wikipedia to have an article on you. Mayors of Queenstown tend to not be notable enough for Wikipedia article - the last Mayor of Queenstown to be notable enough was Warren Cooper, who was also a former Cabinet minister. A quick hunt in Google tells me that a good proportion of articles about yourself also mention your father-in-law. If you'd rather there wasn't an article about yourself on Wikipedia, you may nominate the article about yourself for deletion from Wikipedia - note that this is no reflection upon your character, just that your achievements don't yet warrant a Wikipedia article. Daveosaurus (talk) 12:09, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Sona Patel

A request was filed at the Dispute Resolution Noticeboard by an IP editor stating that she is Sona Patel, and that the information contained in the article Sona Patel contains incorrect information. See Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Unites_States_of_America. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:45, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

I removed the info that was cited solely to medical board findings as a clear violation of BLPPRIMARY. I haven't looked into any of the other sources, except to see that they were all secondary sources. Zaereth (talk) 22:55, 9 January 2023 (UTC)

Annette McCarthy

ISPs have been adding her death although this is based on a dubious Reddit post. This led to the page being semied. Now experienced editors are trying to add her death. More eyes would be appreciated to determine whether or not her death can be reliably added. Thanks. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Do you have evidence that the origin of this was a Reddit post? On the contrary, McCarthy's friends seem to have been posting about her death on Facebook and Twitter for days now. Hollywood exec/producer/voice artist Steve Lee (who was her best friend) here for example, but there are plenty. Nobody seems to be refuting reports of her death. The Polish film news site that I cited on her page isn't the strongest, but it does pass WP:RS and we should be aware of unconscious bias – the language doesn't matter, it's still a report of death. McCarthy was a supporting actress with a career that flatlined some time ago. I wouldn't expect Deadline, the Hollywood Reporter etc. to pick up on this, and for that reason I think we need measure our expectations on how widely it will be reported beyond a few corners of the net i.e. social media posts, Twin Peaks fan sites, some minor film and TV publications. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 18:10, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

This is the first reporting of her death. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:15, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

That's incorrect. The origin of this doesn't appear to be Reddit at all. Lynchland posted an in memoriam for her here and they said the news was broken on the Instagram page of Annette McCarthy's son. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 18:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The Reddit post came before the Lynchland post. It was posted earlier on the 8th. Lynchland didn't post until 11pm. All I am saying is that with BLPs, we need to be 100% sure that the person has died. The problem with relying on SM is that people will post having seen something like the Reddit post (or even having seen it on Wikipedia!) saying RIP, and these things spiral. Some RS even pick up on those posts. That why caution is always best. If others feel that there is enough for us to report her death, I am happy with that. Let's see what others think. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:24, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

You're digging this hole deeper and deeper. Here is the Instagram post from her son. Reported before the Reddit post (look at the time stamp), and he says his mother died the day before. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 18:26, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

It's not a matter of digging. It's a matter of being absolutely sure. The Reddit post was the earliest I saw. The Insta post is indeed earlier and should be sufficient. As I said, if others are happy that the various SM posts are sufficient verification, that's fine. I just wanted other opinions. Lard Almighty (talk) 18:34, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I wouldn't rely on twitter of facebook for anything, and especially anything of this nature. That goes for reddit too. It may be posted by friends and family, but that doesn't make it necessarily true. I think that's how Elvis faked his death. (That's a joke, but the point still stands.) It could be a hoax or some sick joke, but if the friends and family really wanted to make it "official" they could just as easily submit an obituary to the local newspapers. Newspapers won't post an obit without doing some fact checking to at least be sure the person is really dead. Unless a death is reported in a reliable, secondary source then I would strongly suggest erring on the side of caution and leaving it out. We need to be very certain that the reports are not exaggerated. It can be a very traumatic experience to find out you've been declared dead on Wikipedia before your time, but there is no harm whatsoever in having an article that simply hasn't reported a death for lack of good sources.

One thing, however, that I don't think a lot of people realize, is that newspapers don't automatically print obituaries for people when they die. It is up to those family and friends to submit the obit to the papers, so in many cases we may never have a source that acknowledges a person's death. In such cases, I don't think we can acknowledge it either, but if those friends and family are making a big deal of wanting us to report it, then my suggestion to them would be to submit an obit to the newspapers. EZPZ. Zaereth (talk) 20:31, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd note that the issues here seem very similar to #Does/should ABOUTSELF extend to death confirmation via official channel? except in this case the people are posting on their own profile/channel/page rather than on something nominally representing the deceased. Nil Einne (talk) 12:16, 11 January 2023 (UTC)

Annette's Facebook page is here. She last posted in December and the content suggests she was living with cancer. I imagine this caused her death. It's looking doubtful that anymore obituaries will come given that her son stated in his Instagram post tribute that they are seeking to shun publicity around her death. Very sad, but some families have very private ways of grieving. In my opinion, the sources currently being used for her death are sufficient but we have nothing which gives the cause. Maybe this will come out one day via a Twin Peaks related channel, so worth watching out for. Thanks --Jkaharper (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

