Jump to content

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
5dondons (talk | contribs)
64 edits
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit Reply
Line 521: Line 521:
::Very concerning that you identified different references than those used in the article.
::Very concerning that you identified different references than those used in the article.
::I'm not clear what Zaereth is referring to. The correct Dallas News ref doesn't appear to be an op/ed. It's a lengthy piece already used in the article elsewhere, it has a great deal of background and comparisons (hallmarks of a well-researched news piece), multiple photos of the Young family, a tour of their home, and quotes from the family members. The presentation can sometimes take or formal or entertainment style. --[[User:Hipal|Hipal]] ([[User talk:Hipal|talk]]) 23:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
::I'm not clear what Zaereth is referring to. The correct Dallas News ref doesn't appear to be an op/ed. It's a lengthy piece already used in the article elsewhere, it has a great deal of background and comparisons (hallmarks of a well-researched news piece), multiple photos of the Young family, a tour of their home, and quotes from the family members. The presentation can sometimes take or formal or entertainment style. --[[User:Hipal|Hipal]] ([[User talk:Hipal|talk]]) 23:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)
:::Zaereth read the article from the source on the main page. You still haven’t addressed the fact that the Dallas News articles source for the information included in ‘Lifestyle’ section comes directly from the WFAA source without adding any additional sources. [[User:5dondons|5dondons]] ([[User talk:5dondons|talk]]) 23:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)


{{reftalk}}
{{reftalk}}

Revision as of 23:59, 12 April 2024

    Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
    Shortcuts

    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:



    Kate Middleton

    Closing this discussion because the Where is Kate? article was deleted. JFHJr (㊟) 05:44, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    The gossip and conspiracy theories regarding Catherine, Princess of Wales (commonly known by her maiden name Catherine "Kate" Middleton) recent absence from public life following surgery has been spun off into its own article with the (rather questionable) title Where is Kate?. This article has already been taken to AFD and kept, but I think the article needs to be carefully looked over by editors experienced in BLP to make sure that it complies with BLP policy. Hemiauchenia (talk) 13:59, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    "rather questionable" ← I lol'd at the understatement. It's one of those articles that makes you think Wikipedia might not be a good idea after all. Bon courage (talk) 14:04, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It just seems to me to be totally out of proportion. Compared to something like the Royal baccarat scandal, the long-term lasting significance of this seems minor. If we were writing about this decades on, this whole brouhaha would be summarised in a few sentences in Kate's bio rather than an entire article. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:12, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As we know WP:NOTGOSSIP goes out the window when ... there's some juicy gossip. Also, basic standards on written English judging by the opening sentence. I mean, shit:

    In early 2024, speculation which asked "Where is Kate?" surrounded the health and absence of Catherine ...

    Bon courage (talk) 14:33, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, what do you think? Was that Windsor Farm Shopper a body double, or not?? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:09, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried removing that, but the new user who totally dominates editing of that article (and who coincidentally has never edited an article unrelated to Kate in their 250+ edits) keeps edit warring it back in, clearly not understanding If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it. Instead, simply describe the subject in normal English, avoiding unnecessary redundancy. As outlined in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section.
    Hemiauchenia (talk) 15:42, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Who is Kate – What is she, that all the swains commend her..."(?) Martinevans123 (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As far as I saw, all you did was unbold "Where is Kate?", which suggests the article title can still lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the first sentence, in which case, why shouldn't we bold it? MOS:BOLDAVOID doesn't apply here, and I think the underlying issue is a valid disagreement about the article title. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 00:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hello all, involved editor here – I created the article and sent it to AfD. I've taken a step back in recent days due to off-wiki commitments but wanted to second Hemiauchenia's sentiment: the AfD clearly highlighted that editors disagree on Wikipedia's scope for this topic, but identified consensus to keep, and the (ridiculously) sustained coverage is inviting, as you might imagine, quite a lot of updates as the story evolves. Until my offwiki commitments (and a lot has been added since then!), editors were taking good care only to go off sources approved at WP:RSP, but of course there is a lot more to BLP policy than that, so experienced editors' oversight is very much welcome. I think the whole "Where is Kate?" question should, as suggested at the AfD and on the talk page, be taken to a proposed page move; it's just not clear quite what alternative title is better. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 00:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Her name is not "Kate Middleton" & hasn't been since she married Prince William. GoodDay (talk) 00:45, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are there actually any reliable sources about whether or not she took a married name, let alone which of the possible choices from her husband (Windsor, Mountbatten, Mountbatten-Windsor, Cambridge, Wales) she made? A quick Google search has some speculation sourced to UK tabloids like The Sun, Daily Express, and Daily Mail, but nothing that seems actually reliable. Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:56, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Kate Middleton" was never her name. She was "Catherine Middleton" prior to her wedding and has been "Catherine, Duchess of Cambridge" and "Catherine, Princess of Wales" since. Even the Prince of Wales, her spouse, refers to her as Catherine so does His Majesty the King Charles III. Further, reputable news outlets like BBC, ITV News, the Guardian, etc. also refer to her as "Catherine" in most of their articles. Regards MSincccc (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Married women retain the right to use their maiden names unless they change their name by deed poll and have their birth certificates altered. There is no evidence Kate Middleton did that. Kate MIddleton is also her common name, the name usually used when referring to her, just as we use the maiden names of Katherine of Aragon, Anne Boleyn, Jane Seymour, Anne of Cleves, Catherine Howard and Kateryn Parr. While Kate is a contraction of Katherine, articles use contracted names for Bill Clinton, Prince Harry and Joe Biden. TFD (talk) 23:25, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can see why the title seems questionable, but given that the coverage of it seems to be primarily as an internet fad/meme perhaps its appropriate that its title be meme like. It brings to mind Luiza que está no Canadá which also involved a living person but with the added twist that they were a minor. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:08, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Random memes should not get distinct pages unless they can pass WP:10YT and, in this case, no page should have been created until after the dust settled. As it is we do, now, have a page dedicated to gossip about a WP:BLP - and a very badly closed AfD. Simonm223 (talk) 16:11, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And both of them "pass" WP:10YT so what is your point? The idea that "no page should have been created until after the dust settled" is just preposterous, it should not be taken seriously for even a second. Imagine if we tried to apply that standard to the Russo-Ukrainian War. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can't stop editors from creating articles on breaking news events (though we should be aiming to have editors consider holding off until it's clear NEVENTS and other policies are passed, and using Wikinews if they want to report news as it happens), but we can assess articles within a few days of their creation to make sure the news topic is not just a burst if coverage, has encyclopedic significance, and isn't violating any policies. That is what is being begged here, because it is a glaring BLP issue. — Masem (t) 16:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    AfD is not cleanup, there are not BLP issues here which require or even suggest deletion. Whatever you want to call it there is a notable topic here, I know that because CNN keeps pushing notifications about it to my phone... And I don't live in the UK. Whatever this is will be in the history books they write in ten or twenty years. Also not only can we not stop it, we actually encourage it. In fact its rushing to deletion which is discouraged, see Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Don't rush to delete articles. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:28, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just because the media has latched onto it doesn't mean it is an encyclopedic topic. And the overtly in depth fascination with Middleton's life *is* a BLP issue that we should be extremely careful around, not simply parroting the media's cover just because its there. — Masem (t) 16:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "Just because the media has latched onto it doesn't mean it is an encyclopedic topic." these complaints sound more like snobbery than anything that has to do with policy or guideline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the entire principle of not only NOT News but NOT#IInfo. Mere publication of material in verified sources doesn't mean WP should include it. We summarize events, not document events every hour, even if there, 's news about it every hour. It's why we function far different from a newspaper. — Masem (t) 16:53, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to be the opposite of the principle of WP:NOTNEWS unless I'm missing something. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:57, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, you are apparently. We can include current events and there is no question that a brief summary of this can be made on the bio page. But we should be including every single news report about this in a seperate article, nor write articles as news reports. And that's before applying the stronger requirements for BLP GOSSIP. The excessive detailed coverage is one of many many exples of NOT News not being followed, a lot which has stemmed from how topics in the AP2 area have been covered since 2016, coupled with COVID and the Ukraine war, and it's something we need to correct. — Masem (t) 17:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The article does not seem to include every single news report and an article being written as a news report wouldn't be a reason to delete it (this one doesn't seem to be either). NOTNEWS actually says "Editors are encouraged ... to develop stand-alone articles on the most significant current events." but you're saying it actually says that developing stand-alone articles on the most significant current events is discouraged? Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The brief absence of a media celebrity from public appears and rampent speculation of that absence is not necessarily a most significant current event, when compared to things like the Ukraine war, or events in the Gaza strip. There is a hell if a lot of systematic media bias on this story to make it seem more important than it is, but when one steps back and frames the question as a BLP concern, it's clear this should not be treated as a significant news event. — Masem (t) 17:29, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If that were clear we wouldn't be having this conversation. I find the efforts to frame the subject as some sort of puff celebrity rather than a political figure rather interesting, but then again my primary interest is politics so my bias is to see everything from that angle. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Coming soon: Trump's bond and McConnell's glitch and Biden's stutter ... Bon courage (talk) 18:04, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    ... Mark Sanford extramarital affair and Disappearance of Peng Shuai ... Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd point to WP:OSE here except it's a black mark upon Wikipedia that either of those pages exist too. Particularly the Sanford one which is, again, little more than and amusing anecdote about a minor politician. Simonm223 (talk) 18:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well that and that this isn't a deletion discussion and OSE is only about deletion discussions. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 18:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this is what happens when a deletion discussion is mishandled. Simonm223 (talk) 18:22, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The author of the article Where is Kate? expressed a desire to incorporate some of its information into the main article. As speculation expanded, a new article was subsequently created. Recently, there have been users advocating for the inclusion of the name "Kate Middleton" in the main article. I maintain an assumption of good faith and am keen to ascertain the community's perspective on this matter. Regards MSincccc (talk) 16:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Are you suggesting that a celebrity not appearing on camera for a couple of months has equivalent notability to a major war? I've put forward a deletion review. Simonm223 (talk) 16:37, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am suggesting that "no page should have been created until after the dust settled" is a stupid standard which should never be applied because it goes against commons sense as well as established policy and guideline. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:44, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you are reading overly broadly into some ambiguity in my initial sentence so let me clarify: no page should be created about internet gossip regarding a celebrity until such time as some sort of encyclopedic significance is established. Furthermore Wikipedia should be far more patient to list topics related to current news cycles per WP:NOTNEWS, especially when those news cycles are principally from the entertainment section and involve living people. Simonm223 (talk) 16:47, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The encyclopedic significance has been established. NOTNEWS says "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on the most significant current events." Wikipedia:Notability (events)#Don't rush to delete articles says we should be patient with deletion not creation. Also looking around I'm not seeing support for your assertion that "principally from the entertainment section" I'm seeing most reliable sources handle this as hard news (which to be fair is interesting). That makes sense though as Middleton is not an entertainer, they are primarily notable for holding a political position. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe that NOTNEWS may apply here, but I don’t think WP:GOSSIP does. I’ve kept it mostly cited with RS, and removed trivia such as an airport making a joke tweet about it. The article mainly focuses on the commentary, so isnt just internet gossip. TheSpacebook (talk) 16:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again I would ask whether a celebrity failing to do photo ops for a few months constitutes "the most significant current events". Simonm223 (talk) 17:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    When top tier papers around the world are running feature stories on it yeah it does... I would also note that the event (notable topic) is the controversy around the political figure failing to do photo ops for a few months, not the failure itself. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 17:03, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Given their rarity, maybe the agency kill orders provide encyclopedic significance. Perhaps the article would seem more encyclopedic if it was refocused on the kill orders as the subject. Sean.hoyland (talk) 17:17, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    But the kill notices aren't what secondary sources are discussing. We're not seeing dozens of articles and commentary about the kill notices: we're seeing dozens upon dozens of articles and commentary discussing the photograph and the surrounding speculation, both the speculation that preceded the photograph's publication and the speculation that succeeded it. As one Delete-!voting editor said in the AfD, this is what makes the choice of article title so tricky. One issue is that we can't really sever photograph from speculation; another issue is that it's perhaps increasingly unclear to what extent the photograph even is the primary topic here. Many of us were expecting the news to move on after the photograph and...it hasn't; it's moved on to the farm shop video, and goodness knows what else before the Princess of Wales returns to public duties. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 20:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • This entire side article seems like a major BLP violation, particularly of WP:GOSSIP. It doesn't really matter that top level news sources are promulgating the gossip, it still remains essentially celebrity gossip regardless. And not even on something with evidence, but just speculation with no basis. The worst kind of gossip. The people arguing to keep it seem like gossip mongers themselves, wanting an article only because they support the gossip itself. SilverserenC 20:25, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm no fan of the royal family, but that is one of the worst articles I've ever seen and should have been nuked without prejudice. The AfD is a disgrace. Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I fully agree with Black and Silver here. I mean, seriously, when an article title consists of a question you know it's going to be bad. Encyclopedia articles are about things, and this is not a thing. As suspected, it reads just like a tabloid rather than an encyclopedia article, and I mean bad. It's full of rumor mongering and even innuendo. This definitely should not have been kept for even a second. Zaereth (talk) 21:10, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: It may be missed in the chatter above, so may I highlight, without wishing to canvass, that Where is Kate? is undergoing deletion review (Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2024 March 21#Where is Kate?). I don't think continuing the pile-on against the AfD closure or the article is really helpful on this noticeboard; the discussion should be taken there. IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 21:21, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think there's a point in the Deletion Review, since clearly the close with that AfD was really no other way to go with how the discussion itself played out. No consensus at worst. But the problem is that all the editors who voted Keep in said discussion, especially with their extremely poor reasoning, should be ashamed of themselves. SilverserenC 21:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. I haven't read the AFD discussion because I didn't see it linked anywhere, but in general one of the big problems I've seen at AFD is that it tends to become a haven for article saviors, that is, those who believe it's somehow necessary or beneficial to save articles at all cost, no matter how terribly written, poorly sourced, or unencyclopedic they are. Inclusionism for inclusionist's sake. Regardless of AFD, though, the article is just awful. Quantity is no substitute for quality. Zaereth (talk) 21:38, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's so good to see that there are still users on Wikipedia who possess common sense and see this article as a violation of WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RECENTISM, and WP:BLP. I always maintained the position that what we had in the main article was enough. Now we have a page with running commentary about every move she makes. The AfD was dominated to an extent by relatively new users (some had joined within the past two years) so l'd understand if they were not fully familiar with the policies. Now that the article has been kept for the time being, the text needs to be polished. All references to primary sources and any questionable/speculative info should be removed. Keivan.fTalk 01:47, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitrary Break (Catherine, Princess of Wales)

