Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard

Welcome – report issues regarding biographies of living persons here.
This noticeboard is for discussing the application of the biographies of living people (BLP) policy to article content. Please seek to resolve issues on the article talk page first, and only post here if that discussion requires additional input. Do not copy and paste defamatory material here; instead, link to a diff showing the problem. Search this noticeboard & archives Sections older than 7 days are archived by Lowercase sigmabot III. Additional notes: Edits by the subject of an article may be welcome in some cases. For general content disputes regarding biographical articles, try Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Biographies instead. Editors are encouraged to assist editors regarding the reports below. Administrators may impose contentious topic restrictions to enforce policies.

Mike Levin

The page on Mike Levin, a Democratic candidate for Congress in California's 49th District, has suffered repeated vandalism by Levin's political opponents. There have been repeated violations of Wikipedia's policies on biographies of living persons and neutral point of view. Today, I just removed false information that claimed that Mike Levin had been involved with a company that dumped toxic coal ash in Alabama, that claimed that he had donated $1000000 to his campaign, and that he was an environmental lobbyist. None of these claims had proper citation. A few days ago, I had had the same issue with other false and uncited information about Mike Levin.

At this point, the page needs to be locked and protected because the page has suffered repeated vandalism, and repeated violations of Wikipedia's policies on BLP and NPOV. Mike Levin is a politician in a competitive election and any false and misleading information can have serious repercussions.

We currently have 2 sections on this page for Mike Levin. Bus stop (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Shooting of Stephon Clark

Stephon Clark was recently shot and killed by police in Sacramento, while unarmed and hiding in his grandmother's backyard. The press has reported that he had past criminal convictions.

In our article on his death, I had added Clark's convictions in a manner that I hoped would not lead or prejudice readers, but would nevertheless make the information available. Those convictions have been removed [1] as a "SYNTH impression... BLP smear." The editor who removed them, SPECIFICO, has asked that we take the issue to BLPN. So here we are: advice is appreciated.

Also pinging @GreenMeansGo, Darkstar1st, and MelanieN: they're participating in the conversation or have helped at the article as well. -Darouet (talk) 15:25, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

The article title is "Shooting of Stephon Clark," not "everything we can dig up about Stephon Clark, a nonnotable private individual who was shot while holding a cellphone." I agree with SPECIFICO that adding unflattering material just to "make the information available" is wrong here. 16:11, 4 April 2018 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by HouseOfChange (talk • contribs) (Sorry I forgot to sign my comment.)HouseOfChange (talk) 16:34, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

HouseOfChange—you say The article title is "Shooting of Stephon Clark," not "everything we can dig up about Stephon Clark, a nonnotable private individual who was shot while holding a cellphone." The article is not solely about the shooting of Stephon Clark. The article is about the events subsequent to the shooting of Stephon Clark. Were it not for the events subsequent to the shooting of Stephon Clark there would probably not be an article. In those events subsequent to the shooting of Stephon Clark there is discussion of the criminal history of Stephon Clark. Why would we omit that criminal history? Bus stop (talk) 17:56, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

The article is about the shooting. Unless his past convictions are somehow involved with the shooting, which I can't imagine they are, they should be excluded as irrelevant. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 16:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Seraphimblade—you say the article is about the shooting. The article is not solely about the shooting. The article is about events subsequent to the shooting. In events subsequent to the shooting, the criminal history of Stephon Clark is discussed. Why would we omit that criminal history from this article? Bus stop (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

@HouseOfChange:@Seraphimblade:Thanks for taking a look. I hope you will join the efforts at the article and talk page if you are so inclined. @MelanieN: SPECIFICO talk 16:25, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Seraphimblade, he was shot evading arrest for a crime he is suspected of committing while on probation for the same crime. are you suggesting this is unrelated to this death? Darkstar1st (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Considering the police had no idea of this when they shot him, yes, it's unrelated. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Right now, the text of the biographical section of the article looks like this:

Stephon Clark (born Stephen Clark) was a graduate of Sacramento High School. He was the father of two sons, ages 1 and 3. At the time of his death, Clark was 22 years old. His brother, Stevante Clark, told KOVR that he and Stephon had come from "underprivileged, broken homes”. A 16-year-old brother was killed in a shooting in 2006. Stevante Clark said Stephon had been released from county jail about a month before the shooting and had been staying with his grandparents on and off, adding "He was arrested before, but he's been different lately. He really changed his life." Sacramento County court records show that Clark had a history of convictions for robbery, domestic abuse, and a prostitution-related offense. At the time of his death he was on probation for a 2014 robbery conviction.

On the article talk page, it was agreed that the convictions should be mentioned in the this article due to their discussion in many, if not most, newspaper articles published on the shooting. Plus, wikipedia articles on similar shootings tend to mention prior convictions as well. Currently, there is a discussion on the talk page about whether to add a sentence to this section quoting or paraphrasing one or more activists who state that his convictions could not have contributed to his shooting due to the fact that the officers who killed him were at the time unaware of whether he had committed any crimes before. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 17:36, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

It was most certainly not agreed, "baselessly bludgeoned" would be more apt. But the key point is that the article talk page is a separate venue and this page is for independent review. SPECIFICO talk 17:42, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• The information included is relevant to the subject because sources writing on the subject thought they were reliable to write about. We don't make unilateral sweeping editorial decisions about what is or is not relevant. We look at the sources, and mirror what they do. What's currently in the article has been discussed at length on the article talk page, and there is a single editor who does not agree, and has bludgeoned the talk page there with nearly 100 comments over the past few days. Those here are welcome to join in the ongoing discussion there. GMG^talk 17:54, 4 April 2018 (UTC)
• Respectfully, I think there are multiple sense of "relevant" being used here by various editors. IMO it is pretty clear that although criminal history (like a history of complaints against the officers) is not relevant to anybody's legal culpability, and did not impact the officers' decision-making, nonetheless it is relevant to a straightforward description of what happened and who was involved. N.B., it is an article about a shooting that has BLP implications, not a biographical article that mentions a shooting. Factchecker_atyourservice 18:12, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Well actually, since the article is about actions of the officers' and how they exercised their official roles, there is some (not all) history of the officers that would be relevant in the strong sense. SPECIFICO talk 18:15, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—you say the article is about actions of the officers. The article is not solely about the "actions of the officers". This is an article about events subsequent to the shooting of Stephon Clark. In those events there is discussion of the criminal history of Stephon Clark. Why should this article omit the criminal history of Stephon Clark given that the criminal history of Stephon Clark is discussed in events subsequent to the shooting of Stephon Clark? Bus stop (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

There's one source about a conspiracy theory that draws on mentions of Mr. Clark's arrest record. If that conspiracy theory gets wide coverage, we could add a section about it. There's no RS that relates the events or actions of the officers to the killing. SPECIFICO talk 18:27, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—you say "There's no RS that relates the events or actions of the officers to the killing." This article is not solely about the actions of the officers at the time of the deadly encounter. This article is also about events that took place subsequent to the shooting. Those events included discussions in which the previous run-ins with the law were raised. Bus stop (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• As he was convicted there is no BLP issue in mentioning his conviction. We do not censor information (widely covered that is) - and we let the reader do what they may with it.Icewhiz (talk) 19:07, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Yes there certainly is a BLP violation, if the mention is undue and used only to insinuate the SYNTH suggestion that his priors were related to his killing. And I note that at least 2 editors in this thread appear to believe that, even without providing any RS that states it. SPECIFICO talk 18:44, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO—you say "Yes there certainly is a BLP violation, if the mention is undue and used only to insinuate the SYNTH suggestion that his priors were related to his killing." This article is not solely about the shooting of Stephon Clark. This article is also about the protests and social unrest and heated discussions subsequent to the shooting of Stephon Clark. Subsequent to the shooting, the Clark family's attorney referenced Stephon Clark's prior run-ins with the law. Subsequent to the shooting Betty Williams, president of the local chapter of the NAACP, referenced Stephon Clark's prior run-ins with the law. Other community leaders as well as Clark's family have referenced Stephon Clark's prior run-ins with the law. In each instance the point made was that prior run-ins with the law do not excuse the use of deadly force. But how is the reader of this article to know this aspect of the discussion, subsequent to the shooting, if we totally omit it from the article? Bus stop (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• The distinction has been explained to you roughly half a dozen times here and at the article talk, so I'm not going to repeat. SPECIFICO talk 03:23, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• As the convictions were unrelated to the shooting (topic of the article), it is WP:COATRACK to add the material, although apparently Fox News is using this info to discredit the victim. Let's be Wikipedia, not Fox News. HouseOfChange (talk) 19:16, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

HouseOfChange—you say the convictions were unrelated to the shooting (topic of the article) but of course the topic of the article is not solely the shooting. I think this is the crux of the problem. When we are writing an article including a larger event we should be including details pertinent to that larger event. And as concerns that larger event, there is certainly discussion of Stephon Clark's criminal history. Bus stop (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• It would seem whether this was or was not related to the shooting and his activities prior to being shot is in dispute - hence the corrrect thing to do is to mention the facts, without editorializing.Icewhiz (talk) 20:14, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• Please cite a reliable source saying that it is in dispute whether the prior convictions are relevant. All sources I have seen say they were not relevant, because the police did not know his identity when they shot him.HouseOfChange (talk) 20:51, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

• All the sources I see state the police did not know who they shot. Unless his criminal convictions are related to the shooting in some way, it seems quite coatracky. Only in death does duty end (talk) 21:41, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Folks, Coatrack is a policy that refers to ancillary material becoming the dominant focus of an article. It has no bearing. The criminal history is widely reported, so the suggestion it is a Fox news thing is also just wrong. Additionally, the suggestion that including the material would be an effort to "discredit" the victim is offensive and uncalled for.