William Figg

• William Douglas Figg Sr. (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Could I get some more eyes on this? Figg (probably) meets WP:N but the whole tenor of the artice has a promo/copyvio/coi whiff and a (Maryland) IP is edit-warring to retain unsourced content. Bon courage (talk) 19:17, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, it reads like a resume. Kind of a wordy resume, but a resume nonetheless. There are a lot of telltale signs that this article was written by the subject, or someone very close to the subject. I'm not seeing much in the way of notability. I mean, we have a lot of primary sources yet it doesn't look like any secondary sources have decided to write about him, except for a campus newspaper. It looks like it will need a lot of clean up, and possibly (once reduced to what is found in the sources) there may not be much left. Zaereth (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that they're notable, not finding significant coverage in a quick google and there isn't any currently on the page. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 20:53, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

The IP isn't the only odd actor, the creator is a SPA and I'm seeing a long history of problematic IP edits. On deeper investigation we are almost certainly dealing with bad faith editing from the subject. Note that the IP travels with them, for example the IP registered to the University of Buckingham which made the unsourced addition that the subject was now studying at the University of Buckingham. [29] Horse Eye's Back (talk) 21:03, 10 January 2023 (UTC)

Chad Hower

• Chad Hower (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• See also Mary Beth Buchanan#United States vs. Chad Z. Hower (2009)

The subject has been indicted but not convicted. WP:BLPCRIME/WP:CRIME? Perhaps it should be converted to an article about the case, but coverage appears to be limited: a couple stories in the Erie Times-News this year about extradition, and apparently an Associated Press story (via Pittsburgh Post-Gazette) from 2009 when the indictment was issued, all cited in the article. WP:NOTNEWS? I couldn't decide whether to move it, nominate it for AFD, leave it alone... so I'm posting here in the hopes someone else will do something if anything needs to be done. :-) Thanks, Levivich (talk) 04:14, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

it will remain forever because Wikipedia now exists to document everything ever written and anything less is decried as 'whitewashing' or 'memory-holing'. --Animalparty! (talk) 16:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the article is not quite a WP:G10, because even though most of the article appeared to contravene WP:BLPCRIME for this non-public figure (and also WP:BLPPRIVACY), there are a few primary sources and lines of content remaining for a neutral version of an article, so I have added a notability and primary sources tag. I also removed the content per WP:BLPCRIME from the Mary Beth Buchanan article [30]. Courtesy ping to Mattdaviesfsic, who accepted this at AfC. Beccaynr (talk) 00:45, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Kenneth Einar Himma

This is a pretty clear vanity biography. He was apparently an associate professor at a university for a short period and then became a lecturer in legal philosophy at a law school. But he doesn't show on the law school's faculty and adjunct faculty pages, and the link is dead. Is Wiki going to include every former adjunct lecturer in America? His first claim to being published is that he has opinion pieces published in the Seattle Times. He also is on advisory board for a number of non-notable publications in his field. There just does not seem to be anything truly notable about the subject. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.124.88.234 (talk) 23:32, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Chris DeRose (author)

User CatBearMouseLion, who apparently has no interest in any other page, has twice vandalized this page in recent days and violated Wikipedia's policy on living persons.

First, it's a violation of neutrality. The long litany of edits are uniformly negative, and where accompanied by a citation do not support the sensationalist, scandalous summary provided by the editor.

For example: the article is edited to describe DeRose as an "interim" clerk of the superior court, rather than "clerk." There is no such thing as an "interim" clerk. Here's the clerk's website: "Chris DeRose became the Clerk of the Superior Court for Maricopa County in March 2018." https://www.clerkofcourt.maricopa.gov/home/showpublisheddocument/10/637075068667370000

Accusing someone of lying about their job title is potentially defamatory.

The editor insists on the colloquial, negative introductory line that "DeRose has run for office at least three times, and failed all of those times." That's not in Wikipedia style, not neutral, and it's not appropriate for an introductory paragraph.

The editor dismisses a positive book review from Human Events by attacking its ideology (unsourced) and ownership by the same publisher as DeRose's first book (also unsourced). Suggesting the reviewer published a false book review because of a common corporate ownership of an otherwise unrelated entity is potentially defamatory.

These are but a few examples of the potentially defamatory, viewpoint negative, and unsourced claims.

CatBearMouseLion obviously has a personal interest in going after the subject and should be prohibited from further vandalizing the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buryjunk (talk • contribs) 23:45, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

User:Buryjunk I think you would do well to read WP:OWN and WP:Conflict Wikipedia:Consensus, I note that despite claiming the other editor has 'only an interest in that one article' you neglect to mention that you created it and barely edit anything unrelated to DeRose either. Please engage with the other editor in the talk page, assuming good faith, rather than accusing them of having a 'vendetta'. Courtesy ping to User:CatBearMouseLion JeffUK 08:56, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Aga Syed Mohsin

My request is regarding the wiki article Aga Syed Mohsin about a prominent religious and political leader in Kashmir (India). From past one month approximately someone is constantly editing this article by adding local abusive words. We tried to re edit the article and we succeeded to remove those derogatory words however those words can still be seen in the search panel.It is emotionally draining to see that a person like him who had always tried to help people, can disturb somebody's mental health to an extent that every morning they'll make sure they use whatever dirt their minds have accumulated during their entire useless life to defame him. I believe the Wiki team will look into the matter and protect the page from further editing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SyedaMoosavi (talk • contribs) 11:54, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Josette Simon

See this recent discussion. TomDale90, who is a representative of Josette Simon's, has been told of the COI and BLP policies and is now asking if the year of birth could be removed from the lead and infobox, and just left in the first paragraph of the body. Quoting their talk page: it is very common for actors to want to keep birth date info private because we know from experience that it can and does interfere with casting opportunities so there are real world reasons other than security for wanting to keep the info private. If we just have the birthdate in the Early Life section, the information is there for people who want it however it would not show up on the first page of Google in the little paragraph. Would that be possible?