    There is now a move request at Talk:Where_is_Kate?#Requested_move_21_March_2024. Please participate if interested. Hemiauchenia (talk) 01:03, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Arbitary Break? Well deserved, I say. These Royals work jolly hard, you know. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:20, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, a "give a bazillion options so there'll be no consensus for change" RfC. It's almost like this whole episode is some kind of elaborate trolling to test how ridiculous Wikipedia can be made to look (and if so, fair play, it's knocked it for six!) Bon courage (talk) 10:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If it wasn't so tragic it would be amusing. The only thing that article should be moved to is a redirect to the main article. Black Kite (talk) 10:15, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    And now it turns out the PoW is/was being treated for cancer, the media harassment comes into relief for what it was, and Wikipedia as a gleeful fellow traveller. I hope people feel suitably ashamed. Bon courage (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Bon courage: I am genuinely ashamed for all the people who took part in the witch hunt; not in the press and on social media, but here on Wikipedia as well. We now have an article dedicated to analyzing the movements of a person who has been diagnosed with cancer during the period of her treatment. This is clearly a WP:BLP issue. Keivan.fTalk 19:04, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Indeed, this was a shameful violation of BLP. The entire article should be deleted ASAP and everyone involved in writing it should take a good long look at themselves. The world was watching while we invaded the privacy of someone with cancer. Pinguinn 🐧 00:12, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Don't be dramatic... We didn't invade anyone's privacy, we just documented it. If the world was watching then surely you can link to the coverage of wikipedia's handling of the issue in RS, I haven't seen any. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed. These type of responses, ironically, are better suited to tabloid headlines than Wikipedia. I !voted in the first AfD, but not for keep, but people who write that sort of hyperbole and use absurd terms like "witch hunt" are the ones who need to take a long look at themselves. DeCausa (talk) 00:22, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Even if the NYTimes went to cover the gossip and speculation to that much depth, we as both a summary work and with a strict BLP policy that errs on protecting the individual, we would not include that much depth. We do not follow the example set by the media blindly and are not bound to having to consider the same topics as important as they do when that attention violates core content policies. Masem (t) 00:24, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well if we aren't going to follow the behavior policies sure lets at least follow the content ones... None of that excuses the hyperbole, dramatization, and/or personal attacks on editors over a content dispute. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 00:28, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    (edit conflict) It is an opinion whether it "violated core content policies". The nonsense about "shame", "witch hunts", "gleefulness" and "blindly" doing xyz is kneejerk tabloidese at its worst. DeCausa (talk) 00:31, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that people seem to be letting their emotions run amok. I don't follow the royal family nor do I care to. There are a lot of poorly thought and logically flawed arguments being tossed about, and using words like DeCausa is describing is one of them, called appeal to emotion. Likewise, arguments of privacy are also mostly appeals to emotion, and while I am all for respecting people's privacy, this is rarely the case with very high-profile public figures. Royalty is one of the few cases where notability is indeed inherited. There was a time when they were the only celebrities, and we're not that far removed from the age of Henry VIII when people would even pay to watch them eat or sleep or have sex. The laws don't protect their privacy as they would a private individual, so the privacy argument is more of an ethical question. Not that it should be ignored, but it should be treated as a matter of ethics rather than a BLP policy issue.
    That said, BLP policy is not really where the problems lie. Despite its rapid expansion, the article is still very unencyclopedic in nature. It still reads very much like a tabloid than an encyclopedia article. By that, I mean it's written in a narrative style rather than expository style, as sort of a blow by blow account. It's sensationalistic to the Nth degree. It's mostly rumor and speculation and just as fringe as any pseudoscientific article I've ever seen. It's not really about any particular thing that would deserve a standalone article (such as her political stances or anything of that nature) and thus is giving undue weight to sources because we're not weighing them in proportion to all other sources about the subject, like we would if this were a part of the main article. In short, it is just a really poorly crafted article, and to call it anything else is merely fooling oneself. It certainly won't fool the average reader. Zaereth (talk) 01:59, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This, for the most part. As we now know several of the issues around her absence is related to this diagonsis for cancer, there's still some details to explain that while she was getting this, she was scarce from public appears and led to this weird photo issue. But for WP, at this point, that's all we can summarize in a short paragraph in talking about her cancer diagonsis. It no longer needs the blow-by-blow that the article was written in.
    Stepping back from this specific case, we do have problems with editors writing in newspaper style, updating details but without summarization in many breaking and ongoing news articles. That leaves for massive cleanup issues down the road. For example, most of our articles related to how COVID was handled by various countries or states or the like are beyond excessive in the level of detail that WP should be written in. Normally that's not a pressing matter, but when BLP or other higher level content policies become involved, then we have course correct and rather quickly. — Masem (t) 02:07, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Up for deletion again

    See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Where is Kate? (2nd nomination). Participate if interested. Thanks. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:57, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Now been procedurally closed. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:16, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Tee hee. Just like when someone appeals and then refiles in real life. JFHJr (㊟) 04:48, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It appears the DR will fail and the article will again be listed for deletion.
    As one editor mentioned, there are articles about malicious gossip and conspiracy theories and they can be written neutrally. The problem with this article is that it treats the speculation as well-founded and therefore continues the malicious attack on the Princess of Wales and her family.
    In order to present the topic in a neutral manner, it should adhere to WP:FRINGE. The story isn't about Kate but about the deluded people who were asking where she was. To draw a comparison with the Moon landing conspiracy theory, which has been cited, that article does not use 9/10s of its text questioning the official version.
    If the article is nominated for deletion, I suggest Blow it up! as the best reason. The article is so hopeless that it can only become neutral by starting again. And let's choose a non-neutral title. TFD (talk) 23:43, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Tim Hunt

    CLOSED BY POSTER
    This post may have been premature and has certainly caused too much unnecessary controversy. Thanks to those who contributed constructively. Apologies for the bother.(non-admin closure)Thomas B (talk) 20:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    A consensus has emerged to devote more than 20% of the article on the Nobel laureate Tim Hunt to an allegation that, after five decades of distinguished service to science, he inadvertently said something sexist during a three-minute impromptu toast in 2015. This is a substantial expansion of the previous account of the event; for the past five years, it has taken up less than 5% of the article.

    • Previous version: [2]
    • Current consensus: [3]

    Since the allegation led to an intense online shaming campaign that upended Hunt's life,[4] I believe that the expansion violates WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Wikipedia has decided to permanently enshrine other people's recollections (and interpretations) of the most illconsidered thing an otherwise completely uncontroversial scientist may (or may not) ever have said.