Some community leaders insisted Clark's criminal history wasn't "relevant" but if that were true in a literal sense, it wouldn't be in so many major news reports. Factchecker_atyourservice 21:55, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Please cite some RS that say his convictions were relevant to the shooting, which is the subject of this article. Or even some RS that say there is a dispute whether his convictions were or were not relevant to the shooting. HouseOfChange (talk) 22:04, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

What a ridiculous suggestion! Sources don't make list of facts and say "X is relevant and Y is relevant and Z is relevant", they just talk about the relevant stuff. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:23, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

What the above said. Also the article is about the shooting. It is not a biography of the subject of the shooting. If it was a biography, their criminal convictions would likely be relevant (see BLP) if their criminal convictions were relevant to the shooting (eg, someone with a conviction for armed robbery being shot while carrying a gun and pointing it at a store owner) - otherwise including their previous conviction smells like a coatrack to make the story about the victim of a crime in much the same way FOX news likes to portray black victims as criminals. Since we are *not* FOX news, I see no need to follow their base tactics. Only in death does duty end (talk) 22:22, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The entirety of your comment is an insult that has nothing to do with what anyone is discussing. Nobody is trying to cite Fox, engage in "base tactics" or "portray black victims as criminals". Factchecker_atyourservice 01:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) I am still of the opinion that past criminal convictions should be kept to a minimum (see my comments on the article's talk page). Mentioning he had some would be acceptable, but a laundry list of them would not be. The primary topic of the article is the shooting, so much more beyond basic biographical info would be coatracking imho. To Factchecker atyourservice's comments above, relevance to an encyclopedia reader is not the same as relevance to an newspaper reader. We do not engage in yellow journalism or human interest stories. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:05, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

The only part of NOTNEWS that could conceivably lend support for excluding criminal history is "Wikipedia is also not written in news style." Are you suggesting WP articles about police shootings should avoid answering the five W's (who, what, when, where, why) with respect to the incident?

Your reference to yellow journalism cannot be taken seriously. Go read the WP article. And again, it is uncivil to attempt to smear editors in this way. Factchecker_atyourservice 22:20, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I've made no attempt to smear editors. And in terms of the shooting, we can answer the 5 Ws just fine without discussing his criminal record in detail. Just as I think we should remove the fluff statements from the family, we should remove the criminal record stuff. We was not shot in pursuit of an arrest warrant or anything related to those past events. EvergreenFir (talk) 22:28, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Do you see how applying the label "yellow journalism" to non-yellow-journalism material that is widely reported in mainstream papers has the effect of raising a false yet still insulting accusation of yellow journalism against the editors who advocate for its inclusion? Factchecker_atyourservice 22:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

Evergreen Fir makes a valid point *(not necessarily the "yellow" part)🎶 -- The weight, tone, and content of an encyclopedia article is very often not the same as daily coverage in e.g. the LA Times. I have made this point repeatedly on the article talk page, only to get hooted down with disparagement, name-calling, etc. but the fact remains: WP articles are about narrowly specific, defined and bounded topics. Undue personal detail -- particularly with a negative slant -- is not appropriate, regardless of whether daily news media include it for background, human interest, gossip, or any other good or bad reason. Moreover, the WP editors who so doggedly insist on including this stuff didn't even take the time to include the sort of neutral personal information we find in the articles about other killings -- family, hobbies, interests, neighborhood environment, etc. I have now added some of that information to the article while removing overbalanced POV stuff about the details of his arrest record. SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

I think it is quite obvious that past run-ins with the law should be included in the article. The article is about the confluence of conditions that find expression in the lives of the people involved. The protesters are not just protesting the unjustified killing of an unarmed man. The protesters also cite the blighted neighborhood, the absence of job prospects in the area, and what they at least perceive as bad policing tactics, that commonly result in the mistreatment disproportionately of poorer people and people of color. If these possible injustices of a wider nature are to be addressed, how can we possibly omit a whole realm of facts from a Wikipedia article ostensibly addressing the subject area? We would be writing a fairy tale. An important principle at Wikipedia is that we follow the precedent set by the best of sources. We don't strike out on our own path in departure from the practices found at the best quality sources, which in this case are journalistic outlets. I don't think any Wikipedia editor is trying to discredit Clark and I would be distancing myself from any editor that I felt was doing that. Bus stop (talk) 23:32, 4 April 2018 (UTC)

For starters, perhaps you could respond to the concerns that @EvergreenFir: and I have raised -- concerns that invalidate your "just the facts, ma'am" approach. SPECIFICO talk 00:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

For starters I've responded to your complaint about my above post at the Talk page of MelanieN. Bus stop (talk) 00:39, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "undue personal detail", nor "unduly negative" personal detail. Nor does COAT apply to any of this. You folks are just making stuff up. Factchecker_atyourservice 01:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

No such thing as undue personal detail? Surely you jest. We do not include every sordid detail in biographies (please refer to WP:BLP and WP:DUE). It is disingenuous to claim editors are making stuff up in order to dismiss the multiple editors who clearly disagree with you. EvergreenFir (talk) 03:30, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Correct, no such thing. There is a policy on UNDUE WEIGHT which refers to how prominently specific arguments and factual observations are featured in RS's, but it has absolutely zero to do with how personal the detail is or whether it reflects negatively on the article subject. And again, WP:COAT has no application here because it is a policy that prohibits ancillary details from becoming the dominant focus of an article, not a policy that prohibits negative details about a BLP subject. The arguments you're trying to make fall under the "encyclopedic or not" heading, not the "due or undue" heading. And of course the details of criminal convictions are encyclopedic. Factchecker_atyourservice 04:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Huh, I must have missed part where we include negative personal details indiscriminately. Or how COATRACK doesn't apply here. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:COATRACK is clearly not applicable here. "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely." Clearly not applicable. Your other link is to WP:AVOIDVICTIM. This is not a biography. This is an article on an event. The subsequent protests catapult a shooting death into social unrest. There are many problems that are addressed by the protests that are subsequent to the shooting death: high crime, poverty, police abuse, few job prospects. How can we write about this while whitewashing the life of the person who was shot? The shooting did not take place in a vacuum. The Los Angeles Times can be depended upon to be just as forthcoming with any information of a negative nature pertaining to the policemen and you can bet that we will be including every salacious detail on the policemen in our article if information of that nature should come to light. This is an article about an inherently gritty subject. You can't omit crucial details. We should be following the precedent set by for instance the Los Angeles Times. Bus stop (talk) 08:37, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bus stop: - "This is not a biography" ... but BLP applies everywhere including this article. So this is still falls under WP:AVOIDVICTIM and related BLP issues. Also, I linked to the Balance section of BLP, not to COATRACK directly. We do not include tabloid details in articles. I still fail to see how past crime is related to the shooting event. EvergreenFir (talk) 14:23, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: RE the WP editors who so doggedly insist on including this stuff didn't even take the time to include the sort of neutral personal information we find in the articles about other killings --family, hobbies, interests, neighborhood environment, etc ., that is both insulting and untrue. The consensus paragraph I added DID include information about his family and his neighborhood environment. We had earlier chosen not to include puffery like “devoted father” and “enjoyed football and video games,” which you just added; what happened to “liked shoes” and “liked to make people smile” which were far more widely reported? And now you have taken it upon yourself to remove the sentence about his previous convictions. Discussion at the article talk page will decide whether to restore it. --MelanieN (talk) 01:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Personal attacks and flogging are welcome on my talk page, not on point here. I hope you're not suggesting that the article talk page overrides BLP/N. SPECIFICO talk 02:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—nobody suggested that the article talk page overrides BLP/N. Bus stop (talk) 02:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Um, "Discussion at the article talk page will decide whether to restore it" SPECIFICO talk 03:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• The main problem is that this is so entirely wrongheaded vis-a-vis the social unrest that makes this not an obscure shooting that fades with the day's news. The social unrest and the protests precipitated by the shooting of Clark are ultimately grounded in reality—not in fiction and not in the omission of relevant information. If you want to write an article about the real shooting of Stephon Clark you have to address the situation as it actually exists. Some editors here probably think they are doing the memory of Stephon Clark a favor by suppressing the negative. But it is is in a negative environment that something like this takes place. What we are really doing by omitting previous run-ins with the law is tantamount to sweeping a problem under the rug. BLP violation is bogus. The Los Angeles Times is not a racist publication and it doesn't want to disparage the individual. No one said it aimed to do anything like that. But the argument is made that our purpose is different from that of a news article. Yes, it is slightly different. But in general we are required to adhere to their precedents. Bus stop (talk) 02:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO—what happened to your argument based on WP:Synthesis? Have you dropped that argument in favor of an argument appealing to WP:COATRACK? It is no secret that policies and guidelines can be misused. "A coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that ostensibly discusses its nominal subject, but instead focuses on another subject entirely." Clearly this is inapplicable to the question we are addressing. Its inapplicability is approximately equal to the inapplicability of your argument based on WP:Synthesis. Bus stop (talk) 08:06, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• SPECIFICO—you mention at User talk:Bus stop#BLP/N Stephon Clark that you "have not mentioned WP:COATRACK anywhere". This is my error and I stand corrected. I have crossed out my offending post, above. Bus stop (talk) 17:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