I'm sure this is true, and I can see that doing this would not completely remove the information, but I see nothing in WP:DOB that talks about this, and I can't see any policy justification for removing it. I have little experience with BLPs, but I would guess this has come up before. Are there any prior discussions about this? I would imagine a lot of actresses who pass 30 or 35 would like the same thing done to their articles. As far as I can see the answer is no, but I'd like to cite precedent or policy in telling Tom that. Pinging Hemiauchenia and JeffUK who commented in the earlier discussion. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

As someone who is quick to remove uncited DOBs and YOBs, I can't think of a WP-good reason to do this considering the cites, lead and infobox is how we do it, prettymuch. IMO removing from there would be to go further than WP:BLPKIND. It would not, in the general or specific, improve WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 14:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't see any reason to not remove it from the lead, Simon's age is not particularly important to the article and excluding it from the lead won't harm readability. Nothing in any policy says we must include any particular information; as the subject has specifically mentioned it's causing harm for some reason and is only asking for a small compromise of moving it down from the lead to alleviate that percieved harm; I think it would be the kind thing to do. JeffUK 15:14, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I didn't know about BLPKIND, but I agree this doesn't seem like too much to do, since the information stays in the article. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 15:49, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Fair enough. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:12, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

I empathise with the age discrimination concerns by the BLP subject, but at the same time, I'm not sure how much removing her age from the lead of the article will actually effect the employment opportunities of the subject. I don't feel strongly one way or the other about the matter. Hemiauchenia (talk) 16:17, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, I've removed it from the lead and infobox as there seem to be no objections. Thanks. Mike Christie (talk - contribs - library) 16:43, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

She is widely known 'in the business' to have joined Blake's 7 in 1980, shortly after leaving 'Central', followed by prominent busy periods on stage TV and film in the '80s and early '90s. So practically everyone in casting is going to know within about 12 months her DoB anyway. Pincrete (talk) 10:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I think the main difference is that people putting "Josette Simon" into google now see "Josette Simon OBE, is a British actress" rather than "Josette Simon OBE, (Born 1960), is a British actress", The tradition of having to report everyone's age as soon as you mention them is a bit of an anachronism in my opinion. JeffUK 10:16, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Paul Dunmall .external link to webpage

The website link to Paul Dunmall is fraudulent and possibly dangerous in terms of spam etc. It is listed as pauldunmall.com https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Dunmall — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C7:CA81:8801:24D8:B06B:408B:8516 (talk) 15:56, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

• Removed url. In future, if you encounter something like this, feel free to delete it yourself, stating why in the edit summary. BubbaJoe123456 (talk) 16:00, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Anti-Armenian sentiment

I would appreciate it if someone could review the probable BLP problem in the Anti-Armenian sentiment article. The IP and then one user continue to restore extraordinary claims about a living person. The concerns that sources do not support the assertion and lack the needed credibility to back extraordinary claim against living person (See the Talk-Page). A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 16:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I have already warned this particular user elsewhere that their editing may be construed as WP:NATIONALIST given the consistent promotion of Armenians and denigration of Azerbaijanis. This appears to be an WP:ADVOCACY/WP:SPA issue. Thebiguglyalien (talk) 16:41, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reply. Any suggestion on what actions I should take? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 16:54, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is a BLP issue, as there has been a conviction in this case. However the sources used don't seem completely reliable, and the details of a single case is likely WP:UNDUE in that article. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:39, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, there was conviction. However, Is it not BLP issue to claim something that is not supported by the conviction and sources? A b r v a g l ^(PingMe) 22:02, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Verbatim from one of the sources There they got acquainted with a man; and during the conversation it was found out that his mother is Armenian. Subsequently, the accomplices kidnapped, beat, and robbed this man. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Again I don't believe the inclusion is due, or the sourcing that reliable. But it is supported by those sources. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 23:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

BLPvio against groups (soldiers)?

The extent to which the BLP policy applies to edits about groups is complex and must be judged on a case-by-case basis. A harmful statement about a small group or organization comes closer to being a BLP problem than a similar statement about a larger group; and when the group is very small, it may be impossible to draw a distinction between the group and the individuals that make up the group.
— WP:BLPGROUP

Is this quote, in Sexual violence in the 2022 Russian invasion of Ukraine, a WP:BLP problem?

"When we surrendered Lyman, we slaughtered everyone out there, f**king khokhols [a derogatory Russian term for Ukrainians]... We raped them, slaughtered them, shot them. In Lyman and Torske, we just walked around shooting everyone. All the men who were younger were taken to us out there, and the women, young ones: they were all f**ked, slaughtered, shot."