    The expansion is also counter to the guidance provided by User:S Marshall about WP:PROPORTION when he closed the RfC on the subject.[5]

    For (somewhat doggedly) insisting on this, I have been indefinitely blocked from editing the page myself. I bring it here in the hope that others will take a look.--Thomas B (talk) 06:55, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Update (March 29): While I think it has been made largely in good faith, the current version[6] is factually incorrect in subtle ways that only people familiar with the case (not just a few selected sources) appear to understand. It says, in effect, that Hunt said (it literally asserts that "Hunt said...") something that offended a lot of people; the fact is that Hunt was accused of saying something offensive. It is not clear from (the balance of) the sources that his original remarks actually offended anyone, only that a version of his remarks, which was designed to shame him on social media, caused a public outcry. (Even his accusers claim it didn't bother them; they were just embarrassed for Hunt and offended on behalf of women in science.) Leaving this wrong impression in his BLP, is simply unfair to Hunt.--Thomas B (talk) 08:31, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    • Note this is being discussed at WP:ANI#Inappropriate removal of NPOV tag by JayBeeEll. Bon courage (talk) 07:13, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's my view that there was consensus for the expansion, and therefore the solution is to expand the sections on Sir Tim's scientific achievements. In particular the discovery of cyclin that earned him a share in a Nobel Prize. This can be achieved by reading sources and writing content, which is what we're all here to do. Nothing about the situation necessitates posting long screeds on noticeboards.—S Marshall T/C 08:12, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Just to be clear: Is the current version (no significant expansion on his scientific achievements and a 600% expansion on the controversy) what you had in mind? As I read your close, the right way forward would have been to leave the short version in place for now and begin to expand the rest of the article. When it reaches about 5000 words, there will be room for 250 words about the controversy, tempered by 250 words about his documentable views on women in science, which are altogether positive, the controversy notwithstanding. I would have no objections to that. Thomas B (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I said that WP:PROPORTION should be respected and this could be achieved by expanding the other parts of the article. I did not say that the controversy section is capped at 5% of the article.—S Marshall T/C 08:33, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      There is probably more peer-reviewed scholarship discussing the 'sexism' episode than discussing Hunt's science achievements. Bon courage (talk) 08:36, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      But that shouldn't matter, should it? You decide how much coverage to give something by reading the sources, not by putting them in piles and seeing which pile is highest.—S Marshall T/C 08:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      It's not a word count thing; coverage in high-quality sources (e.g. WP:SCHOLARSHIP counts most, natch. NPOV is best achieved by leaning on the WP:BESTSOURCES. Bon courage (talk) 09:00, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't think that's the right way to follow NPOV in this particular sitution. Unfortunately, 20-odd years after Wikipeia's founding, WP:EDITORIALJUDGEMENT is still a redlink, but where one reliable source says he won the 2001 Nobel Prize in Biology for helping us understand how the cell cycle works, and another reliable source says he's a rotten misogynist because of something he said at a conference in 2015, I don't think our reaction should be to try to work out which source is "best".—S Marshall T/C 09:15, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm also very baffled by Bon's suggestion. The original 1983 article in Cell about the discovery of cyclin alone has over 1200 citations in the scientific literature. Thomas B (talk) 12:06, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      An approximately zero of those will be relevant to TH's biography. So for example, I looked at the first 'cited by' article in Pubmed, PMID:38140403, and the 1983 paper is citedonly to support the claim "CYCB1;1 is synthesised during the G2 phase, peaks during the prometaphase, and disappears at early anaphase". Bon courage (talk) 12:26, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      The relevant biographical information is that Sir Tim's 1983 paper is widely cited in scientific literature.—S Marshall T/C 13:14, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Sure, and Evans et al. (1983) has been referred to as a seminal research paper. But researchers into proteins cite the paper to discuss cyclin, not discuss the person who discovered it. And that doesn't generate much usable biographical sourcing for us. (There are a few exceptions, like PMID:18662532, which is already cited on Wikipedia.) Bon courage (talk) 13:24, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      I think you'll find that the scholarship on the controversy says very little about Hunt and much more about sexism in science generally, social shaming, etc. This is one the things some of us have been saying: it's not about Hunt at all. Thomas B (talk) 13:48, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes, quite a lot is about the whole context. Bon courage (talk) 13:49, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The main problwm I have with the earlier status quo ("previous version") is that it puts the "online shaming" in wikivoice, which is not the way I think the RS on the "shaming" and the backlash to it ought to be read, re: WP:NPOV. Newimpartial (talk) 09:31, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problems with the earlier version were what got this whole drama going in the first place. It really shouldn't require further discussion. Bon courage (talk) 09:34, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on my recent efforts to catch up with this drama, you appear to be right. Newimpartial (talk) 09:52, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    One sub-sub-section that takes up less screen estate than the "Awards and honors" section hardly seems disproportionate. XOR'easter (talk) 16:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thomas, do you realize why it's problematic for you to bring changes in an article you've been page-banned from to a noticeboard? Especially when those consensus were the direct result of a well-attended RFC? Loki (talk) 18:46, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked it up before doing it. Because I'm blocked (not topic banned), this is actually perfectly fine. Thomas B (talk) 19:43, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was not saying it was against the rules, per se. That doesn't make it "perfectly fine". It's quite clear evidence of heavily tendentious editing and a total inability to WP:DROPTHESTICK. Loki (talk) 20:01, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have concerns about the proposed solution in the RfC to expand the other sections given WP:BLPBALANCE. Who's going to do it? Are they going to do it? It is not "okay for an article to be temporarily unbalanced because it will eventually be brought into shape". The weight of this biography should be pointed towards peer-reviewed books and journals not news sites like WP:DAILYBEAST. Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:30, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    With good reason, [7], it seems that the group seeking to expand this section don't feel it is necessary. WCMemail 13:14, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Firetangledfeathers has stripped down the controversy section to about as minimal as it can get really. I've spent time expanding the cyclins section, but the blunt truth is that basically no detailed biographical accounts of Hunt other than his Nobel prize autobiography exist, and I am unsure how appopriate it is to lean on that account to expand the article, given its lack of independence from Hunt. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:40, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Books and articles about the impact of his work and how he got there are more critical to his biography than random items about what he did throughout his life.[8][9] Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As usual, we follow the sources, and there's quite a lot of sources about this particular controversy. The RFC close was to follow WP:PROPORTION but I'm frankly not convinced that's meaningful here or that expanding the rest of the article follows. As far as I can tell, if we were to just go by quantity of reliable sources about each subtopic, the controversy section would be significantly longer. Loki (talk) 03:50, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Basically, should Wikipedia be mansplaining to readers that the sexism stuff is NBD so "look over there!" at the science (despite the balance of sourcing). Bon courage (talk) 08:05, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the question I'm asking editors to consider is: How big a deal is Tim Hunt's sexism? My reading of the sources says, precisely, that it's not big. The big deal that he was made to symbolize was sexism in science. Since it has been decided to make a big deal out of his toast in his biography (not just in articles on sexism in science or social shaming), it is our obligation (to both Hunt and the readers of WP) to clarify that he is highly respected among his colleagues (of all genders) and nobody who knows him thinks he is a chauvinist. There are plenty of sources that say this. Thomas B (talk) 11:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That is simply untrue. Sometime colleague David Colquhoun was for example scathing. Bon courage (talk) 12:00, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The two men did not know each other (just worked at the same institution). And Colquhoun's evidence was risible. But it's clarifying that you actually think it is "simply untrue" that Hunt is not a sexist. That's also the impression I get from many of the people who are pushing for the expansion: they want to paint Hunt as a sexist. I don't. And I hope someone will eventually see that doing so is in fact a violation of WP:BLP given the facts and sources available to us. Thomas B (talk) 12:07, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, you're twisting my words now as everybody will see. Look, you've been busted on this and your dodgy campaign, on- and off-wiki, has hit the buffers. The matter is settled and it's time to move on. Bon courage (talk) 12:11, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not interested in debating. I'm only saying what my impressions are and what my goals are with this posting to the noticeboard. If it's so obvious that I'm twisting your words, I hope anyone will read us both charitably enough not make this more dramatic than need be. I really wish you well and hope thing go well with the article (it has already improved since I posted). I'm in no position to disrupt anything. Cheers. Thomas B (talk) 12:42, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:BESTSOURCES > WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:26, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The perennial problem with this article is that the reporting in Wikipedia's voice isn't presenting a neutral summary of what happened. There is a disconnect between what actually happened and what was reported to have happened. The controversy arose not because the remarks were sexist, its because the remarks were taken out of context, then embellished with statements that were simply untrue. At the moment what is in the article is in conflict with our WP:BLP policy because it doesn't reflect accurately what the individual's actions were but mixes the fake news reporting and any attempt to address this is being reverted. Further, if you tag for neutrality, the tags are removed and outside commentary deterred by what is a toxic editing environment. WCMemail 12:12, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Biographical facts: Hunt was falsely accused of sexism and it almost ruined his life. WP's BLP: Hunt said he had "trouble with girls" in the lab and people got mad. Thomas B (talk) 16:53, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you have reliable sources for, Hunt was falsely accused of sexism and it almost ruined his life? This appears to be something you strongly believe, but I haven't seen sourcing that is both relevant to and supportive of that claim. Newimpartial (talk) 19:33, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The Fiona Fox chapter is probably the most comprehensive source for that. I mentioned it on the talk page [10]. Which part of the claim do you think it doesn't support? Thomas B (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    At least as paraphrased in the review, this source does not appear to support falsely accused. Newimpartial (talk) 10:08, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Which part do you think is wrong: "falsely" or "accused"? Fiona Fox documents both that he was accused of being a sexist and that he is not a sexist. Thomas B (talk) 10:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fox's book supports Hunt was accused of sexism but does not clearly support Hunt is not sexist - at least, not going by the account presented in the review. Newimpartial (talk) 12:44, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    "[Female scientists who knew him] insisted that he was not sexist." That's quoted in the review. The chapter brings together such testimony and behavioral evidence and absence of evidence. Not sure what more you'd want. Thomas B (talk) 13:34, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fox reports that scientists who knew Hunt insisted that he was not sexist. That is very different from sourcing in Fox's own voice that he is not sexist (which in turn, in the presence of competing RS statments, would still fall below the threshold for Wikipedia to state in its own voice that Hunt "is not sexist").
    In the current article version - and all recent versions that I checked - no statement is made, in Wikivoice or otherwise, about Hunt being or not being sexist. The only reference I see in the current version is to the perceived sexist nature of the 2015 remarks. In this context, treating the claim that "Hunt is not sexist" as, in your words, a "biographical fact" is unsupported by RS and it would be a violation of WP:V and WP:NPOV to include such a statement in the article. Newimpartial (talk) 14:07, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read Fox's chapter? Thomas B (talk) 14:56, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No; I have only read the review that you linked as evidence in the prior discussion. Newimpartial (talk) 15:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess that's par for the course. You didn't even read Zanahary's quotations immediately after? It's been a while, but I don't think I can do much better to convince you that Fox makes a convincing case that Hunt is not a sexist. Literally no one who has ever worked with him says he is, on the contrary, they say he's not. She did a pretty thorough job. Thomas B (talk) 15:38, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Consider: it's been almost a decade since Hunt was accused of (and widely shamed for) being a "sexist scientist". What evidence exists today that he has ever hindered a female scientist in her career? Literally, none. Thomas B (talk) 19:28, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We've been over this, but let's circle back:
    The important question regarding this controversy is not whether Hunt is or is not in his heart a sexist. It's not really even whether his prior behavior is sexist. The controversy is about a particular comment at a particular conference.
    I also would oppose a statement in Wikivoice saying "Tim Hunt is sexist", but you'll notice that the current version does not say that or anything like that. What it says is that Parts of the remarks were widely publicised on social media due to their perceived sexist nature. It's easily sourceable that the comments were perceived as sexist, so that's what we get to say in Wikivoice.
    If female colleagues of Tim Hunt say he wasn't a sexist, that's only relevant to the article insofar as the sources think it's relevant. Because that section of the article is about a particular event and not about trying to look inside Hunt's heart or pick over every decision he's made in his life, it's not obviously or directly relevant. Loki (talk) 20:47, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Thomas. I can see you are having a lot of difficulties convincing people here, so I'm going to offer some advice in the hopes it will help. The reason you're not convincing anyone is because your arguments are logically flawed. For example, your comment directly above is a logically fallacy called appeal to ignorance, which is why it fails to convince anyone. Likewise, your main argument here is based on a false premise, that "sexist" is a thing that someone either is or isn't. It's not. It's an opinion that others either have or they don't. Unfortunately for the subject, the price of fame is getting judged by the world, and Wikipedia notes significant opinions their words or actions incur, whether those are good or bad.
    Now, assuming for argument's sake that his remarks were indeed meant to be a joke, that's why jokes are better left to comedians, because even with the best of intentions it's very easy to fall flat on your face, and things like that can stick around for the rest of one's life, especially if they're notable and generated a lot of public backlash. I don't foresee this as ever being something that will just go away, but the article, as currently written, looks to me to be very neutral and fair about it all. It doesn't make the false conclusion that he is a sexist, just that his remarks were seen as sexist by some yet not by others, which seems perfectly fine and balanced to me. I hope that helps. Zaereth (talk) 21:00, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thomas B., you haven't produced any support for your opinion that "Hunt is not sexist" beyond your own interpretation of primary source opinions quoted by Fox. That simply isn't a reason to insert any such statment in the article, which appears to be your goal here.
    I know you believe that Hunt is not sexist, but that opinion simply is not relevant to article content, which must be based on independent, secondary sources to the greatest extent possible. What is more, you insert into your latest comment the straw goat question whether Hunt has "hindered any female scientist in her career" - which isn't really relevant to this article or even the controversy, as far as I can tell.
    Inserting editors' opinions into article text is a violation of WP:NPOV and also WP:BLP. Contrary to the impression some editors seem to hold, BLP policies do not encourage a treatment of living people that says the nicest thing possible about them, but rather they must be treated according to the WP:BALANCE of WP:HQRS, and the current article appears to so so. Newimpartial (talk) 21:06, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi Loki, Zaereth, and Newimpartial, I am not suggesting we should say Hunt isn't a sexist. I'm suggesting we should not devote so much space to the baseless accusation that he is. It is an opinion about him that is being given WP:UNDUE weight in a WP:BLP. Thomas B (talk) 05:48, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I realise this is futile but what is in the article doesn't conform with our BLP policies.
    The article as currently written doesn't reflect what sources have to say about Tim Hunt. Were it to do so, it would note that the prevailing view in the literature, is that he was joking, he isn't sexist and much of the furore whipped up at the time relied on quoting him out of context and a series of untrue statements (part of a "wider problem of trial by social media"). The furore wasn't over what he said, though he recognises that his remarks were ill-advised, the furore was over what he was reported as saying. And that distinction is critical for a WP:BLP and IT IS EASILY SOURCEABLE.
    Were the article written to WP:BLP standards, it would put the purported quote into context, that it isn't a verbatim transcript but the recollection of an anonymous EU official written two weeks later. Its acknowledged as flawed, since for example it doesn't include the recollection of Nadia Demina that Hunt followed his single sex labs joke, with a further quip that labs would be the worse for being a single sex environment. It was also leaked to the media, it was not intended for publication. If you want to include this "quote" you need to acknowledge it is not a verbatim record of what was said.
    Sourced from the same anonymous official the article would also include that his speech was well received by his hosts and not met with a stony silence as was originally claimed. One of his hosts commenting how impressed she was that “Sir Tim could improvise such a warm and funny speech” at such short notice. Oh and he didn't as the article implies stand up and give an impromptu toast of his own volition, he was asked at short notice by his hosts.
    If we write to a WP:BLP standard we'd also include that his colleagues sprang to his defence because he has always advocated for diversity and inclusion. In a letter to the Times 29 of his colleagues, male and female, said his help had been "instrumental in the advancement of many other women and men in science beyond those in his own lab" and "actively encouraged an interest in science in schoolchildren and young scientists, arranging for work experience and summer students of both genders to get their first taste of research in his lab."
    What isn't helpful is this toxic atmosphere of us versus them prevailing in the discussion where anyone voicing a dissenting opinion is denounced and any attempt to engage in addressing the article issues is simply reverted. I have broken my own rule to comment here and I really shouldn't. Again I fully realise this is futile suggesting the article reflects what sources say and I will be finding more useful things to do. WCMemail 13:20, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, my hope was to get people who are more interested in BLP than Hunt to take a look at the article. The current consensus seems to be centered on the idea that Hunt said something that warranted public censure. But that just isn't what the sources tell us. Thomas B (talk) 14:56, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Meanwhile, for anybody interested in reality, the complaint at the time from the Korea Federation of Women's Science & Technology Associations (KOFWST), and Hunt's apology, are still available online.[11] Bon courage (talk) 15:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It is well worth reading to get a sense of the hysteria that prevailed at the time. But it is obviously OR for the purpose of this article. Thomas B (talk) 15:47, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Hysterical women eh? How very dare they! But this gives the lie to this whole mansplaining myth that everything was just a laugh. Bon courage (talk) 15:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems to me that The current consensus seems to be centered on the idea that Hunt said something that warranted public censure is an assertion made without evidence. That isn't what the current or any recent version of this article says, nor do I see any editors making similar statements in this discussion on Talk.
    Furthermore, the assertion that the prevailing view in the literature, is that he was joking, he isn't sexist and much of the furore whipped up at the time relied on quoting him out of context and a series of untrue statements isn't borne out by any evidence here, either. The only source provided in support of this perspective does not, in fact, refer to any such "prevailing view", and most of the sources offering statements along these lines are neither secondary nor reliable. WP:BALANCE in BLPs must be cautiously based on what high-quality sources actually say, not on what editors fervently believe - the strongly-held opinions of editors who have been blocked from an article's Talk page are unlikely to be reliable arbiters of appropriate content and tone for a BLP, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 16:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You don't seem very familiar with the case and somewhat new to the discussion of the article. Is that correct? Thomas B (talk) 16:50, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am a fresh voice in this discussion, yes. Newimpartial (talk) 16:52, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I hope you will familiarize yourself with both the case itself and the sort of discussion we've been having. With this posting I'm mainly trying to attract people who care about BLP to the article, because I know what they will find if they look. But I grant that's it's a lot to ask, a lot of work. If you choose to do it, you have my thanks. Thomas B (talk) 17:08, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Angela Rayner