According to Wikipedia policy, Stephon Clark is covered by WP:BLP, because his death is so recent. Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Recently_dead_or_probably_dead HouseOfChange (talk) 05:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• And the police officers that shot him are BLPs too. That they shot a man with previous convictions, escaping them after he aroused suspicions is clearly relevant. Whether they knew of his priors or not has little bearing to this being relevant - it is widely in the media, and will surely be brought up in any legal case.Icewhiz (talk) 06:21, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• As will the fact that there's no reason they would have known this at the time, and the fact that they were not in any fear of their lives, and the fact that this was a ridiculous escalation from a trivial crime, and all of these things will, as usual, be ignored, and the police will, as usual, walk away without consequences, because in a country where summary execution for Driving While Black is perfectly fine, there is pretty much nothing that can be done about blue on black violence. Guy (Help!) 08:59, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• I am sure there is commentary to that effect that may be inserted into the article. The police were out there searching for a burglary suspect. Per the copious coverage of Clark's priors in conjunction with the shooting it seems RSes think it relevant to mention that the fleeing suspect had prior convictions that included robbery.Icewhiz (talk) 11:26, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• Guy, that is not helpful and frankly comes across as totally zenophobic. Police may have and may not have overreacted here and of course this death is very saddening, but the police are given many cues as to what they are dealing with by dispatch, so they can make a risk assessment, one of which is not, "he's a young black man, blow him away". Maybe actually reading the news reports would be helpful rather than make a blanket zenophobic slander like some BBC talking head. "two felony counts of domestic abuse, to which Clark – who preferred to go by the name Stephon – pleaded guilty and agreed to complete a treatment program. The court record also shows a 2008 robbery charge, and charges in 2013 for possession of a firearm and possession of a controlled substance"[2] when police get that info, they know they are dealing with someone with many priors, so when the guy refuses to stop for the police when ordered, but instead runs, the police go into the situation knowing then from dispatch that this suspect has a history of violence and criminal behavior and based on the fact he was just seen breaking into an occupied home, they had every reason to believe he was a threat, I mean, who the fuck wouldn't? Maybe Superman wouldn't...or Batman? If the police are guilty then I hope and pray they get a life sentence, and if not, then their careers are likely ruined anyway, for doing their jobs.--MONGO 13:32, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• @MONGO:, they got steered in by a helicopter. At the time they shot him, they had no idea who he was - just some guy running around breaking windows was all they had to go on. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 13:38, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• If the media follows the story we will find out eventually...maybe. But the media doesn't want the truth...they just want to fill the narrative of "unarmed black man killed by police", cause that's what provokes anger and incites moral outrage. What is omitted is the SOP of these sorts of events, not unexpectedly.--MONGO 14:05, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• This is going into conspiracy theory area. Responding officers do not get info about every person that lives nearby prior to going on a arrest/manhunt for a specific target (which we know wasn't Clark). We can't work anywhere close to the assumption that the dispatched officers knew Clark's priors at the time they approached him. --Masem (t) 14:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• I always did. Perhaps they did not get every detail, every past charge or conviction, but "matches the description of" is routine. The dispatch record of the shooting is available already and the finer details of what the officers may have been enlightened of may also be released.--MONGO 14:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• They had the description of the perp that they were assigned to go after, but no name. Clark matched the description. There is no way they knew of Clark's priors at all. --Masem (t) 15:22, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

@JzG: "the fact that they were not in any fear of their lives" is about as close to flatly contradicted by all RS's as we would ever find in a case like this. What are you on about? Factchecker_atyourservice 17:55, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• I agree with what EvergreenFir said above, I think they should be briefly mentioned, but we don't need a full run-down. A key fact here is that just as the cops did not know who Clark was prior to trying to arrest him, Clark did not know why the cops were approaching him. Clark's reaction at the appearance of cops suggests a reason to be wary of why he was being approached; having past criminal history implies a good reason (we can't directly say it, obviously). We don't want to make Clark looking like a lifetime criminal, so going into full detail of past convinctions which otherwise have no bearing on the story is not necessary, but to not mention that he had some makes the cops' reaction seem more unnecessary. All that needs is something like "Clark had prior criminal history of robbery, domestic abuse, and a prostitution-related offense, and was currently on probation after being released from prison a month prior." Neither overly degrading, but still addresses this Clark had had run-ins with police before, thus explaining implicitly why he likely ran. --Masem (t) 13:44, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Just want to say that I agree with the above: "We don't want to make Clark looking like a lifetime criminal, so going into full detail of past convictions which otherwise have no bearing on the story is not necessary, but to not mention that he had some makes the cops' reaction seem more unnecessary. All that needs is something like "Clark had prior criminal history of robbery, domestic abuse, and a prostitution-related offense, and was currently on probation after being released from prison a month prior." Neither overly degrading, but still addresses that Clark had had run-ins with police before, thus explaining implicitly why he likely ran." This is a well-balanced approach, in my opinion. Bus stop (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• Wikipedia policy for BLP is quite clear that defamatory material unrelated to the topic of the article should be excluded. Your guess that he ran because of his criminal record is WP:OR. Please cite a Wikipedia policy that should in this case override WP:BLP. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:41, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• There's no question he had a criminal history (not just small civil crimes like speeding or jaywalking). Noting that, given plenty of RSes that make its mention, is not defamatory. Going into detail of every prior crime, however, is. We don't want to shine a huge light on the criminal past, only noted that it existed, which does make it related to the matter at hand, to understand he was on probation a month out from prison release. --Masem (t) 17:01, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

• (after edit conflict) Misuse of policies and guidelines is a problem, HouseOfChange. You imply that the material in question is unrelated to to the topic of the article, but the article is about social unrest encompassing a range of problems, one of which is the shooting death of a man. You point out that "he ran because of his criminal record is WP:OR", which would be the case if stated in article space, but I contend that it is not original research when stated on this notice-board/Talk page; it is merely an unsupported statement. I am not sure who you are responding to, but I have chosen to respond to your post. If you are responding to Masem, you might consider addressing them by name. Bus stop (talk) 17:07, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

HouseOfChange—I regret my tone of voice. Striking my comment. Bus stop (talk) 00:32, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed that only the basics on past history are needed.--MONGO 18:04, 5 April 2018 (UTC)
• Ditto. Here's some sourcing. As is often the case a local paper has some of the best coverage on the issues we're talking about: Clark's criminal record and the officers' decision-making process. It has the most detail about Clark pleading no contest to various charges, as well as details of the incidents themselves, and reaction quotes from policing experts and an account of why officers shot, e.g.

Police said officers "gave the suspect commands to stop and show his hands," but that he "immediately fled from the officers and ran towards the back of the home." It was there that police said they pursued Clark and where he "turned and advanced towards the officers while holding an object which was extended in front of him." Police said officers believed the object was a gun and fired, "fearing for their safety." No gun was found at the scene. Police later said that object was a cellphone. It was found near Clark's body and taken into evidence.

Factchecker_atyourservice 18:14, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

References

As one editor has pointed out, members of the press have used his convictions to disparage Clark. As mentioned in that link, Clark’s attorney has directly addressed this tactic, and has asserted that this shouldn’t matter. An official from the NAACP has addressed the disparagment of Clark based on his record. His family has addressed it. The LA Times gives eight paragraphs to the subject of his arrest record , and includes mention of how “Community leaders” discuss it’s immateriality, and also includes a quote by an NAACP leader also addressing her assertion the arrests do not matter.