References

I don't know how big the group is that is referred to as "we". The quote is from a recording of a phone call released to the media by Ukrainian Security Services. Thanks, Levivich (talk) 21:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Wait, so Levivich thinks that we cannot include info on Russian forces committing rape, despite the fact that this is covered in hundreds of reliable sources and in fact is the very topic of the relevant article because ... it's ... a ... BLPVIO ... against ... "Russian soldiers"? Wow. ... .... ... Wow. Volunteer Marek 21:37, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

No, Marek, I do not think we cannot include "info on Russian forces committing rape", obviously. I'm talking about this particular quote, which says a specific group of soldiers at a particular place and time committed specific war crimes. Levivich (talk) 21:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

So, you think that quoting Russian soldiers talking about raping Ukrainians, sourced reliably, is a "BLPVIO" against "Russian soldiers". This specific group, of these specific soldiers, whoever they may be, are reported to have committed rape. What in the world does this have to do with BLP? Volunteer Marek 21:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

"John and I just walked around shooting everyone." Would including that quote in an article be a BLPvio? Yeah, probably, as to John. The question is whether "soldiers surrendering Lyman" is too large of a group to implicate BLP or not (and whether that is the relevant group). Levivich (talk) 21:50, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Who's "John"? Volunteer Marek 21:51, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

That's an example, like for any named person. "[Some living person] and I just walked around shooting everyone" would be a BLP issue if we included such a quote in an article, would it not? So replace "[some living person]" with "[some group of people]", and, per BLPGROUP, it might be a BLP vio or not depending on the size of the group and other circumstances... a case-by-case analysis, as quoted above. Levivich (talk) 21:53, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

BLP says to 'Seriously consider not including allegations about people who are not in the public eye,' not that they must be excluded at all costs. I'm normally VERY conservative about this rule, but I would say that a published confession by the accused would convince me to include their name in an article. This being 'an anonymous soldier' makes it even less concerning for me. JeffUK 13:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't believe BLP would apply to "Russian forces", it's just to large a group. However I'm not impressed by the source, a Ukrainska Pravda article citing the Security Service of Ukraine telegram channel doesn't seem weighty enough for such a quote. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:44, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Then Levivich can take this to NPOVN or RSN and raise it there and spare us all the embarrassment of having to take this query seriously. Volunteer Marek 21:46, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I believe Levivich is wrong on BLP here, but WP:AGF that it's a genuine question. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested ∆transmissions∆ °co-ords° 21:58, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I'm not saying this IS a BLPVIO, I'm asking the question. Levivich (talk) 22:05, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I've already raised the WP:DUE issue at the article's talk page. Levivich (talk) 21:47, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I'll throw the question of the reliability (all the way down) of the quote as others have already raised, which should be decided first, but on the assumption that reliable sources validated the quote came from a Russian force, I think the size of the group there is far too large for this to be taken as a BLP violation. Masem (t) 21:59, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• This is the strangest BLP request I have ever seen. As about sourcing, yes, it never hurts to check. This is publication by the SBU, and here is a couple of additional publications in other news sources: [31],[32]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:03, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

  The second news source [33] is marked as opinion (Мнения) from a website called "CensorU.net" that is probably not an RS. Levivich (talk) 00:12, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Censor? It's been getting used as RS. I defer to MVBW though. Elinruby (talk) 00:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

This is "censor.net" (meaning "censor - no" in Russian or Ukrainian transliteration), a news website by well known Ukrainian journalist Butusov. But if you need more sources, yes, sure. Here is publication by Dmitry Gordon, certainly an RS. Here is publication by Ukrainian Independent Information Agency. There are dozens publications about this particular intercept. My very best wishes (talk) 00:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Those look good. Levivich (talk) 00:39, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Of course I also listened the audio. You think this is terrible? The soldiers are having fun debating their entertainment, pretty much as in good old times [34]. My very best wishes (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not censored. Wikipedia is not supposed to cover up groups' well-documented and widely reported atrocities. Our "BLP" policy does not require us to whitewash groups of soldiers when their wanton crimes are visible to the world. This should apply just as much to Russians in Ukraine as much as it does to the Brits in Derry whose butchering made Bloody Sunday (1972). Maine 🦞 19:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME does require us to exercise caution for individuals who are accused, but have not yet been convicted of a crime, advising that editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured (emphasis from original text). Unless and until the Russian soldiers relevant to this discussion are convicted by a tribunal, it seems obvious to me that BLPCRIME would apply.

However I do recognise the point you have made elsewhere several times now with regards to how several points of WP:BLP interact with WP:NOTCENSORED. There is a balance somewhere to be struck between these two policy points. But for the sake of caution, I lean more towards the BLP policy having precedence in these sorts of issues. This is perhaps particularly true in the case of war reporting, where initial reporting can be unreliable and subject to propaganda points by all involved parties in a conflict.