    There is current disagreement at the article, with a new editor, as to whether Rayner can be described as being under investigation by Greater Manchester Police for tax fraud. I have now removed the relevant material, as I feel it is contrary to WP:BLP. Any advice on how to progress this matter would be very welcome. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor concerned has how said that they will "leave it there for now until the outcome of the police investigation is concluded". Martinevans123 (talk) 23:28, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Rayner is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE, but is the allegation just at the investigation level? Is the investigation reported by multiple high quality sources? Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:33, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Quality sources report that Greater Manchester Police are reconsidering their original decision not to investigate Rayner, following a request to do so, in a letter from Tory MP James Daly, i.e. it is not yet clear if they have even decided whether to investigate or not. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:39, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    So there's not even an investigation yet? Just an allegation and a prompt from a rival politician? I guess that could still be written neutrally. I guess inclusion is up to a consensus then. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:45, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes it could be included, in a neutral way. It has been widely reported over the past few weeks. Martinevans123 (talk) 23:48, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I can confirm. That's what it's looking like now. (And it probably doesn't belong yet, if at all. Time might inform us differently). JFHJr (㊟) 23:46, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The new editor has now re-added the material using this source. I raised this at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#property118.com and another editor has responded "Not reliable and certainly not a high quality sources as should be used in a WP:BLP". Some help or new ideas would again be welcome. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The new editor seems rather over-excited on this point. I can see that this is quite likely to end badly for Rayner, but this is still at the level of WP:RUMOUR and so should largely be kept off the page for now. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 15:41, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As per my point at RSN Property118 is not a good source for BLP details, especially if it disagrees with other higher quality sources. The decision to not investigate is being reconsidered, but as far as any reliable source states Rayner is not under investigation at the moment. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 22:18, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Anatole Klyosov

    Notice that the page on Russian scientist Anatole Klyosov contains politically charged comments about his work which are borderline slander. It is quite possibly grounds for defamation. You cannot just publish such comments without being a willing eco chamber for libel. That section must be edited asap. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ps1946 (talk • contribs) 18:17, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, Ps1948. You will need to be much more specific. The article summarizes this article, and Foreign Policy is a reliable source. Please also familiarize yourself with No legal threats, which is policy. Cullen328 (talk) 20:13, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    He was a mainstream and well-respected scientist in the past and described as such on the page. However, after 2008 he proposed some "theories" (e.g. "white race" originating from Slavs) that are overwhelmingly described as pseudoscience in multiple RS, including publications by other scientists. That is well-sourced and reflected only in a couple of paragraphs on the page. This is fully consistent with our WP:BLP policy. In fact, an effort was made to describe him in the most favorable fashion on that page. My very best wishes (talk) 18:13, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Cullen328 77.100.225.124 (talk) 20:00, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your sentence ' ... after 2008 he proposed some "theories"... that are overwhelmingly described as pseudoscience in multiple RS, including publications by other scientists ' is so politically charged and judgemental that I realize it is pointless continue arguing. Let me just say that scientific opinion is gradually accepting many of his ground-breaking research. Keep your toxic so-called article and be happy. Peace. Ps1946 (talk) 12:53, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure what any of that has to do with politics, but we include peer reviews and opinions of significant people in the scientific community, both good and bad. The reality about science is that, despite all our vast knowledge, we really know nothing. Ignorant people are the ones who think we have it all figured out, but it's similar to the Dunning-Kruger effect. People who don't know don't have enough knowledge to realize what they don't know, and the universe is small and simple to understand. But the more you learn the more questions you have, until one day you realize that all science is built on a vast web of guesses and theories that will one day be proven wrong. As Richard Feynman said, "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything... I'm smart enough to know that I'm dumb."
    Just look at history. Many of the greatest scientists were considered pseudoscientists in their time. Antoine Lavoisier was laughed at and even had his life threatened for promoting the oxygen theory of combustion. Thomas Young was beaten up for his theory that light was a wave. Alfred Wegener became the laughing stock of the scientific community for his theory of plate tectonics. Today, long after their death, these are considered some of the greatest scientists, but at the time they were considered pseudoscientists, and if Wikipedia existed back then we would reflect that in their articles. Now I don't know the first thing about this subject, but if some of his work is considered pseudoscience by the scientific community, then we are bound to say so in his article. Simple as that. In the future, if his work becomes accepted, then we will reflect that if and when it happens, but not before. But the reality is that any great leaps in science began by studying the fringes and challenging the accepted theories of the time, so the greatest scientists of today were the pseudoscientists back then. But we can only go with what we have right now and wait to see what the future holds. Zaereth (talk) 16:29, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ps1946. Of course there are topics like Genetic genealogy and Genealogical DNA tests that are very much mainstream (DNA genealogy currently redirects to population genetics). However, these mainstream concepts and techniques have been developed by people other than Klyosov. He has nothing to do with them. I understand that his "DNA genealogy" is something different, on the subject of "Slavic Arians". To be honest, I did not get what it is exactly. Russian version of his BLP page says his theory "is a mixture of biochemistry, history, linguistics and chemical kinetics". Wow! You might wish to contribute to his BLP page some content that would be consistent with our policies and explain what his theory was about. My very best wishes (talk) 17:41, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sonja van den Ende