The mention of Clark’s arrest record by members of the press and the public at large have become part of the events surrounding the shooting, and are in that way similar to the events detailed in the “Responses” section currently in the article. The use of his record to disparage him has become part of the story, and is a “Response” to the shooting.

Wikipedia should provide the interested reader with the information required to intelligently discuss the topic for which they come to us. In this case, were a hypothetical user tasked with getting up to speed on the shooting and the events surrounding it, if they came to our encyclopedia, they would be left with a significant hole in their knowledge pertaining to the reaction to the Clarke shooting. They would be unaware that his arrest record is being used to disparage him by those who seek to denigrate him. They would be unaware that “community leaders” have addressed the use of his arrest record to smear him. They would be unaware that the NAACP has addressed the tactic of using his arrest record against him. They would be unaware that Clark’s attorney has addressed that tactic. That is part of the story, and part of the events surrounding the shooting. We would therefore be requiring readers wishing to truly learn about a topic to not rely on Wikipedia, but requiring them go elsewhere because Wikipedia does not include details of the story, and Wikipedia withholds information surrounding events which are being discussed by mainstream news sources and the public at large, based not WHETHER a fact is part of the public debate as reported by sources, but whether or not it SHOULD be part of the public debate. We would be serving not as neutral purveyors of sourced fact, but as gatekeepers using our point of view to exclude fact.s

That his arrest record is being used in the public debate is a sourced fact. It is not within our purview and mission as an encyclopedia to censor the facts of this debate because we may personally believe it is a debating tactic of scoundrels and personally believe it is irrelevant. News sources and individuals involved in the public response DO feel it is relevant, and have used it as part of their "response" to the shooting. These are facts as reported by reliable sources, and makes it per se part of the events surrounding the shooting, and we should include it in proportion to the weight given to it by reliable sources. Marteau (talk) 18:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

You forgot to mention it's a legitimate matter of public interest to people who are not scumbags and who have no desire to disparage or smear Clark. Factchecker_atyourservice 19:09, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

It was only my intent to address the complaint of several editors that his record has nothing to do with the event of his shooting. Other reasons why it belongs in the article have been addressed by others and did not in my opinion require my input. Marteau (talk) 19:48, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Yes. The question of whether his prior convictions played a role in the shooting is not a question we need to ask in making this decision (though I'd say it's pretty clear they didn't). The only question that matters is whether his prior convictions belong in an encyclopedia article about his shooting. Given that they are widely discussed in the press in the context of the shooting, to me it seems obvious that this information is relevant to the topic and should be mentioned. No policy prohibits the inclusion of this material, and the sources discussing the shooting cover it, so we should follow the sources. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 23:11, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

One more agreeing his record is relevant, whether it's to reasons the police fired, or reasons Clark ran, or merely that it was widely covered in the aftermath. We do want to give context (do any reliable sources definitively state the police did or did not know?), and we don't want to go too deeply into it, but a sentence or three seems called for. --GRuban (talk) 22:33, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

GRuban—I don't know how widely it was covered in the aftermath. I think this is an understandably sensitive topic as no one wants to tarnish the image of the deceased. But I believe that members of the community, a local representative of the NAACP, and the family's lawyer, have pointed out that the prior criminal record played no role in the shooting, and I believe that their reason given is that the police who shot him were not aware of his past run-ins with the law at the time of the shooting. See Talk:Shooting of Stephon Clark#Proposed wording for the "Stephon Clark" section of the article. Also, Marteau addresses this above at 18:45, 5 April 2018 (UTC). Bus stop (talk) 23:16, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

I see claims that his criminal record should be in the article because it was widely-discussed in aftermath of the shooting. Could somebody add some links to WP:RS that are discussing it in relation to the shooting or its aftermath? New York Times, New Yorker and others covering this in depth don't include even a mention, let alone a discussion. HouseOfChange (talk) 02:45, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

I included three. It's at the top of the nesting you just replied to. Marteau (talk) 05:49, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

Links to sources can also be found on the article Talk page under the section heading Proposed wording for the "Stephon Clark. Bus stop (talk) 06:32, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

For convenience here are some links to reliable sources which discuss past arrests and convictions: [3],[4],[5],[6],[7]. It's included in multiple articles which cover the shooting, so seems it should be included in the article. Also, if we mention that Clark had a criminal record, seems we should specify and not leave the readers guessing what this record involves when the sources specify, but seems the specifics could be added to a footnote instead of article text, if there are concerns regarding this turning into a laundry list.--DynaGirl (talk) 14:40, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

• Comment (moved from the section below) We used to have this sentence in the article: “County court records show that between 2014–2016, Clark pleaded no contest to several charges including robbery, domestic abuse, and a prostitution-related offense.”, with reference. Discussion at the article's talk page favored including it. Right now it is being kept out of the article pending the outcome of this discussion. The article still does say that he had been recently released from county jail; that according to his brother he had “really changed his life” since his prior offenses; and that multiple community leaders stated that his criminal record was immaterial to his death. Those things make no sense without any information about about his convictions. For comparison, in articles about similar shootings such as Shooting of Philando Castile, Shooting of Oscar Grant, and Shooting of Walter Scott, information about a prior record is included, although none of them had as lengthy or serious a record as this subject. Presumably those other articles, some of them longstanding, had consensus and were regarded as being in compliance with BLP criteria. After all, well sourced negative information is SUPPOSED to be included in BLPs. If people prefer, we could just say that he had some previous convictions, with the detailed charges in a footnote. But right now we have nothing, pending a conclusion here. --MelanieN (talk) 20:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• replyI think it's a big can of worms to declare 3 articles chosen out of dozens or hundreds of killings articles as precedent that might override to circumstances and applications of policy as they relate to this article.WP:IAPD. SPECIFICO talk 21:40, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• BLP policy is not like policy against original research. We can exercise judgement. WP:V is a nonnegotiable policy. Bus stop (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

• Per WP:BLPCRIME - this is not a BLP issue. The subject here was convicted in a court of law - there is no BLP(BDP) issue in mentioning that. the argument for exclusion here is based on non-BLP grounds.Icewhiz (talk) 11:09, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDVICTIM SPECIFICO talk 17:04, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• WP:BLPCRIME is pretty clear that it is not a BLP violation to write that someone has been convicted of a crime. If it is inappropriate to write he was convicted of prior crimes, it is also inappropriate to include any other personal information about him. The argument above is that the officers were not aware of his prior convictions. Then they surely were also not aware he was 22 years old, that he lived in a tough neighborhood, and that he came from a broken neighborhood. If the article is about the shooting, don't include any personal information about Clark. If editors want a section with some sentences about Clark, then his prior convictions are just as applicable as him coming from a tough neighborhood. Mr Ernie (talk) 14:25, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

WP:AVOIDVICTIM Thanks, Ernie. SPECIFICO talk 15:00, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

You're not addressing the problem, SPECIFICO. What does one do when two aims conflict with one another? How do you explicate an American social phenomenon when one element within that phenomenon constitutes a BLP concern? The very existence of this article is dependent on developments subsequent to the shooting which merely serves as a convenient title for this article. In this context BLP is merely a technical concern preventing us from completely addressing the actual subject of this article. The actual concerns of this article include poverty, unemployment, the structure of the family, crime, and police interaction with civilians. Bus stop (talk) 15:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Every time you repeat this basic misunderstanding of WP core policy you put another nail in the coffin of such article content. It's shut down pretty darn tight now with 20+ rivets. SPECIFICO talk 15:43, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It may be heresy but I don't think BLP is core policy. Core policy is WP:5P. That includes WP:NPOV. The article presently states in his brother's voice "He was arrested before, but he's been different lately. He really changed his life." Really? Sources are telling us that he was likely engaged in criminal activity on the evening of the fatal encounter. Core policy includes WP:5P5: Wikipedia has no firm rules. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines, but they are not carved in stone. And that "sometimes improving Wikipedia requires making exceptions." It would be a good idea if you actually addressed the conflicting aims of an article on a two-week, far-ranging American social phenomenon, and an article focussed solely on a shooting in which the prior criminal history of the person shot bore no relevance to his being shot. That, believe it or not, is what we are discussing. Bus stop (talk) 16:13, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

BLP was mandated by Foundation. It is 100% canonical. Guy (Help!) 13:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

JzG—I think we need to weigh the interaction of one aspect of policy with another. NPOV is also involved here and it is also an important policy. Bus stop (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Not really, no. BLP mandates NPOV, but this is not an NPOV issue, there is no problem omitting irrelevant and discreditable details about living people. We do it all the time. Guy (Help!) 14:08, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

We do it all the time when the sole focus of the article is the incident containing the BLP violation. This article is not about a span of time from the placing of a 9-1-1 call and a shooting. There were ample instances subsequent to that shooting that allowed for the legitimate raising of the concerns pertaining to the criminal history. They are NPOV concerns because we should be including counterarguments as found in reliable sources to the prevailing arguments that the police are guilty of gross negligence. I am not taking a stance on that question. I am arguing for a full inclusion of arguments given. We are not here to give answers. But we are certainly here to provide information—and not to contrive to omit information. Bus stop (talk) 14:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Can we get a summary or conclusion on this subject?