That is not to say I disbelieve the accusations. These soldiers (both the Russian group, and Bloody Sunday's Soldier F) are accused of reprehensible and atrocious crimes. Because of where I live and grew up, I am probably more familiar than many editors with what it was like to live in Northern Ireland during the tail end of The Troubles, and that will colour my opinions with regards to actions taken by all involved parties. However none of those relevant to this discussion have yet been convicted of those crimes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 20:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Bloody Sunday's soldier F at least admitted that he shot and killed Michael Kelly (who was a 17-year-old child at the time) among four others. Whether that is murder remains a legal question: Soldier F claims that he only shot people with bombs or guns.

The Russians have not admitted their atrocities. Maine 🦞 20:57, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

When people start throwing around emotionally charged buzzwords like "censor" and "whitewash" my eyes usually glaze over, and I tend to just ignore those comments. The dictionary definition of the word "censor" rarely matches how people use it on Wikipedia. That said, the BLP policy about groups is meant to protect individuals rights, as in cases where mentioning crimes committed by a group or organization can be easily traced to the individuals who take part in that group or organization. For example, if Joe Schmo's Corner Bistro is involved in criminal activity, it can easily be traced back to Joe Schmo and his staff of 5 1/2 people. If, on the other hand (hypothetically speaking), McDonalds was involved in some criminal activity, it would be a much bigger story and subsequently much harder to point the finger at any one person. Here, we're talking about the Russian Army --one of the largest armies in the world-- and I highly doubt the Russians are going around naming all the soldiers in their ranks so we can tell who's who. I appreciate Levivich coming here to ask the question, but I don't see anything per BLP policy that would require the omission of this information. Other policies, such as RECENTISM, sure, maybe there are some good arguments there. It's hard to trust anything coming out during wars, because both sides are always engaging in propaganda. It's in hindsight that the true nature of events become clear. But that's a discussion for a different noticeboard. As far as BLP policy goes, unless I'm missing something, it doesn't seem relevant in this case. Zaereth (talk) 21:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

While you are correct that Soldier F has admitted to killing one of victims, UK law has the concept of lawful killing, so whether or not he is guilty of murder has yet to be decided and so he is afforded certain protections (ie presumption of innocence in the legal system, WP:BLPCRIME) due to being accused of a crime. It is after all, entirely within the realms of possibility that either the district court will find there not to be sufficient evidence for him to face a Crown Court trial, or that the Crown Court will find him not guilty.

As for the Russian soldiers, depending on many future circumstances, the ICC may hold war crimes tribunals, and during those proceedings many soldiers may face criminal charges. But for now, I think it probably is a BLP violation to say that a specific group of soldiers comprising of no more than a platoon (ie around 50 people), at a specific time, and in a specific place committed a crime. But because this quotation seems to be about a much larger group, it's probably not a BLP violation. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

• I think the curative measure for such a statement is to change the introductory wording, "Ukrainska Pravda reported an intercepted telephone conversation" to something like "Ukrainska Pravda reported what was claimed to be an intercepted telephone conversation", or the like. The current wording is somewhat ambiguous (intercepted by who? by Ukrainska Pravda?) and appears to validate the accuracy of the interception in Wikipedia's voice. BD2412 T 21:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Anna Paulina Luna#Conspiracy theorist category

There is a discussion that may be of interest on this talk page. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 01:32, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Matt Schlapp accusations of groping

I would like some feedback from the BLPN community on the Matt Schlapp article and a recent accusation made against him originally published by the Daily Beast [35]. My concern is we have a staffer who claims that Schlapp groped him. A number of news sources have reported the claim. However, my concern is that adding what is nothing more than an accusation to the article seems to violate NOTNEWS and BLPCRIME. Currently this only exists as an accusation. No criminal investigation has been reported nor has anything else become of this issue at this time. A discussion on the article's talk page does include a list of sources that have said the accusation was made but they basically just say, "The Daily Beast published a claim that..." Is it reasonable to keep this content out a BLP since it is currently only an accusation with no other evidence or official action etc? BLPCRIME makes it clear that if someone isn't a public individual we should keep this sort of content out. Where is the line when we are dealing with a public individual? In a case where it is unclear if the accusation will amount to anything is the best practice to keep the content out until it is shown to pass the 10year test? If no news sources follow up on this accusation would we add it 10 years from now (ie showing it passing the 10 year test)? Article talk page discussion here [36]. Springee (talk) 03:34, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Responded at the talk page. Thanks for bringing this up. On the broader question "Where is the line when we are dealing with a public individual?", I think we just have to follow BLPPUBLIC, and look for "a multitude of reliable published sources". Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 04:08, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Grigori Grabovoi

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grigori_Grabovoi. The author asks to urgently delete this page from Wikipedia.

It is necessary to inform Followers involved in Wikipedia to delete this page, since according to the rules of Wikipedia, the listing of surnames does not apply to the tasks of Wikipedia.

It contains libelous and very inaccurate information about the character of Doctor Grigori Petrovich Grabovoi.