    I translated and expanded information about a Dutch journalist. But that person is generally seen as "affiliated with Russian propaganda and disinformation". I tried to make this as objective (NPOV) as possible, but I'd appreciate if someone could double check this, given this is a BLP article.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:45, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've gone other the article and it's sources, I can't see anything blatantly wrong with it (other than a minor typo). Everything is properly referenced and attributed as necessary. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:29, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sadhguru

    There is an old allegation that Sadhguru murdered his wife (the allegation originated from his wife's father). A user on the talk-page is requesting to put this content on the article. I am not convinced this is being done in good-faith. The allegation is not supported by reliable sourcing and is potentially libellous if we add in what this user is suggesting.

    The father of Sadhguru's wife was the only person to make the allegation but it was dismissed by the Coimbatore Police. It is an old allegation from 1997. I have not seen any good WP:RS on this topic. The user on the talk-page is requesting to use this VICE article [12] for the claim he was charged with his wife's murder. I am not convinced we should be using this source on Wikipedia for a controversial claim like this.

    See talk-page discussion [13] Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:47, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have to agree with Horse Eye's comment. That sort of approach is rarely helpful. That said, the Vice article is definitely not usable. It's an op/ed column and not an actual news report. You can easily tell because the author using a persuasive style and giving their own opinions. The article from The Week, on the other hand, looks very well written and neutral on the matter. The article is more about how this was dug up by some politician to use for political reasons than the actual allegations, and if we use that source, we should not simply cherrypick the allegations and ignore all the rest, but summarize the actual points that the article makes.
    The court document is definitely not usable, per WP:BLPPRIMARY, and should be redacted from the talk page. I cannot read the AsiaNetNews source, so I don't know about it.
    The big question that relates to BLP policy is one of WP:BLPCRIME. Is this person some kind of celebrity in India? If so, then BLPCRIME wouldn't apply and it would become a matter of RS and NPOV. If not, then BLPCRIME would apply. Just going by the length of his article and the volume of sources, it's possible he would qualify as a public figure, but I don't know enough about him to be sure. So far, we've only got one source that may qualify as RS, and the main point of that source is not the allegations themselves but what they were being used for, so that doesn't give it much if any weight. Zaereth (talk) 17:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Sadhguru is undoubtedly a well known public figure in India. That said, this particular Vice article is a very weak source and I don't think this allegation should be included unless better sources are found. Hemiauchenia (talk) 18:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Jose Altuve addition

    Can someone official add to Jose Altuve’s wiki that he has been in a modern day record of eight no hitters after Ronel Blanco’s no hitter on April 1st? 2601:248:8383:A350:A447:48D7:3DEE:70DD (talk) 21:24, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Please provide at least one URL leading to a reliable source to support your request. JFHJr (㊟) 01:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    David Leonhardt

    I’m not an editor (nor do I know him), but noticed that his bio doesn’t include the book he did in 2023 “Ours Was the Shining Future”, economic history about the fate of the American dream. Pretty well-reviewed, and seems worth mention. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/10/24/books/review/ours-was-the-shining-future-david-leonhardt.html

    It’s a wonderful thing you all do. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.15.78.111 (talk) 03:23, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added a mention to the article – thanks for mentioning it Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:01, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Tiffany Henyard