Can we please get a decision here about whether it is or is not appropriate to mention his police record? We used to have this sentence in the article: “County court records show that between 2014–2016, Clark pleaded no contest to several charges including robbery, domestic abuse, and a prostitution-related offense.”, with reference. Discussion at the article's talk page favored including it. Right now it is being kept out of the article pending the outcome of this discussion. The article still does say that he had been recently released from county jail; that according to his brother he had “really changed his life” since his prior offenses; and that multiple community leaders stated that his criminal record was immaterial to his death. Those things make no sense without any information about about his convictions. For comparison, in articles about similar shootings such as Shooting of Philando Castile, Shooting of Oscar Grant, and Shooting of Walter Scott, there is information about a prior record, although none of them had as lengthy or serious a record as this subject. If preferred, we could just say that he had some previous convictions with the details in a footnote - but right now we have nothing, pending a conclusion here. (Moving substantive comments to the main discussion if this is going to get hatted.) --MelanieN (talk) 02:13, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Its probably going to need a formal RFC. If people cannot even agree on if it is a BLP issue or not, then generally erring should be on the side of caution. However I suspect that will not go down well. Only in death does duty end (talk) 04:02, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree it's quite clear that once we leave the closed loop of the article talk page there is very substantial concern that this is a BLP violation, except as it is discussed by RS in the context of the so-far UNDUE conspiracy theory coverage that mentions Mr. Clark's history. And much of the advocacy for inclusion here is simply visitors from that article talk page that required this BLP/N visit. If there's renewed attempts to include it we will need at the least a formal thorough close to this thread and perhaps an RfC. Over the course of three weeks since the killing, there's been a lot of ongoing coverage of the event and its context and implications and conspicuously little about this personal and synth-prone personal profiling. SPECIFICO talk 15:51, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

SPECIFICO—can you argue in your own words why we should leave this information out of the article? Use your own words. Don't use policy. Of course, that's not how this project works. But would it be so terrible if we had a parallel conversation, one in which reference to policy were held in abeyance? Why do you think this information, in any form, should be kept out of this article? Bus stop (talk) 16:49, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

As I have detailed above, his record of arrests is a topic of discussion in the community itself, with his attorney, the NAACP and his family, addressing it, among others. The Sacramento Bee (Clark was shot in Sacramento, of course) just today gives four paragraphs to the subject of his arrests, without invoking any "conspiracy theories". I above have cited multiple sources in the mainstream press of his arrest record being a topic of discussions without invoking any conspiracy theories or synthesis. This does not require a formal closure, just a cessation of the by now tedious and spurious repetition that all mention whatsoever of his arrests is a "synthesis" or the furthering of conspiracy theories. Nothing in today's article in the Sacramento Bee invokes any such thing and reflecting theirs (and other sources) inclusion in a likewise manner in our article is in no way a BLP violation. Marteau (talk) 18:06, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Per MelanieN I have requested a close at AN. I am going to hat this sub-thread. Any further substantive comments can go in the original stream above. I have requested close at AN here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Requests_for_closure#Other_types_of_closing_requests SPECIFICO talk 18:12, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

(I have un-hatted.) Bus stop (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The record of the prior arrests, and the high likelihood that he was committing the break-in type of crimes on the evening he was tragically and unjustifiably killed, are an irrefutable part of the two weeks of roiling and far ranging controversy—also involving poverty—that have gripped Sacramento and other cities. How does Wikipedia get to duck beneath BLP technicalities to omit what plenty of other sources of information include? Bus stop (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

The New York Times writes "On Tuesday, speakers cried as they described the poverty and increasing income inequality between wealthy parts of Sacramento and its poorer neighborhoods."[8] The two weeks of protest touched upon issues other than the police shooting. Writing a comprehensive article is in this instance at odds with hewing to BLP technicalities. Bus stop (talk) 20:04, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

And here it is being argued that I am "openly rejecting our WP:BLP policy". No, I am not. I do not concede there is a violation of BLP policy. It is a grey area. As in so many other things, it requires good judgement. Bus stop (talk) 20:37, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe Bus Stop is arguing that the police officers who shot this unarmed man were somehow aware of this man's prior record, and that somehow a record of something involving prostitution was relevant to his being shot in the back a couple of times. In other words, no. Again we have the POV that the black victim had it coming and deserved to get shot. Sorry, I know, you were only suggesting that, not saying it explicitly, but we're all feeling you. Just don't use "tragically" if you don't believe it was a tragedy, that young man's and his family's tragedy. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Yeah let's not do that User:Drmies. There are sources that include his history in the context of the shooting. Let's not try to demonize good faith editors. Arkon (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh please. Surely we don't dance like all others dance; they don't have a BLP like we do. "There are sources"...so what? We have a BLP and hopefully some common sense. As for demonizing--well, guess what it's called when you want to include negative and irrelevant information in article space. Drmies (talk) 02:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

My common sense says you're not adhering to policies governing content and instead attacking an editor. Yay you. Arkon (talk) 02:32, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh, and my sides, "There are sources"...so what?", this ain't the place for you. Arkon (talk) 02:33, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Pff. If you think that the BLP is satisfied the moment "there are sources", then you just don't get it. Drmies (talk) 02:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

If you think attacking editors that are arguing inclusion for content that is verifiable is able to be brushed away with your snide nonsense, well, again, you don't belong here. You are welcome to regale me with a limerick about some nonsense on my talk if you like, but stop your personal attacks on other editors here. Mind reading isn't your forte it appears, so keep that in check. Arkon (talk) 02:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Then skip the snide nonsense and address the argument. If you can. If you have anything besides "there are sources". Otherwise, well you know. Drmies (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Which argument would that be? Arkon (talk) 03:03, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Drmies—Please don't put words in my mouth. You say I believe Bus Stop is arguing that the police officers who shot this unarmed man were somehow aware of this man's prior record. No. I am not saying anything remotely like that. No source says that. You say Again we have the POV that the black victim had it coming and deserved to get shot. Not only did I not express that but no one expressed that. You say you are feeling me. As concerns "feeling" me, I would say that it would be far preferable if you actually read what I write. Bus stop (talk) 02:49, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Oh I read what you wrote, thanks, and I think that many PoC agree. But setting personality aside, if the record wasn't relevant to the shooting (as you seem to agree), it is not relevant in the article. We are not writing a "comprehensive biography" of the subject: we are writing a comprehensive article on the shooting. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 02:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It's easy, what do RS's say? You've already readily dismissed that above, while disparaging others, how far down this hole are you? Arkon (talk) 03:10, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't know what PoC means. Bus stop (talk) 03:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

People(persons) of color, but just another non sequitur. Arkon (talk) 03:22, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I considered that but the next sentence reads "But setting personality aside..." How could "people of color" be a reference to a personality type? Bus stop (talk) 03:41, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

They may have been hitting the sauce? They haven't said much that's made sense here so can't help you there. Arkon (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

RSes are necessary but in themselves insufficient for the inclusion of any information in a Wikipedia article. The information in any article must pass WP:BLP, WP:NPOV, WP:WEIGHT, and WP:CONSENSUS to warrant inclusion. Regardless, Bus Stop admits that "No source says" that the police who shot Clark were aware of his prior record. If it cannot be demonstrated that RSes agree Clark's prior record played any rôle in the shooting, then the information cannot be demonstrated to be relevant to the topic of the article. It is a BLP issue as the inclusion of the information can bias readers—and is the most likely reason both for RSes to mention it and for WP editors to push for its inclusion. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Let me be clear personally on these points, everyone of the the WP:wordsoup's can be covered by what I've run into on this issue (besides the consensus one obviously, but that's not for here), but I don't have a preference on inclusion or not. I'm just sick of the the aspersions being thrown around at people who are obviously trying to do what's best for the project. It won't help this conversation, and it won't help the encyclopedia. BLP is satisfied on the RS point however, so again, talk page. Without the ABF above. Arkon (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

What do you mean by "BLP is satisfied on the RS point"? Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 03:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I suppose I must ask the opposite question, there are (please don't make me look them up again, cause I really was just here to stop the PA's) RS's that present his previous issues in the context of the shooting. Which part of BLP does that violate? Arkon (talk) 03:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