 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sayitright22 (talk • contribs) 18:24, 15 January 2023 (UTC) 

I know nothing about whether there are any BLP issues with this article, but I do know that the penultimate sentence of this post is unacceptable. Nobody's team gets to write their Wikipedia article, per WP:NPOV. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:57, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Understood. Sayitright22 (talk) 19:04, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Talk:Grigori Grabovoi is full of legal threats as well. Also edit summaries in the recent history of the article, though those are in Italian for some reason. MrOllie (talk) 19:05, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

And he has been falsely accused for many years of something he didn't do... Sayitright22 (talk) 19:13, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The page has now been blanked [37] and a G10 speedy tag added by User:Chicca70, who has only edited no other pages than the Grigori Grabovoi page and its talk page.Nigel Ish (talk) 20:33, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Sam Hubbard

Please remove the last sentence in the 2022 section of this article. It is racist and inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.209.196.186 (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

That was routine vandalism that has been reverted. Cullen328 (talk) 08:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Category:American dissidents

I'm not sure which noticeboard is right for this but I wondered whether people think [this is a valid category? BobFromBrockley (talk) 14:39, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'd suggest raising the question in CfD. Overall, I'd say the entire parent category is inherently problematic. --Soman (talk) 14:49, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Now being discussed at CfD Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Greg Rothman

Would some more editors mind taking a look at Greg Rothman? There's a discussion started at Talk:Greg Rothman#Political career, current first paragraph, but a user named William G Rotham starting showing up a few days ago and began removing content. Assuming that this is the subject of the article or someone connected to the subject, it would probably better if some non-involved editors experienced in BLP articles about politicians took a look at the relevant content and assess whether it complies with BLP. I've restored to the content since it seems (at least at first glance) to be reliably sourced, but feel free to remove it again if that's not the case. -- Marchjuly (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Ok, here's my take. First, not really a BLP issue but rather an NPOV one. I think, given the size of the article, that we're likely giving this thing too much weight. Given the level of sourcing in the article (assuming that it's representative of the broader range of sources), I don' think we can simply get rid of it for reasons of undue weight, but I certainly think it should be trimmed down quite a bit under those criteria. There are a lot of unnecessary details there which are just filler. The current version reads:

"In 1991, Rothman was charged with conspiracy to commit forgery, a misdemeanor. He pleaded guilty in March 1994 and was sentenced to 5 months' probation, a $2,000 fine, and 160 hours' community service. Rothman was 27 years old at the time. The conspiracy charge arose from a campaign mailer attacking William F. Kane, a candidate for county commission; the mailer included a bogus return address and was falsely attributed to an organization. The conviction was later expunged, and Governor Ed Rendell issued Rothman a pardon in January 2011. Rothman said in 2015 that he had learned from the mistake and took responsibility for it."

We don't need to say things like "he was charged with..." when pleading guilty to it already implies that he was charged. I think that listing the sentence is superfluous, and so is listing his age at the time. (If people want to know how old he was, the dates are listed; they can do the math if they really care.) The details of the charge are really quite confusing. (I mean, what exactly did he do wrong? Is it that he made personal attacks, that the address was bogus (whose address?), and what does "falsely attributed to an organization mean? I read the source and it was just as ambiguous.) I think the details themselves are rather confusing and also superfluous. Lastly, "months" and "hours" are already plural, so no need to try to make them possessive by adding an apostrophe at the end. I would change it to read something like this:

"In 1991, Rothman pled guilty to the misdemeanor charge of conspiracy to commit forgery. The conviction was later expunged, and Governor Ed Rendell issued Rothman a pardon in January 2011. In 2015, Rothman said that he had learned from the mistake and took responsibility for it."

Newspapers like all that filler, because they literally have space to fill, but as an encyclopedia all we need is the nitty gritty. I think that keeps all of the important points and whittles out all the fluff, and reduced quite a bit of the weight to what may be a more acceptable volume. Zaereth (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

That sounds better to me. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Zawe Ashton

Zawe Ashton. this article has been the subject of increasingly repeated vandalism. changes have been made to the subject's full name including "Social Climber", "Attention Seeker" etc. Unsourced and nonfactual information regarding the subject's published works and career have also popped up on occasion. I'd like to request semi-protection for this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kbardlett (talk • contribs) 04:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi Kbardlett. It's possible that an administrator might see your above request and decide to protect the page, but it's better to make such requests at WP:Requests for page protection. Pages can only be protected by administrators and they only do so when there's a good reason for doing so as explained in WP:PP. FWIW, I'm not an adminstrator, but I don't see any real need to protect the article this time. Most of the disruption seems to have been five edits made by a single account on January 9 over a 30 minute period. The edits were reverted and the article has been unedited since then. Page protection is generally done when there lots of disruptive editing over an extended period of time involving multiple accounts. Page protection is not really done for short bursts of edits by a single account who never shows back up again. FWIW, the article was protected for a week around this same time last year and the administrator who did so is named Ohnoitsjamie; so, it might be best to ask them about this before actually making a request for page protection. -- Marchjuly (talk) 05:50, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

kbardlett: there was a short vandalism spree on the article on January 9th, which was all quickly reverted. The edits prior to that were a month ago. Based on that low vandalism rate, admins are very unlikely to protect the article. I've added it to my watchlist, since the more editors there are who're watching an article, the quicker any vandalism will be picked up and reverted. Neiltonks (talk) 09:24, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Andy Ogles