    On the article for Tiffany Henyard, information pertaining to an arrest and charge has been repeatedly reinserted using Chicago Police records and an NY Post article. However, per both WP:BLPPRIMARY and WP:NYPOST, I'm 90% sure that this information should be removed until better sourcing is utilized. I am also fairly confident that this constitutes a 3RRNO exemption under reason 7, but would prefer this resolved without leaning on that. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:19, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like all parties are in agreement now on the page, but comments from the experts here would be appreciated. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:26, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    That article is a mess of WP:BLPCRIME violations and near violations. Especially the section on her political tenure. I've never heard of Henyard before so there may be context I'm missing but much of this article should be nuked. Simonm223 (talk) 14:31, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I came to it during a brief anti-vandalism sojourn and it's been popping up in my watchlist with BLP issues since. I feel like I lack the BLPCRIME expertise necessary in this context, but I may remove some of the most obviously not-permitted stuff. ~ Pbritti (talk) 14:37, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I mean please do. Apparently she's a public figure (I've never heard of her and she's apparently the mayor of a village in Illinois but I guess that counts) so accusations can be included, I suppose, but we should certainly be avoiding anything in Wikivoice that says she's an extortionist and should likely be avoiding lurid blow-by-blow details of things like arrests. (for the record, the BLPCRIME adjustment for public figures is If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out.)Simonm223 (talk) 14:46, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow, that article is absolutely terrible. I couldn't get past even the first few sections without my eyes glazing over and nodding off. It has a hell of a lot of words that don't actually say anything. (I'd almost guess it was written by a politician.) It comes off like the usual political-mudslinging that someone tried to turn into an article. For example, here's just one paragraph:
    "As mayor, Henyard has become greatly embroiled in scandals involving allegations of corruption, fraud, and other misconduct. By early 2024, these scandals had attracted attention from national, and even foreign, news outlets.[29] Henyard has dismissed criticism of her, accusing opponents and the news media of engaging in "politricks" (a portmanteau of "politics" and "tricks").[30] She has accused political opponents of being misogynistic.[31]Within the first several months of her tenure, a number of controversies she was involved in had caused her to face protest from some community members and calls for her resignation.[32] In February 2024, Fox 32 Chicago (WFLD) reported that numerous individuals in Dolton had confirmed to them that they were interviewed by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) as part of an evident probe into Henyard's activities as mayor.[33] The Chicago Tribune soon after reported that an unnamed law enforcement official had confirmed to them that a FBI investigation into Henyard existed.[34] The FBI itself has not confirmed this.[35] In 2022, the editorial board of the Chicago Sun Times called alleged corruption in Henyard's governance of Dolton as, "a theme that's common in too many south suburban governmental units."[36]"
    Yet the article never describes any facts of this alleged corruption, fraud or other misconduct. We never actually describe these alleged controversies beyond saying they exist. No facts or details about this alleged FBI investigation. It's all just a bunch of doubletalk, and the entire article reads like that! And my goodness is it a long article, even for a president let along a mayor of a small town, and it apparently reads like that all the way through! It looks like it's just a laundry list of allegations, none of which are described with facts or in any detail except to say the the allegations allegedly exist. (And on a side note, does anyone think it's really necessary to explain "politricks" to the average reader, or does that simply come off as condescending?)
    Then there's other crap about her having mold in her house and wishing the former mayor well after his stroke, and stuff like that. Really trivial crap no one is interested in.
    But when it comes to the allegations and how it relates to things like BLPCRIME, I don't even know where to begin, because other than a long, drawn-out list of vague statements we really have no facts or details about them that I can tell. Granted, I was not even able to make it halfway through the article before my brain was numb, but I'd say first this article needs a complete rewrite to make it even readable, and massive amount of that stuff cut out, before getting into specific accusations, because as is I don't know what this is all about or even where to begin. Zaereth (talk) 21:55, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    •"article never describes any facts of this alleged corruption, fraud or other misconduct"...."none of which are described with facts or in any detail except to say the the allegations allegedly exist" is a patently dishonest assertion on your part
    •" does anyone think it's really necessary to explain "politricks" to the average reader, or does that simply come off as condescending", Wikipedia is supposed to be accessible to readers. Not everyone (especially some neurodivergent individuals) pick up on puns and portmanteau's as you might.
    •"having mold in her house" demonstrates poor reading comprehension on your part, as that is not about mold in her own residence. It was mention of practices of Henyard as a landlord of a property which was reported to contain mold and to have continued to collect Section 8 compensation in absence of a tenant. Conduct of a public figure as a landlord and recipient of section 8 federal compensation seems to have some similarities the mentions of PPP loan dealings of various politicians' businesses, business ventures of politicians (such as Lauren Boebert), and landlord practices of officeholders such as Ronald Gidwitz. But if you really think it should not be included, okay.
    But you seem to be of two contrasting assertions. You seem to be arguing both that article needs to be way more detailed; but also to be arguing that the article being detailed and being descriptive is something that needs to be avoided. SecretName101 (talk) 23:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. I'm saying that the article is terrible. That's not meant as an insult but constructive criticism, but I have to be blunt about it because it would take a wall of text to sugar coat it. Seriously, in the real world I charge a good fee for what I'm giving you for free. Writing is hard! But hard writing makes for easy reading. Put yourself in the reader's shoes. Try imagining how hard it is for the average reader to read that article and try to come to a coherent understanding of all that.
    An encyclopedia is a quick reference guide, not an in-depth story or analysis. We briefly tell you what a nuclear reactor is and kinda how it works, and leave all the atomic-physics details in the textbooks. An encyclopedia is a summary of the sources, which means cutting out all of the boring, extraneous details and boiling everything down to the nitty gritty. The gist of it. We don't need blow-by-blow details in narrative style. We don't need every single thing she's ever done wrong or has been criticized for. We're not a newspaper or a book. We use "expository summary style", and summarizing means cutting out stuff, the boring details, the trivial crap, and focusing on the main points.
    As counterintuitive as it may seem, summarizing is very helpful to the reader. All the details and trivial stuff is always added for the writer's benefit, but it just bogs things down and hides the really important stuff like a polar bear in a snowstorm. In the case of writing, there's an old adage, "Less is more." Quality over quantity, because adding too much has the opposite effect intended. People won't absorb any of it if the article is unreadable, will they?
    There's another old adage in the writing profession, "Show, don't tell" and it's just as true for an encyclopedia as it is for any other type of writing. When you give us the big picture in broad strokes, it leaves plenty of room to describe those big-ticket items in just enough detail for the reader to comprehend. Don't tell me she committed fraud or was part of some controversy. Show me. That's what separates a boring article from an interesting one. For example, check out any well-written article and look to see how they differ from this one. I hope that helps, and good luck. Zaereth (talk) 02:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is not the same as a literal encyclopedia in regards to the brevity employed. WP:NOTPAPER. That is genuinely a key facet of this website. SecretName101 (talk) 03:13, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I have a feeling you're not quite picking up what I'm laying down, so I'll put it another way. There's a difference between good writing and bad writing, and this is bad writing. It's universal, across all languages and cultures, and has been since... always. People first began to define it in the days of Babylon, ancient Greece, and Persia, but they didn't make it up. They just worked out the principles that were always there.
    There are four basic styles of writing: descriptive, persuasive, narrative, and expository. Descriptive is what you see in poems and travel brochures. Persuasive is in opinion/editorial columns and political commentary. Narrative is almost exclusively used for fiction. so if you're writing in a narrative style it will come off to the reader as fictional.
    Almost all non-fiction is written in some form of expository writing. What makes encyclopedic writing different is it's a tertiary source, and as such is written in WP:Summary style. We didn't make that up either. It's is also universal, going all the way back to their inventor, Pliny the Elder, 2000 years ago. It's what makes it useful to the general reader who just wants the gist of it and is not interested in reading the entire book (which is a vast majority of readers, like 99+%).
    If you don't believe me, then look it up for yourself. I recommend the books: On writing well: The Classical Guide to Writing Non-fiction by William Zinsser, Understanding Journalism by Lynette Sheridan Burns, or Reading and Writing: Nonfiction Genres, by Kathleen Buss, Lee Karnowski. Or, since expository writing very much mimics the scientific method, Philosophy of Scientific Method by John Stuart Mills. As Zinsser's Law says, "Easy writing makes for hard reading. Hard writing makes for easy reading." Now, do you honestly think it's better to have an article that is badly written or one that is written well? Zaereth (talk) 03:42, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If you are so troubled by the article and so good at writing, you have a wide open invitation to revise/repair the article SecretName101 (talk) 04:44, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll chip in here since I made prior comments about the article at its talk page: I cited WP:UNDUE after adding Template:Overly detailed due to the extensive list of allegations/controversies stemming from local sources, but I agree that some of the issues probably fall more clearly under BLP policies – I'm just not too familiar with those policies (hence why I didn't try to discuss them originally). RunningTiger123 (talk) 20:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's the deal, as I see it. As BLP policy is concerned, the subjects falls under the rules in WP:WELLKNOWN. This means that things such as fraud that are criminal allegations need to be widely reported in RSs. Not a single source, but widely reported. Other things such as lawsuits and "controversies" that are not criminal matters need to be weighed and portioned out according to NPOV.
    The big problem here is none of these allegations or controversies are described in the article, anywhere, so how do you judge what's criminal or civil, or even what's real and what's mudslinging politics? These things should all have a what, where, when, who, and how. In other words, there needs to be some substance to them or they're just hollow, meaningless statements. It's no different from name calling. But in cases such as using the word "fraud", now we're into criminal offenses, so regardless that falls under WELLKNOWN.
    If a fraud was committed, there should be a time, place, and person it happened to, and a specific way that it happened, so one would expect that info to accompany the allegation. Likewise, the definition of "controversy" is a "large public debate about a topic or an issue", so there should be some coverage of this debate and what is being debated. This article lacks all of that, so it's hard to know exactly what are BLP problems and what are not. It amounts to basically name calling, and in my opinion that in itself is the biggest BLP problem, which is why I suggested we blow it up and start over, below. Zaereth (talk) 21:46, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To the original comment, yes. Her automobile-related arrest should not be re-added. Its removal was correct. SecretName101 (talk) 00:17, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Pinging @SecretName101: since they are the primary author of the article. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I've made a second-pass at cleanup here, focusing on WP:DUE principally, along with a few grammar fixes. It's still really rough but I feel it needs more eyes than mine. Anyone else want a go? Simonm223 (talk) 13:11, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simonm223 you've insisting on the elimination of any mention in the body that the former mayor of Chicago being hired to investigate? The degree you are cutting is verging into whitewashing. SecretName101 (talk) 18:34, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Need to comment that every controversy should be widely reported by RSes per WP:PUBLICFIGURE; not just documenting exclusive reports by WGN or a local news source. Given the sheer amount of controversies surrounding Henyard, WP:WEIGHT should be steered towards more prominent sources than Illinois Answers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:58, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely. I think the presence of a former mayor being maybe brought in to investigate her was simply unnecessary salacious detail and, frankly, per the sources a violation of WP:CRYSTAL since it's unclear whether she actually will be involved to any significant degree. I believe I also noted that removal with WP:TOOSOON in my edit summary. But I would suggest centralizing this conversation at the article talk page. Simonm223 (talk) 19:03, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    T@Simonm223 The town board voted yesterday to hire her (with Lightfoot indeed present and accepting). She's the former mayor of Chicago. That is highly notable and tangable. You are either mis-judging or intentionally whitewashing. SecretName101 (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is edging to a WP:AGF. Violation here. I literally hadn't heard of Henyard before seeing this mess of a BLP violating article. I'm just trying to clean the crap up but I'm thinking that WP:TNT may be required if you will get this heated over what was, frankly, a light touch cleaning out the cruft. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Simonm223 No, it is not assuming bad faith to acknowledge that you are either mi-judging or intentionally misacting. I assert neither is the more likely motivation. That's not assuming bad faith. SecretName101 (talk) 19:32, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Please redact your claim that I am intentionally white-washing this article. Simonm223 (talk) 19:39, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I never claimed you were. I said that’s one of two (or more) possible things that might be going on. You excluded from your quoted excerpt my mention that a valid explanation is that you are simply making (good faith) misjudgments. Please do not mischaracterize/ selectively quote my comments in a manner that misframes them. SecretName101 (talk) 20:21, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Either way, it's a form of deflecting. It's deigned to take the focus off the real issues, but (to Simonm) that only works if you let it. Please see WP:NOTNEWS. If this person was hired yesterday, then there is nothing encyclopedic to even tell yet. Not everything reported in the news is worthy of being in an encyclopedia, and especially when it comes to breaking news. We need stuff that will pass the ten year test. This reminds me a lot of the Kate Middleton article at the top of this page, except at least that one was readable. When summarized properly, that entire article was able to be condensed to a couple of short paragraphs in the main article. Much the same needs to be done in this article, except this is the main article. Yet as far as I can tell the best solution is basically the same. It would be far, far easier to simply TNT it and start over from scratch than to even attempt to fix what is there, because it's that much of a dumpster fire. Zaereth (talk) 20:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The opening of the investigation itself is indeed noteworthy. You are making mis-judgements, and elsewhere Simonm223 has stated that their rationale is a personal dismissal/judgement of the investigation as a "publicity stunt". SecretName101 (talk) 21:14, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Eventually one tires of saying WP:CRYSTAL WP:NOTNEWS constantly and feels a need to point out why these policies apply. Your cries of "bias" don't change that. Simonm223 (talk) 11:56, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    What constitutes a public figure

    So working on Tiffany Henyard has me wondering what constitutes a public figure. Because it seems clear from review of the sources that Henyard is notorious but what she's notorious for is entirely coextensive with the various things she's been accused of doing. If Henyard is only a public figure by dint of being accused of a bunch of things then it almost seems like we shouldn't be covering her on Wikipedia. However if her status as a public figure is because she's a mayor then we have a smaller problem but still a problem. That is that her controversies are the entirety of her page. And they're extensive and heavily detailed. This raises the question of WP:DUE. I'm curious to see if we can find reasonable comparables. I found one but it was a much shorter page about a municipal politician who was convicted of crimes rather than merely accused of them. Simonm223 (talk) 17:30, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think she's a public figure because of her alleged crimes. But I think her being an elected mayor means she is a public figure "a public figure, a public official or any other person pervasively involved in public affairs" Note this doesn't mean she is notable as plenty of public figures are not notable. Nil Einne (talk) 22:34, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. The term "public figure" is actually a legal term that was defined by the Supreme Court back in 1964, although it has been around since the 1700s. The definition is very specific and applies to Wikipedia and its authors just as much as it does to newspapers and journalists. The reason is because a public figure cannot sue for libel or defamation whereas a private individual can, and the laws recognize this. This especially applies to politicians, because there's an overriding "public need to know", so while actors and rock bands must rise to the level of celebrity to be considered a public figure, anyone holding a public office is automatically given that status.
    That said, I'll reiterate what I said above. I think the easiest way to fix this article is to WP:Blow it up and start over. I don't necessarily mean delete the article, but in that the text is just too far gone to fix. It'd be far easier to fix it by wiping the slate and starting from scratch. List only those allegations that have been widely covered and have some kind of significance, with facts, a point, and everything, and leave all the mudslinging in the campaign ads where they belong. Zaereth (talk) 01:38, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize in advance for my peevery, but Zaereth, I agree almost entirely with you both on the policy and the best path forward. I do need to just slightly correct that, for the United States, New York Times Co. v. Sullivan did not say that public figures cannot sue, they made the standard much more stringent, by creating the actual malice standard (which, of course, has nothing to do with malice). Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 01:53, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No need to apologize. Your input is always valued. That's actually true, because of course anything can be taken too far and cross the line, but I was trying to keep my reply short so I guess I glossed over that. Zaereth (talk) 02:12, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I have trying to fix that mess on my long-list of things to get around to but I want to be cautious and patient here so feedback on this is really valuable. Simonm223 (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    She's definitely a public figure. WP:LOWPROFILE is clear that a key point for whether someone is a public figure or not is whether they seek fame; seriously running for mayor (especially successfully, but probably even if it had been unsuccessful) would normally make one a public figure in that regard. The article is still clearly placing WP:UNDUE emphasis on the accusations against her and minutiae related to them that have received relatively minimal coverage, but the standard it needs to be trimmed down to is clearly the one in WP:PUBLICFIGURE and not WP:NPF. --Aquillion (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliability of Looper.com

    Closing this post because the discussion has moved to WP:RSN. The discussion should happen in one place. Repost as necessary for BLP stuff. JFHJr (㊟) 04:31, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    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.