BLP is about WP text. Not source text. SPECIFICO talk 04:08, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Which should be hashed out on the talk page. Arkon (talk) 04:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Arkon: I was asking what you meant by the statement, not questioning the validity of it (I can't question the validity of it until I understand what you meant). Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Curly Turkey—the article isn't just about the shooting. If the article were just about the shooting it probably wouldn't exist. The article is also about all subsequent events. Many topics have been raised, most importantly including poverty, which as we know can lead to crime. No one wants to disparage the deceased. But the family was disadvantaged and the individual turned to crime and with a high probability was committing a crime on the evening he was shot. There is dialogue and discussion from many quarters on the particulars of this incident. And that dialogue—subsequent to the shooting is reliably sourced. This source is from yesterday. The Sacramento Bee isn't a racist publication. It mentions previous run-ins with the law because the readership wants to know the details. The inclusion of that information does not feed a point of view based on race. It is information for the sake of information. It answers the question of "what happened?" Our readership doesn't benefit from being kept in the dark. This is not just a straightforward WP:BLP. There is a need to provide the full picture of two weeks of oftentimes heated dialogue. The imperative of being informative overrides the negative aspersions cast on the deceased. The Sacramento Bee faces the same questions that we do and they include this information as do other good quality sources such as the Los Angeles Times. Bus stop (talk) 04:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The press has different purposes and policies than Wikipedia—we're not reporting the news, we're not competing with other publications for readership, and our aim is to be balanced and comprehensive, not exhaustive. We're not keep the readership any more in the dark than denying them information about Clark's musical preferences, which the press might report in any amount of detail they like, but is not known to have played a rôle in the officers' decision to shoot him. Curly "JFC" Turkey 🍁 ¡gobble! 05:55, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

On review of what later press sources have said about the topic (eg NY Times on Mar 30) which cover the event without mentioning Clark's background, I think it is right to err on non-inclusion of his previous crimes at this point. The whole situation can be discussed without that. None of the articles that appear in the week that follow really focus on that, because the situation is more focused on how the cops approached him and mistoke what he had in his hands and then their apparently excessive response; it's less about Clark and more about these officers' actions. Including the material is not a wholesale violation of BLP, but BLP requests we defer anything potentially negative like this that is not instrumental to the core topic. I can see his history potentially coming up later should there be court action, but that's CRYSTALBALLing its inclusion at this time. --Masem (t) 06:11, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

The actual BLP issue, long term, is the police officers (and it doesn't require a BALL to see that the prior record will be raised in any future legal proceedings involving them) - and we should represent their position in a fair manner. The BDP issue of Clark is secondary (particularly as given BLPCRIME - mentioning convictions is not a BLP issue).Icewhiz (talk) 06:50, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

It needs to be stressed again: the officers had no idea who they were looking for or who the person they found when this happened, there is no way they would have known he had priors. Their reaction is based on how he reacted and what they took to be a weapon in the darkness, not because he was a known criminal. Taking on the BLP issues related to the officers, there's nothing that we gain in maintaining their BLP by including Clark's prior criminal history, since it is not connected to their actions. --Masem (t) 14:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

What makes you think you can disregard the fact, as is indicated only a few inches above here, that the issue is WP:AVOIDVICTIM and your blpcrime bit is meaningless? SPECIFICO talk 14:59, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Certainly there are opinions to that effect which can be included carefully - though saying "no way" in Wikipedia's voice may be stretching possible on the ground inference. What we need to be careful of here - long term - in terms of BLP policy is framing this in a manner that suggests the officers were criminally culpable in some manner for the event - as long as they haven't been charged, let along convicted - that's the real BLP issue with the article. The shooting described in the article may be a crime, we describe an investigation into the shooting, yet no one has been tried let alone convicted, and per WP:BLPCRIME - For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. - which is relevant regarding the police officers.Icewhiz (talk) 14:34, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

With all due respect, all BLP issues are real BLP issues. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:40, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree we shouldn't try to make Clark look like a saint here to make the cops' action seem wrong. Just as they couldn't know his priors, they couldn't know if he was a good citizen. Clearly, his family and those upset at the shooting are going to insist that he was a "good kid" and the like, as to try to argue their side, and that's likely going to be part of this article, but that should stay out of our description of Clark that is stated in a factual voice. --Masem (t) 14:44, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

• General comment: This would be a misapplication of BLP policy because this article isn't primarily a BLP. This article is about an approximately two-week period of American social introspection and unrest. Addressed on this American occasion are such diverse issues as poverty, job availability, the family, crime, and the interface of police and civilians. As concerns the purposes of the press versus the purposes of this project on the topic at hand, the purposes are virtually identical. There would not be an article on just the shooting. It would lack notability. We have this article because the shooting noted in the title of this article sparked a discussion that not only spanned two weeks but spanned the length and breadth of the country and spanned a range of topics. Naturally, many observations were made. Many participants weighed in with relevant points. It is myopic to think that because the criminal history of the suspect did not play a role in the shooting that therefore, based on BLP concerns, it must be excluded from the article. Crime is unavoidably a part of the problems that play into the much-needed American discussion that is the real subject of this article. Bus stop (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • BLP applies to all topics, not just articles that happen to deal with BLP (or recently-deceased). --Masem (t) 14:24, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    • Masem—I actually regard the omission of this information as a distortion of this article. The article is about the social condition of America. It is not just about one shooting. Multiple instances of criminal activity increase the odds that police will kill a man. The sources are showing us that multiple instances of criminal activity exist. Omission of the information of the police record distorts the fundamental fact that repeated lawbreaking played a role in increasing the likelihood of the shooting. This relates not just to the one shooting that is the title of this article. That information plays into the total picture that is the real subject of this article. This isn't just an article on one shooting. It is an article on two weeks of protest following that shooting. Anyone can read the accounts of the protests to understand this. The New York Times tells us "On Tuesday, speakers cried as they described the poverty and increasing income inequality between wealthy parts of Sacramento and its poorer neighborhoods."[9] One does not put on blinders and pretend that this article is merely about a one-hour period of time spanning the placement of a 9-1-1 call and the shooting of an unarmed man. That is a myopic view of the article. Bus stop (talk) 16:38, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
      • Not persuasive. If such sociology research on crime has been done by scholarship and vetted by scholarship, it could arguably have weight and appear in the appropriate sociology article (with citation(s)), not in this current events article - because it sounds like you are arguing for original research. -- Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:25, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Alanscottwalker—the article is not just about the brief period of time between the placing of the 9-1-1 call and the shooting. Were it just about that then the BLP concerns would hold. But the article also would not exist if it were just about the shooting. The actual scope of the article, and its reason for notability, is all that has transpired since the shooting. That has certainly included discussion of the criminal history. It would be a contrivance of us to omit it. Bus stop (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
          • I heard you the first-time, as I said not persuaded, see also COATRACKing, we are not here to imbue things with a significance of our selection - that is not our job. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alanscottwalker (talk • contribs) 13:48, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
            • I don't think we are imbuing things with any significance at all. This is an article that receives its notability from the social unrest which is subsequent to the shooting. In that social unrest there are numerous instances of the invocation of the criminal record of the victim of the shooting. I would appreciate it if you would acknowledge that this is not just an article with its sole focus on the period of time between the placing of the 9-1-1 call and the shooting. That is an artificially concocted scope designed to accentuate a BLP concern that looses a good deal of its significance in the larger picture. Bus stop (talk) 14:09, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• BS, Each of your 20+ repetitions of your flawed POV shows us that you have no policy-based criticism of the consensus you're trying to oppose. SPECIFICO talk 13:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• • • • There is a logical idea that the police knew they were going into an area of the city that had higher crime rates, and so were likely less hesitant to use more aggressive means to find and arrest the perp, but I stress again, Clark's identity was not known to the cops prior to the confrontation, going by all reliable reports. All they had was a description of a person , where they were, and what they thought they saw him doing (breaking windows). Anything else outside of his physical appearance (Race, age, height) should not be of concern to Clark's background, at least with respect to the incident itself. His prior criminal history may come up in ongoing protests or in the assessment of the cops' activities, and/or any court actions, and if that history becomes a major facet then, then we should include it, but there's nothing presently that suggests his prior criminal history is essential to understanding this event. --Masem (t) 13:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
        • Masem—the windows broken were not only in autos but in at least one house. How often do you think one can tamper with other people's property before one has a negative outcome? We aren't discussing why the police shot him. We simply do not know. We are discussing what is relevant for inclusion in the article. And we are discussing conflicting aims of different aspects of policy. Did the police shoot an innocent man or did they shoot a man who was engaging in criminal activity and who had a history of criminal activity? This is an NPOV concern. We are not taking sides by including the info on the history. We are providing balance. Should we be contriving to remove balance if reliable sources include the relevant information that the police shot a man that repeatedly engaged in criminal activity? I thought we followed sources. You mean every time a reliable source mentions the criminal record we relegate it to the status of the unmentionable based on BLP concerns? Bus stop (talk) 14:26, 12 April 2018 (UTC)
          • You're reading too far into the situation. First, I don't think anyone has yet claims or affirmed that Clark was the person seen breaking windows, so we can't assert he was even possibly engaged in such activity. He only matched the rough description, and certainly on the spot there's no way the cops could have made that determination (they didn't witness him). Second, the whole reason for the protests was that cops fatally shot a young black man who they thought might have been armed but shown afterwards to not have been (having mistaken his cell phone he had out as a weapon). Some are calling this racial profiling, others calling it excessive force, but none of that involves Clark's prior history. We are not beholden to what mass media prints if that violates our core policies. --Masem (t) 14:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Dhammika Perera