There is ongoing conversations about the Andy_Ogles article/editorializing an opinion of the Member of Congress by describing them as "far right." This is a subjective standard and is not applied unilaterally to other members of Congress, and is at best, editorializing. For example, if you go to Alexandria_Ocasio-Cortez she is not described as "far left." If we want Wiki to be objective, you've got to apply an even standard across both sides of the aisle. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Only Objective Truth (talk • contribs) 21:52, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Only Objective Truth, do reliable sources call Ogles "far right"? Do reliable sources call AOC "far left"? That's the even standard that should be followed. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:05, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia biographies should summarize what reliable sources say about the topic. The article currently includes references to four reliable sources that categorize Ogles as far right. A quick Google search shows that several other sources also call him far right. Cullen328 (talk) 22:14, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Not every source uses "far-right", but this is Wikipedia, so of course shoehorners gonna shoehorn and cherrypickers gonna cherrypick. Gotta get the reader primed in that first sentence! --Animalparty! (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

There is no requirement that every source call him far right. One of those sources calls him hard right, which is synonymous. Cullen328 (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

AOC is, notably, not described by a large number of reliable sources as being on the far-left. We've had this discussion enough times as is. ser! ^{(chat to me - see my edits)} 22:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Wait. There's a far-left? I thought all left was far-left, isn't it? Zaereth (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

At least two of the currently referenced sources are passing mentions; which should be removed or replaced. Of those, one doesn't describe the article subject as far-right. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) ^talk 23:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Nashville radio station WPLN calls him far right too. Cullen328 (talk) 23:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

That's a much better source; in so far as it's primarily about the article subject. Potentially, hairs will be split as to whether "far-right conservative" is congruent to "far-right"; or whether there is a place where "conservative" ends & "far-right" (solo; not as a qualifier of conservative) begins. But substituting this source for the ABC News & NYT sources currently used, would be a good start. - Rotary Engine (was Ryk72) ^talk 23:32, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference between finding sources that say "far-right" and even mentioning far-right in the article, and shoehorning "far-right" into the very first sentence of the lead, before any other adjective besides nationality. Conservatives seem more likely to be 'marked' or 'othered' in the first sentence compared to more liberal or progressive counterparts who get neutral introductions (e.g. "Democrat X is an American politician..." vs. "Republican Y is a far-right conservative politician...", as if liberal is normal and conservative the aberrant condition). Note how none of the politicians in "The Squad", some of the most progressive and left-wing members of Congress, get "progressive" or "left-wing" shoehorned into their introductory sentences, Fuzzy political labels like far-left or far-right are often better contextualized, rather than shoehorned, such as "X is a politician from Ohio. She is among the most progressive members of their Congressional caucus." Note also Jim Jordan, founding chairman of the conservative Freedom Caucus, is not immediately and bluntly labeled. Similarly, we can say Chuck Schumer, Eric Cantor and Jon Ossoff are Jewish politicians in their articles,[38][39] but we need not introduce them first and foremost as "is a Jewish politician". --Animalparty! (talk) 00:12, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

There is a big world of difference between describing a politician's political ideology in the lead sentence (exceptionally relevant) and describing a politician's Judaism in the lead (irrelevant and objectionable Jew tagging). I have no problem with adding more details to the Ogles biography to provide additional information about his ideology. Cullen328 (talk) 01:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I feel like a better alternative would be a follow up sentence that reads something like "his views have been widely characterized as far right or hard right" (if sources do indeed support the latter). Bneu2013 (talk) 01:32, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I think this is along the lines of a much better solution. People often have this misconception that every point needs to be made in the first sentence, but that's "flat-Earth" thinking, meaning that it only seems that way to the untrained eye.

Journalism 101: start with the most important info first and work your way to the broader explanations later. This is pretty standard for most expository writing, but how do we define "most important"? Since all info can be categorized by the questions they answer, the most important info is by far the what, followed by where, when, who, how, and why, in that order. In journalism, this really arose during the US Civil War, when telegraph lines were slow and unreliable, and constantly being cut or blown up, etc. Encyclopedic writing is not journalism by any means, but it is still important to define the what right off the bat --as quickly as possible-- even though that initial sentence will be rather vague on the details. It's just a point of context for further information. Details are what further sentences are for.

Writing 101: Nobody ever remembers the first sentence. It's a vague little starting point on a road to the main point of the paragraph or section, which is located at the end. People always remember the last sentence, because that's what the entire section or paragraph, or article, was leading up to. That's where the main point is located, and readers all understand this instinctively even if they don't realize it consciously. Not to mention, it's the last thing on their mind, which is what sticks, because working memory can only hold so much info at a time.