    Exactly how reliable is the entertainment news site [[14]]? Particularly when it comes to biographical details? I can't tell if it's reliable or if it's some clickbait website that web scrapes info from elsewhere. Kcj5062 (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't know. Do you have a specific article you want to use as a citation? The reliability of a source depends greatly on the specific information it is giving. I mean, you wouldn't get medical advice from a cookbook, would you? So, reliability is not simply black and white, and we'd need to see exactly what the source says and what info it's supposed to support in order to give a real assessment. If you want to know what people think of it as a news source in general, you might have better luck at WP:RSN because that's what they do. But I'm not just going to start randomly reading their articles to give a general assessment here. (Or is this post some kind of clickbait?) Zaereth (talk) 03:44, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm referring to this particular edit on actress Loni Anderson's page.[15] It's being used as a ref in regards to her being voted the Queen of the Valentine's Day Winter Formal. There was another ref prior to, but I removed as it was a high school yearbook on Classmates.com and that would probably fall under WP:PRIMARY. Plus Classmates.com is user-generated. Kcj5062 (talk) 03:56, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    This is an WP:RSN question. Zaereth is correct: they do this there. To answer your question, it looks like an unreliable source and could be removed with an edit summary saying so. But absolute answers about sources come from the other forum. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:10, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. I'll ask over at WP:RSN. Thank you. Kcj5062 (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For that particular information, I don't see any reason to doubt it. The article looks to be well written and cites its own sources a majority of the time. The problem I see is it doesn't contain nearly the amount of information that it's being used to support. It doesn't say where she grew up, what high school she attended, or what year it happened. In 1963 she was apparently enrolling in college according to the source. So, while I would probably trust it for that particular info, it's misleading to use it as if it supports the entire sentence and paragraph above. Zaereth (talk) 04:24, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Thom Darden/1

    In response to Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Thom Darden/1, I have added two stories about Thom Darden that are unflattering. I want them to be reviewed here.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 18:19, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I have removed his alleged contribution to the ouster of his coach since The NY Times article does not directly verify this, instead using the weasel language "Some Browns historians remembered that Thom Darden had been one of the ringleaders in the players' unrest". It can be seen as WP:BLPGOSSIP and also requires more than one RS citation under WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Also, the Boston Globe sports columnist, Michael Madden, should not be used to assert facts under WP:RSEDITORIAL. Morbidthoughts (talk) 00:37, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Morbidthoughts Are you saying that the content can be restored with supporting RS?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 04:43, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Multiple RS are needed to discuss his role that led to the alleged ouster while RS is needed to support whatever facts Madden raised. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:48, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Morbidthoughts, Can I readd the ouster with the recently added content?-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:01, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Just added a bit more.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Reviewing the cited news article, the detail about the ouster is more appropriate in the Forrest Gregg article. Also, there may be too much detail about McInally when the focus of the article should be on Darden. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:13, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The cited stories are variations of these two.[16][17] I could not find any mention of this incident in RS after November 1985.[18] Morbidthoughts (talk) 03:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Abbas Ansari

    Do these edits meet our NPOV and sourcing policies? Thanks. Doug Weller talk 15:40, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There are some BLPCRIME concerns since it's not clear if he is convicted of anything yet.[19] It seems like he is in jail awaiting trial. Morbidthoughts (talk) 04:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Morbidthoughts Ouch. Apologies, I didn't include a diff! Specifically [20], Thanks. Doug Weller talk 07:46, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Mike Rinder

    Closing this post because the discussion can be found at the article talk page. JFHJr (㊟) 05:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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

    This biography makes false claims about his achievements and awards. Mike Rinder is not a co-founder of The Aftermath Foundation. He was invited onto the board of the foundation after it was co-founded by Luis Garcia and Aaron Smith-Levin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:8C:B80:59C0:BCFD:4E17:5C10:91DE (talk) 23:32, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    There's a recent discussion on that issue at Talk:Mike_Rinder#Founder_or_not_(The_Aftermath_Foundation), you could participate there. Schazjmd (talk) 23:39, 7 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    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.

    Whirr

    I'm not 100% familiar with how wikipedia works but I noticed a change on the wikipedia page for the shoegaze band Whirr[1] about how they have influenced other shoegaze artist such as Wisp and Flyingfish. Not only is this claim unsupported by any sources, Flyingfish is not a shoegaze artist and rather categorizes themselves as alt rock on their instagram bio. I also think this information does not belong in the category of history, but I could be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.167.255.141 (talk • contribs) 12:57 8 April 2024 (UTC)

    References

    1. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whirr
    The genre and impact of this band are not claims about a living person, so this isn't the appropriate place to discuss this topic. Please start a discussion on the article talk page instead. Jfire (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Third-party claims in BLPs and about living persons need to be reliably sourced. A BLP claiming to participate or any other verb in a genre revival needs citations. Claiming to influence any particular band needs citations. I've removed the paragraph. Anyone with a reliable secondary source is welcome to replace any supportable prose that I removed. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 04:05, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Manitoba Warriors

    A question has come up whether the mention of the name of one of the victims of crime mentioned in the article's Expansion section, Taisa Marunchak, in connection with an incident involving her in 1996 and her later testimony in a criminal case is necessary to the article in the light of WP:BLPNAME and WP:BLP1E. The article includes many rather graphic details of crimes involving the subject gang and their adversaries during the 1990s. The primary and sole source for naming Marunchak is a book by a journalist who covered the events at the time: Langton, Jerry (2015). Cold War How Organized Crime Works in Canada and Why It's About to Get More Violent. Toronto: HarperColllins. ISBN 978-1-4434-3255-9. The other sources cited as references in the article are not cited for the name. A search of the Newspaper Archive for the terms "Manitoba Warriors" turned up 1,481 articles from 1996 alone. I wasn't able to go through each one. But clearly the gang was extensively covered in news reports from the time period around the incidents detailed in that section of the article. However, a search for Marunchak's name did not turn up any mentions in the same resource. It appears that a case opened in the Office of the Privacy Commission of Canada (FIPPA-2014-0188) (PIPEDA- 032066) led to the removal of Marunchak's name from articles on the internet. I was not able to determine whether the lack of mentions in the newspaper article resource was due to that action by the Privacy Commission, or simply that there was no mention of Marunchak by name in those articles. Would removing the name and identifying the victim (and later Crown witness) by her age be a solution which would not significantly affect the quality of the article? Geoff | Who, me? 13:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The name should be removed under WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Morbidthoughts (talk) 17:45, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. I'll remove the name. Thanks for the feedback. Geoff | Who, me? 18:25, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Bilan Osman [English 9

    I have never edited wikipedia before so I don't know how this works but I am swedish and sources 5-9 are listed saying "She has repeatedly said that she cannot stand white people." which is not quoting the news articles listed. I think this is due to a twitter hate campaign. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.24.142.97 (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I couldn't read most of the sources from my computer because they seem to require cookies, and the place I work at doesn't allow websites to download cookies. However, I was able to read sources 6 and 9 and they are op/ed pieces and not actual news articles. You can tell because the author is expressing her own opinion. Not only that, but they are the exact same op/ed simply printed in different sources. While I agree with the sentiment of the author, in that racism is not limited to any single race, op/ed columns are not reliable sources for anything but the author's opinion. If the other sources are also opinion pieces, then I would suggest simply removing the section based on unreliable sourcing. If they are actual news articles, then I would suggest giving the actual quotes and a brief summary of the point of the articles, but that has to be determined by someone who can actually see the sources, which unfortunately I can't. Zaereth (talk) 21:00, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    8 is also an opinion column. 7 is by the subject, but based on a Google translate of it, does not appear to contain the statement being cited (and I think it was 8 that made a reference to the subject saying they were finding it harder to stand the people in question, which is a different statement from "can't stand". Number 5 looks like it may be some sort of usable interview, but it is behind a paywall that I do not have the time an energy to navigate right now. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 21:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case I'd just go ahead and remove it, but it looks like it has already been taken care of. Zaereth (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, thanks to the unnameable site I was made aware of this BLP (and later of this discussion). A couple of us have now edited it extensively. My latest edit expands it considerably. I can confirm that the "Controversy" section was based on opinion articles not labelled as such; another was added by the article creator, Drmies, in one of the first edits to the article, with the edit summary including the words "his opinion isn't worth much". Unfortunately it Drmies didn't tag it as opinion, and it is a hostile article, essentially a counter by another columnist to the subject's columns in the same newspaper. Her work has indeed occasioned controversy, and many articles about her and interviews with her are paywalled. I don't advocate protection; one of the editors who inserted a "Controversy" section based on opinion articles is History & References (who I will welcome after posting this) and although such content has also been inserted by IPs, it's been removed by at least one IP (10 March). I think heavy attention by watchers is required. Yngvadottir (talk) 21:35, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yngvadottir, you know very well that there was no "controversy" section in the stub I created and worked on. Citing the first half of my edit summary is a bit misleading--anyone can see that it was meant to indicate that presumably the facts would have been checked. We do not usually "label" or "tag" sources as "opinion articles", but I did, as the entirety of the summary indicates. The suggestion that I would somehow be responsible for a BLP violation is a bit unsavory. Drmies (talk) 23:59, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If History & References happens to come by, perhaps they can explain how they defend the BLP violation in Kadir Kasirga, where the only evidence for "has been featured in Swedish police investigations connected to his brother" is from a right-wing populist rage which contained vague and tendentious allegations, without a shred of evidence, like "in interrogations it is alleged that the money instead comes from the politically active elder brother Kadir Kasirga" and "Voices are now being raised that it is a security risk with politicians in the Riksdag who have close relatives who are serious criminals." Which voices? Sure, he's been "featured", but in the press, saying he and his brother chose different paths in life. Drmies (talk) 00:31, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Drmies: Thanks very much for looking at the editor's other work and giving them the BLP contentious topics notification. I in no way intended to implicate you in a BLP violation; your edit summary did indeed make clear why you were using that source (although ironically the Expo foundation was in the source on the award) and as I stated, the "Controversy" section was inserted—and edit warred back in—more recently. Unfortunately you didn't use the "type=" parameter in the citation, so some readers and editors may have assumed it was a neutral report. Anyway, I hope I've got it right in my recent edit, and this is an article that I do believe needs to be watched. Yngvadottir (talk) 01:50, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Sion Sono

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Sion_Sono#Edit_Request

    We suggest that the source is not a reliable source, is insufficient, and should be removed in accordance with the WP:BLP policy.

    Reason :

    • The cause of suicide is unknown, and no information exists anywhere to determine the cause of suicide.
    • Writing on this page suggests that Sion Sono is the cause, and lacks fairness and neutrality.
    • The information source linked as a source is "Shūkan Bunshun". It's tabloid journalism and not a reliable source of information.

    Wikipedia's BLP policy states, "The material should not be added to an article when the only sources are tabloid journalism."

    • The source article is not open to the public. that is insufficient information source.
    • The Wikipedia BLP policy states the following:
    ”contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion.”