There is one administrator repeatedly adding poorly-sourced content to a biography of Dhammika Perera , currently the picture of the living person has been changed to an outdated picture and would like it changed to the following picture [[ thumb ]]

Dulanjana.silva (talk) 10:20, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Drive-by question: the COI googles easily, has this user declared it? Guy (Help!) 12:36, 6 April 2018 (UTC)

Dulanjana Silva: Can you review our policy on declaration of conflict of interest, and also provide relevant diffs to support your allegation that an administrator has been repeatedly adding poorly-sourced content to the biography in question? — Nearly Headless Nick {c} 08:27, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Date of incorrect births of celebrities

Good evening Wikipedia, I come to report to one of the anonymous IPs that has been incurring again and again with placing false birth data of Japanese voice actors where they added on the page of Chie Nakamura which says in the Google search that she was born in 1979 while in Japanese Wikipedia says that it is not true. And when that data is not confirmed, the other IPs (including me) we reverse everything but insists that these data they invent are real or I imagine it, well was thought that they would report it to the case in the Requests for page protection to apply for protection but others bureaucrats and administrators of this site protected temporarily and then expired and look at the amount of history of editions they made on the page of the same Japanese voice actress who will find it here. They also did not realize that someone used the account of these IPs to evade the block and the only thing it does is look at the page of the Japanese voice actors knowing the little less than inventing the data to confirm the ages, the same happens with Nathan Pacheco of course, where his first edition was last March 1, as well as the controversial change of birth date of Noriaki Sugiyama where also says that he was born in 1976 and not 1974 1 the IP was wrong.

The question is could identify the IPs belonging to someone who has had an account similar to the one banned from Wikipedia? I leave some vandalism contributions here:

74.232.54.221 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

74.232.54.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

74.232.54.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

74.232.54.138 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

74.232.54.208 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

2602:30B:82FB:B149:7961:7135:743F:4950 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

2602:304:AE83:6D09:48EB:DDC7:B536:922B (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

2602:304:AE83:6D09:190D:2D2A:48DB:A429 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

2602:304:AE83:66A9:9F7:47C:ED4C:F9C (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

2602:304:AE83:6359:958E:8DFC:83CC:94ED (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

74.232.54.97 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

2602:304:AE83:69A9:6C04:734D:20C0:4D77 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

2602:304:AE83:69A9:25B1:7D37:81DF:C063 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

2602:304:AE83:69A9:E5D8:D039:9BAB:FBDE (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

74.232.54.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

2602:30B:82FB:B159:587B:8BFA:E8FC:7037 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

184.47.187.21 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

2602:30B:82FB:C0B9:4503:1A71:83F6:FCBE (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

2602:30B:82FB:CBD9:8D04:A81F:9E9F:8323 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

2602:30B:82FB:CBD9:2E:FC5E:5551:A3DD (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

2602:30B:82FB:C4B9:F01F:FB:6CD5:B3B8 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

2602:30B:82FB:C4B9:609E:E4E6:2CB2:F55A (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

2602:30B:82FB:C4B9:89FF:9F39:18CB:1D34 (talk · contribs · (/64) · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

110.139.90.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

36.74.5.45 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

36.81.111.50 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

36.74.23.175 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

36.84.217.83 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)

That was it 148.101.59.231 (talk) 06:22, 7 April 2018 (UTC)

You see, the IP again put the year of the actress's birth without references and I do not know who is the prolific sockmaster who uses the multiple IPs to vandalize here, for example this, this and this. 148.0.99.216 (talk) 17:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Mike Levin

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

The article on Mike Levin, a living person running for US House of representatives in California's 49th congressional district, has been the subject of edits that were not in good faith and that violate the policies on biographies of living persons, neutral point of view, and Verifiability.

A user named Nkbreen (whose only edits are on the Mike Levin page, and who likely created an account for the sole purpose of defaming Mike Levin) added a section to the page entitled Levin eleven. This user also added links to nonexistent categories on "Foreclosure lawyers" and "Countrywide Mortgage People" to make Mike Levin look bad.

I removed these defamatory edits, but Nkbreen put the poorly sourced and libelous information back. I once again removed a portion of the defamatory edit that related to the nonexistent categories. In doing so, I may have inadvertently violated the three-revert rule, as I removed the category links and the defamatory content separately. However, my action was protected because I was removing libelous and defamatory content from the biography of a living person.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Narayansg (talk • contribs)

I have removed the "material" in question and started a discussion on the talk page. --Malerooster (talk) 00:53, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

We currently have 2 sections on this page for Mike Levin. Bus stop (talk) 06:07, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Khabib Nurmagomedov

Khabib Nurmagomedov's "other_names" (nickname) keeps being change to "mcgregor’s Daddy", a reference to Conor McGregor, another UFC fighter.

Examples

• Special:Diff/835407277
• Special:Diff/835407403

I recommend this page be temporarily locked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Guywithacoolname (talk • contribs) 15:25, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

Kiki Håkansson

The Kiki Håkansson article states that she died in 2011 based on this single source which seems to be the only source I can find that says she passed away. I know indiatimes is generally regarded as reliable but aside from this and WP mirrors and blogs, I can find no evidence that she has actually died and I'm wondering if they mis-attributed this. I would think someone as notable as her would receive slightly more coverage at least reporting her death. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 15:58, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree, the death of very first ever winner of the world's oldest and one of the most famous beauty pageants would almost certainly be widely reported, much more than just trivial mentions in one or two reliable sources. Linguist^unEins^uno 16:45, 8 April 2018 (UTC)

POV image added to Mohammad bin Salman

A cartoon featuring Trump and the article subject was recently added to Mohammad bin Salman, taken from www.tasnimnews.com Whether or not it’s reliable it’s fair to say that Tasnim News Agency is a biased source – surely the maximum extent of any citation should be an in-text attribution and not an excessively POV cartoon? Tarafa15 (talk) 10:56, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

It doesn't seem useful to me so I have boldly removed it. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:19, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

Russell Abrams

There has been an ongoing content dispute on Russell Abrams regarding the inclusion of negative information about legal issues and lawsuits. I invite readers to review Talk:Russell Abrams#Content dispute. I'm particularly concerned about the number of single purpose accounts that have been active on the page, including one account named Wigdorllp, which may likely represent a law firm. I will not reproduce the contents of the talk page here; readers can review it there. Instead, I request that the remainder of the discussion be held here, where it might receive wider attention than just the two editors involved so far (myself and The.dankest.keith). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:47, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

WikiDan61), thank you for escalating this - a collaborative discussion on BLP is a good next step. If anyone has any questions, please contribute here or to the talk page on Russell Abrams. We may very well want to lock the page following the resolution of this conversation given the continued vandalism by single purpose accounts. The.dankest.keith (talk) 22:01, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