At the risk of invoking Godwin's law, look at the Adolph Hitler article. I'm not comparing anyone to Hitler here, so it's not a Godwinian reference, per se. I'm just saying this is a really good example of what an encyclopedic article should look like. We don't start off by saying what an evil person he was. We save that for the end. The beginning just tells us, plain and simply, what he was, factually. The point is, labels like "far right" have no clear definition; it varies considerably from person to person/region to region. It's subjective, like the term "evil" is, and in the first sentence these things look very out of place, and makes the article look amateurish. Whatever the goal, the first sentence is the worst possible place to put anything of that nature, contrary to popular belief. Zaereth (talk) 02:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Why do only hot-button terms like "right-wing" merit shoehorning above and before anything else? Are the political ideologies of Mitch McConnell, Newt Gingrich, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren not worthy of mentioning in the very first sentence, such that the poor reader knows immediately how they should should frame the subject? (this is rhetorical: their current intros are neither whitewashed nor overstuffed). Note that even extreme-right, capital-F fascists like Mussolini and Francisco Franco manage to be adequately and fairly described without "far-right" being tacked into the first sentence. I agree with Zaereth's good comments above. Anything more I could say about this BLP I've probably already said, in greater detail, at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard/Archive341#Donald_C_Bolduc_BLP_issues_in_the_lead. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:39, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Animalparty, Journalism 101 is fine for entry level journalism students, but this is an encyclopaedia, not a journalistic venture like an endangered medium sized city daily paper largely supported by the advertising dollars of local department stores, plumbers, hairdressers, banks, insurance companies and major local employers. I am all in favor of better writing. I am not in favor of writing for the purpose of making extremists look mainstream. Cullen328 (talk) 03:54, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

I know you're responding to AnimalParty, Cullen. I just want to clarify that I agree with your point. It's just my observation that people usually go about doing it all bass-ackwards. Instead of getting the result they want, they ironically end up getting just the opposite of what they intended. In the Aristotelian world, things were just as they seemed. It turns out that Aristotle was wrong about most everything and the world is very different than it appears. Humans have a very funny way of looking at things completely backwards, and putting such major emphasis on this idea of the all-important first sentence is one of them. If you want the information to stick in the reader's mind, then the end is the best place for it. That's where the why goes, which is what the readers all want to know most, but to really understand the why, they first need all of the context so that it will have its full impact. Starting the story with the ending is not only anticlimactic, but it comes off as desperate and amateurish and gives the opposite effect that people usually intend. Zaereth (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

You are not “making extremists look mainstream”, you are alienating readers by making it appear that Wikipedia has an agenda. We should be doing our best to make such bios as neutral as possible in their lead to avoid this. Thriley (talk) 04:42, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

These sorts of labels self-evidently make Wikipedia appear like it has an agenda. But some editors seem very convinced that their concept of the political "extreme" is objective and empirical, and, for various reasons, some of which are in good faith, are very attached to the idea of using these labels in Wikivoice. Everyone here might be interested in this, which was an attempt on my part to delve deeper into this issue. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:49, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

That's where the irony comes in. It's all one-in-the-same goal! If we want people to believe our articles, then we have to start by writing good, professional articles from a totally objective point of view. We cannot possibly say --in the objective-- that so-and-so is evil or that someone-or-another is far-right. That's a judgment call or a conclusion. It requires an "operation of the mind". Now, there are certainly people who are actually extremists, and it would not be neutral to create some false balance by trying to give all viewpoints equal weight if clearly in the real world the sources do not weigh out so equally. Facts are inherently neutral, but we have to apportion all the viewpoints (judgments, conclusions, etc.) accordingly to remain in anyway neutral. But whatever the personal feelings or goals of the editors here, all of them benefit by making the best articles we can rather than trying to cram everything we think is important right in the front. As Einstein said, "Time exists because everything cannot all be read at once". (Or something like that.) Zaereth (talk) 05:07, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Cliven Bundy

The Cliven Bundy page contained the following sentence:

"Bundy has participated in, and had links with various related movements, including anti-government activism, (which opposes federal government involvement in favor of state and local governments) and the sovereign citizen movement (which holds that people are answerable only to their particular interpretation of the common law and are not subject to any government statutes or proceedings)."

A pretty dubious sentence for a variety of reasons. Foremost amongst them the fact that the sentence is unsourced. But the reason I removed the sentence entirely is because:

"All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. Users who persistently or egregiously violate this policy may be blocked from editing."

I removed the unsourced sentence and have been persistently reverted by two editors accusing me of wiki-lawyering, trolling, being informed by "am radio", "whitewashing" Cliven Bundy, and being a "nazi". My view is that this is a clear and unambiguous violation of the letter of BLP, and that I thus have a responsibility to remove it. I invited both editors to either 1) open an RFC, or 2) provide a list of sources for the claims and labels in the quote so that we can attribute them, but they have declined, preferring to accuse me of bad faith.

Please discuss how to best address this. Philomathes2357 (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Are you joking or what? Bundy is anti government. https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/extremist-files/ideology/antigovernment - there are thousands of sources about Bundy being anti government. Vizorblaze (talk) 04:34, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Vizorblaze, if you continue with your course of action, I do not think it will turn out well for you. I am urging you to express your concerns and ideas on the Cliven Bundy talk page. And please, for your own sake, read BLP, especially the portion I quote above. Adding BLP-violative content to the same article a half-dozen times, while accusing me of bad faith and calling me a troll and a nazi are not productive ways forward here, and that behavior reflects very negatively on your desire to contribute here in a serious, grown-up manner. Philomathes2357 (talk) 05:00, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Then get with the waiting for a third party and stop the idle banter. This isn't a forum. Oh, I guess since you are in an edit war with the third opinion... wait for a fourth opinion? Vizorblaze (talk) 06:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Please stop forum shopping already. All I’ve seen is you arguing with Valjean, one of the longest active and most respected editors I know, about being ignorant of a policy they helped create. Dronebogus (talk) 07:05, 18 January 2023 (UTC)