    We kindly ask for your cooperation. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Min01f (talk • contribs) 21:30, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    It is indeed a tabloid (I am aware of it, never read it before, but did read it now without translation). The tabloid is not a reliable source. The text was not supported by any other source. I removed both. Cheers! JFHJr (㊟) 04:48, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    PS. Who is "we"? It looks like you might want to read WP:COI. Depending on your situation, you may need to disclose your particular relationship with the subject or with a group (each time you post a new discussion or join an existing one). JFHJr (㊟) 05:12, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    JFHJr, Thank you for your cooperation.
    Sorry, I was wrong. The correct word is "I", not "We".
    I didn't understand English very well. In most cases, I translate and read.
    Thank you for your comment. Min01f (talk) 18:43, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Arvind Kejriwal

    User:Haani40 wants to insert a conspiracy theory that apparently Arvind Kejriwal received money from "Ford Foundation" to destabilise India at the behest of the US. The only source for this is a random commercial book written by a certain RSN Singh who is a retired military official and participates in partisan talk shows. I removed it [21] but he added it back in [22], so I am bring this here directly because it looks deeply libelous and I see no point in discussing it with him if he can't see why it shouldn't be in the article. MrMkG (talk) 22:02, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The same claim is also found at RSN Singh. Sourced to this book: Singh, RSN. The Jihadis Plus - Know the Anti-Nationals. Lancer Publishers. Retrieved 3 April 2024.
    Lancer Publishers self-describes as "the foremost military publishing house in India since 1983." Thoughts on reliability for this statement? Rotary Engine talk 22:37, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just marketing. There is a big market for military related books in India and there are dime a dozen junk books. The publishers are solely commercial interest based. Anti-national is also a deeply partisan pejorative term being used to demonise the opposition and dissidents (p. 86). MrMkG (talk) 22:52, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The first thing I usually do with books is check the publisher's reputation, because that's one of the best ways to tell reliability. I couldn't find any reviews of Lancer Publishing, which is discouraging but not definitive.
    Then I looked at the book. It's not a historical account or anything but is a persuasive book, and persuasive style quite often includes both fact and fiction to make its point, so strike two, I would not count it as being very reliable. Third is that the edit in question is simply the author's opinion of the subject. An opinion by qualified people on a subject is often very informative (for example, a book review, restaurant review, or peer review of a medical journal), but I see no reason why this author's opinion is of any significance. As the book states in its preface, its goal is to "expose the modern day demons who are on a do or die mission to destroy the Bharat Nation", and the whole thing is written in that tone, so strike four. I would not count it as a reliable source. Zaereth (talk) 22:54, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Any allegations like that require multiple RS per WP:REDFLAG and WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:07, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As a new user, I have been seeking advise from Kautilya3 and doing as he says. I have even mentioned in my edit summary that I have sought advice from him. Please see this diff. I believe that this should have been discussed on the Talk page of the article first. When there is a discussion on the Talk page also, I ping Kautilya3 when I am unsure of something. I have read what the other editors have written and will not edit war over this point and request not to be sanctioned (especially since there was no discussion about this on the Talk page of the article). I am expecting Kautilya3 to write a few words in my defense here. Thank you!-Haani40 (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Your explanation is sufficient. No need to defend yourself. This board is for answering questions about policy, giving advice, and enforcing BLP policy. This is not WP:ANI and we don't judge an editor's actions or "punish" them here, so no need to worry. Just take it as a learning experience to remember in the future. Zaereth (talk) 04:10, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for explaining @Zaereth:. Another user has reverted my edit at the RSN Singh article which can be seen in this diff. If I add another reliable source about the allegation on Arvind Kejriwal by RSN Singh will it pass muster and be accepted at least in the RSN Singh article?-Haani40 (talk) 04:22, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No, not if you are using Kejriwal's name. BLP policy overrides all other policies and applies to any article that discusses living people. It even applies to talk pages and noticeboards. Instead of focusing on this one point, instead try summarizing the point of the book itself, without naming any specific people. Better yet, find reviews of the book and summarize those instead. This one detail is far too specific. Zaereth (talk) 04:35, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Alleged prison escape of Daniel Khalife

    A move request in relation to this article could have BLP and legal implications. PatGallacher (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The move is just fine. The subject, a detainee, was found outside of detention per multiple reliable sources. Sue us. JFHJr (㊟) 00:54, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Also... The escape was only *alleged* perhaps while he was unaccounted for, before apprehension outside detention. I realize escape is also a crime he is charged with, but we have to use plain English in titles, and if the event is notable, then the move is a good idea. JFHJr (㊟) 01:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Without comment on the requested move; the topic itself seems to impact poorly with WP:NOTNEWS. Rotary Engine talk 01:30, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. That's why I piped to WP:BLP1E in my response. Personally, I'd rather not go for the jugular until the page is settled in its spot. JFHJr (㊟) 01:34, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree. BLPE1E, but I think BLPCRIME also applies. I know he was caught red-handed escaping, but we can't really tell that story without discussing why he was in jail in the first place. Those are some pretty stigmatic charges he hasn't been convicted of. Zaereth (talk) 02:03, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If alleged events lead to detention (CRIME, 1E), and an independently notable escape and capture occur (superseding, let's say), what result? I think CRIME means minimizing the WP:WEIGHT of text describing the background of the escape. In the present edition, that comprises about a third of the text, perhaps less. If you'd like to excise more, I might agree. But it seems pretty concise and neutrally worded to me. I think we'll only know definitively how CRIME applies once court finishes. JFHJr (㊟) 02:25, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, the current article is trying to thread the needle by taking the absolutely bonkers stance that he only allegedly escaped and was allegedly on the run, and yet saying in wikivoice that he was recaptured. So the article would have us believe that it is possible that he was simultaneously in Wandsworth Prison and 14 miles away on the Grand Union Canal towpath in Northolt. Caeciliusinhorto-public (talk) 12:02, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Why is this even an article? Non-notable person, no clear long-term importance. Failure to meet NEVENT and NOTNEWS. --Masem (t) 12:05, 11 April 2024 (UTC)PatGallacher[reply]
    That may or may not be so and BLP1E/BLPCRIME may well be relevant. But, PatGallacher, why on earth is there an issue about taking "alleged" out of the article title. In your oppose on the talk page you refer to "legal" and "BLP" issues preventing the move. They might be relevant to whether the article should exist - but the escape happened. There's no doubt about that. Can you explain the issue you have with taking out "alleged" from the article title. DeCausa (talk) 12:36, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Will Fowles

    An editor has started a discussion at Talk:Will Fowles#Do we need to add a section titled 2023 rape allegation? about whether a section of text in the article covering sexual assault allegations should be expanded upon. Experienced editors are invited to participate. TarnishedPathtalk 07:01, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    We have to be very careful about walling off something in its own section, because that can create an imbalance by giving much more emphasis to it than is due. It's similar to the way newspapers use headlines to emphasize a story. Controversy sections, for example, do this by pigeonholing any negative information in a single section instead of distributing within the timeline of events.
    In discussing what is due weight for the information, well that's more of a simple math problem than anything else, in figuring out percentages. It's necessary to weigh all the sources that exist about a subject against the sources containing the particular information, factoring in the weight of the sources themselves and how much they devote to the particular info, and with that determine just what percentage of the article should be devoted to that information in terms of space. Does it deserve an entire section? A single paragraph? A single sentence, or would even that be too much? That is best done by those who have read and are familiar with all the sources, and that's what the talk page discussion should be focused on.
    I will say that the other user in that discussion seems hell bent on including the word "arrest", as if it has some significance. In Australian law, just as in the US, and arrest occurs when "police take hold of you; or, police tell you that you are under arrest; or, you are arrested by written warrant." It's usually a part of the normal procedure of being taken in for questioning but, of course, it doesn't mean guilty, although to those who don't know enough to know better it may insinuate that, so it seems a bit sensationalist. But the significant information is what caused his resignation, and the rest is basically, "they asked him questions, let him go, and nothing happened" which sounds pretty insignificant when spelled out like that, doesn't it? The more important thing is to get the weight and balance correct and focus on the significant aspects of the story. Zaereth (talk) 17:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Ben Zimmer

    Ben Zimmer is an American linguist, lexicographer, and language commentator. I came across this biography as I recently AfD'd an article from the page creator. A cursory browse of the references section suggests the article presents considerable issues requiring clean-up, if an experienced editor has some time to expend. Thanks! IgnatiusofLondon (he/him • ☎️) 17:10, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Concerns Over Source Reliability and Verification in the 'Lifestyle' Section of Ed Young's Article

    Issue Overview: The "Lifestyle" section of Pastor Ed Young's Wikipedia article primarily relies on an investigative report from WFAA, which is secondarily supported by a Dallas News article. The latter mainly references the former, raising concerns about the independence and verification of the information presented.[1]

    Concerns: Source Reliability and Independence: The primary source, WFAA, relies on anonymous sources and lacks substantial corroborative evidence. The Dallas News article does not independently verify the claims but simply references the WFAA report, raising questions about its independence and the verification of its content.[2][3] 5dondons (talk) 20:25, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    The source from Dallas News is an op/ed column which I wouldn't call a reliable source. It's written in a narrative style, which in itself makes it suspect. Same reason we don't use Forensic Files or Ken Burns documentaries as sources, but if you look closely you can see the author injecting their own opinions. The News 8 (WFAA-TV) source is a well-written news article, and I see no reason it shouldn't be used. Of course, there's a matter of due weight and balance to consider, but I see no reason the source can't be used. Zaereth (talk) 20:49, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your feedback. I agree the Dallas News article's narrative style and op/ed nature make it less suitable as a reliable source for factual content in addition to using the WFAA as its source for the contentious material, particularly in a biography of a living person.
    Regarding the WFAA article, while it is well-written, I agree we must consider the due weight and balance. The reliance of a single source for potentially contentious material in a BLOP is problematic.
    Given these points, we should continue to seek additional independent verification. If we are unable to find additional support for these claims, we may need to reevaluate its inclusion. 5dondons (talk) 21:03, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Neither of the linked references are used in the article. Why they being brought up rather than the ones in use?

    I cannot access either of them. --Hipal (talk) 22:39, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    My apologies, these are the articles I was referring to, they are the ones sourced on the page:
    WFAA - https://www.wfaa.com/article/news/local/investigates/prominent-grapevine-pastor-linked-to-luxury/287-338287756
    Dallas News: http://res.dallasnews.com/interactives/2013_December/pastored/ 5dondons (talk) 22:43, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like user Zaereth clicked the links within the actual article and was able to access them from there. His points should still carry weight. 5dondons (talk) 22:46, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Very concerning that you identified different references than those used in the article.
    I'm not clear what Zaereth is referring to. The correct Dallas News ref doesn't appear to be an op/ed. It's a lengthy piece already used in the article elsewhere, it has a great deal of background and comparisons (hallmarks of a well-researched news piece), multiple photos of the Young family, a tour of their home, and quotes from the family members. The presentation can sometimes take or formal or entertainment style. --Hipal (talk) 23:35, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Zaereth read the article from the source on the main page. You still haven’t addressed the fact that the Dallas News articles source for the information included in ‘Lifestyle’ section comes directly from the WFAA source without adding any additional sources. 5dondons (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    References

    1. ^ "Ed Young (Fellowship Church) - Wikipedia". Retrieved 2024-04-12.
    2. ^ "Controversy Surrounding Ed Young". Dallas News. 2010-05-01. Retrieved 2024-04-12.
    3. ^ "Investigative Report on Ed Young". WFAA. 2010-04-30. Retrieved 2024-04-12.

    Dominic Ng

    There have been past attempts to WP:WHITEWASH Dominic Ng, including by paid editors who were subsequently discovered, and it would be good to get more eyes on this to see if there is presently an attempt to whitewash it. - Amigao (talk) 22:19, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard&oldid=1218650656"