For the record, I would note that The.dankest.keith is one of the WP:SPAs involved in this page. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 22:37, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• I don't know what that one sentence was doing in the lead, but I cut it. Drmies (talk) 02:48, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
  • @Drmies: That's a start, and is one of the changes I wanted to start with, but as I looked into the sources, I came to believe that none of the coverage of Abrams' legal troubles merit inclusion in the article, for reasons I've stated on the article's talk page (and will reiterate here, if requested). WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:53, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
    • WikiDan61, I wish I had time right now to look more closely. I did see, afterward, that you had removed that sentence earlier as well. Please do ping me if the need arises for administrative action, or if you think I can be otherwise helpful. Thanks, and thanks also for your dedication to the BLP. Drmies (talk) 14:20, 10 April 2018 (UTC)
• Per "People accused by a crime" section of Wikipedia: Biographies of living persons policy:
  • "This section (WP:BLPCRIME) applies to individuals who are not public figures; that is, individuals not covered by WP:WELLKNOWN. For relatively unknown people, editors must seriously consider not including material—in any article—that suggests the person has committed, or is accused of having committed, a crime, unless a conviction has been secured. A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction."
  • According to the "probation before judgment" section of Russell Abrams' Talk page, the college firebombing case was resolved in a dismissal after Abrams served probation. If that is the case, then the information about the incident needs to be removed, per the policy cited above, because a conviction had not been secured. --Michael Powerhouse (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the information about lawsuits by and against Abrams also have no place in this article. The suits filed by him and his wife against his former employees is a personal matter, and has little bearing on the public person about whom we are writing this article. (Yes, newspapers will trade in salacious gossip, but I don't believe that is the place of an encyclopedia.) And the countersuits filed by his former employees appear to remain largely unresolved, and so should not be included unless any actual wrongdoing has been verified. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:31, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree with WikiDan61, I also think that the "lawsuits" section adds no encyclopedic value to the BLP and should probably be removed per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSCANDAL. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Its a bit backwards to on the one hand claim someone notable enough for a biography is not a public figure so WP:BLPCRIME applies, then claim the crimes have "little bearing on the public person". Either he is a public figure as a business leader per WP:WELLKNOWN and so BLPCRIME doesnt apply, or he isnt a public figure in which case once you remove all the lawsuits you are left with a rather standard non-notable hedge fund manager. In comparison: A lot of our other 'business leaders' (including hedge fund managers) have significantly more to back up their notability. Philanthropy etc. Only in death does duty end (talk) 12:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@Only in death: The point isn't that WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply. The point is that Abrams was not actually ever convicted of a crime; only a misdemeanor for which he served probation and community service. The event has been expunged from his criminal record, and so really has no place here. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The issue with the misdemeanor seems very clear. For the other issue, I understand that WP:BLPCRIME doesn't apply to the lawsuit over naked pictures because as I understand it is just a civil trial (not a criminal one), still, not every thing reported by news should be included in an encyclopedic biography of a living person. I think there is no reason to include it as it is just a personal matter with no enduring notability per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTSCANDAL. Weather or not the subject is notable enough for inclusion should be a different issue. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 12:40, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

@The.dankest.keith: Consensus appears to be on the side of removing the information that I had previously removed and which you restored. If you have more to add favoring keeping the material, please do. Otherwise I'll go ahead and remove it again. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:22, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll chime in on three separate controversies on his page: 1. the firebombing of an Apartheid protest, 2. the fraud suit, and 3. the sexual harassment cases.

As to the first point, the Washington Post and several other major publications indicate that Abrams was in fact convicted of felony arson. As per the below Washington Post reference, the conspiracy charge he was convicted of was a misdemeanor, and the arson charge a felony. The sentence passed down upon their conviction was probation. @WikiDan61:, you characterize tothe firebombing as a 'misdemeanor' multiple times. Given the Washington Post source, I think it's fair to come to consensus that the firebombing was both a felony, and that Abrams was passed a sentence (of probation and time served).

Regarding the second point, I agree with @Only in death:. The fraud case's coverage in Business Insider, Forbes, and other notable business publications was a large contribution to establishing Abrams' notability.

Third and finally, the sexual harassment case is material and is cited in every single article about him following the launch of the case. The allegations were so serious that his brother's campaign for Connecticut General Assembly was derailed, when then Governor Daniel Malloy personally demanded he pull out of the race pending the conclusion of the suit. As per the law firm's site that represented the claims of the two secretaries who were allegedly sexually harassed, the case is still ongoing.

To address the point made regarding the sources of information regarding the case being limited to tabloids, that simply isn't true. Dozens of non-tabloid sources covered the case (including CNBC, NY Magazine, FinAlternatives, Dealbreaker, Business Insider etc.), and as a result I think that any claim of reliance on tabloids is suspect. I have included a selection of these sources below.

I would argue that the prominence of the case on the national level (requiring gubernatorial intervention in a major political race), and their mainstream coverage by the likes of CNBC, New York Magazine, Law360, and others, warrant their inclusion on this page.

I'm more than happy to discuss any of these points further or otherwise be helpful for a speedy resolution here.

The.dankest.keith (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

References

@The.dankest.keith: Again, taking points one at a time:

1. Abrams was convicted of arson, specifically, setting fire to a makeshift shanty, a charge that was deemed a misdemeanor and for which he served probation. (No indication that he actually ever served any time for this incident.) His record was expunged after serving the required probation, meaning that as far as the state of Maryland is concerned, he does not have a criminal record. As such, his Wikipedia biography should not continue to indicate that he does.
2. If a fraud case, in which no charges nor civil suits against Abrams were ever successfully litigated, is the only reason Abrams is notable, then we probably have a case for WP:AFD, but that's not an issue to be debated here. The only issue here is whether these unproven charges merit inclusion in his Wikipedia biography. Wikipedia policy would argue that they do not merit inclusion.
3. Whether or not Abrams' brother had to drop out of his political race over the sexual harassment charges is immaterial to this matter: we are discussing Russell Abrams here, not Marc Abrams. As such, unproven allegations against him have no place in his Wikipedia biography, whether or not the press chooses to haunt him with such coverage. Until such charges are proven in a court, we should not continue to report them. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:30, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

•  Checkuser note: I've blocked The.dankest.keith as a  Confirmed sock.--Bbb23 (talk) 21:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Given that the only person arguing for the retention of this material has been found to be a sock puppet (likely with a strong conflict of interest in this matter), may we move forward to strike the offending material? WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 00:36, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

 Done WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 12:27, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Julia Kristeva

It was recently alleged that Julia Kristeva collaborated with the communist regime in Bulgaria and was an agent for the Committee for State Security, a claim strongly denied by Kristeva herself and by some scholars and academics, as noted in this New York Times story. Given that the accusation remains disputed, I consider it important that the article describe it as an accusation rather than presenting it as uncontroversial fact, and I think WP:BLP supports this. That is why the section discussing the allegation is titled, "Alleged collaboration with the Communist Regime in Bulgaria" rather than, "Collaboration with the Communist Regime in Bulgaria". Unfortunately some editors at the Kristeva article want it to present the allegation as confirmed fact, thus see this edit at the article and this edit on the talk page. I would like to see consensus established for presenting the allegation as what it still is, a disputed allegation. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 23:21, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

As I understand it from reading the relevant sources, the people who have declared that she did collaborate with the communist regime are the relevant government authority who are tasked with investigating and then make the decision correct? And this is the final/end stage of a long process, not the start of an investigation? Its not really an allegation then is it. Granted she may dispute it, but that's a self-serving claim. As a similar example: we wouldnt state someone found guilty by a relevant court was not a criminal because they denied it. WP:BLPCRIME doesnt apply, and these sorts of actions (collaboration with foreign/oppressive governments) dont usually see a normal court anyway. Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:38, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

She denies it, and the extant sources don't seem convincing enough to justify including it for a BLP. Simply being listed as a "collaborator" isn't proof of anything (Communist regimes aren't immune from falsification/puffery of records), some evidence of providing information (or some other action by her) seems necessary to me. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:45, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

The commission (unusually) released all their evidence as a result of this. Essentially its transcripts of her reports, the evidence she provided (in some cases mundane like a fellow bulgarian's stomache!) there are reports about when she (Kristeva) complained her parents couldnt visit her in France, the internal reports refer to her codename. The NYT article is very good in this, and while it hedges its bets, it does leave with the overall impression she was a spy. If you look at the weighting they give towards the experts/people they asked for comment. For me the telling point is that while involved in Tel Quel they broke with the French soviet-communist supporting party to move towards Mao. This timeline certainly matches up with the dossier on Sabina - she starts off as a willing agent and then becomes less co-operative. But really, while she may deny it, she has been declared a collaborator by the people who are authorised to make those statements. Can she actually officially dispute its finding in any real way? Only in death does duty end (talk) 23:49, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll wait for secondary sources to assess the situation. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:55, 9 April 2018 (UTC)

• Until we have strong sourcing to support strong claims, I agree with FreeKnowledgeCreator. There are too many caveats here. Drmies (talk) 02:46, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

I agree. As I recall the NY Times article, it said that none of the released material contained anything written by Kristeva -- only reports written by people who talked to her. Whether the NY Times article "does leave with the overall impression that she was a spy" is a matter of opinion. It didn't leave me with that impression. When the word "spy" is used, one usually thinks of someone divulging classified information. It seems unlikely Kristeva knew classified info that she could have divulged if she'd wanted to. What the Bulgarians got from her during the Cold War, with or without her knowledge (hard to judge), was "soft intelligence". She obviously wasn't any Philby. Also, the current Bulgarian government is not necessarily a disinterested source. There's a certain amount of witch-hunting that's been going on in some of the former Soviet bloc countries, and it's possible (hard to judge) that the Bulgarians are not above doing this. Finally, in their internal reports the bureaucrats in the old Bulgarian intelligence agencies would have had a vested interest in exaggerating their success in recruiting "informants", and could have easily described an unknowing informant as if they'd "recruited" her. I'm not saying we know any of this one way or the other. But the situation is murky based on what's publicly known so far. So I think BLP applies. NightHeron (talk) 11:54, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Mohammad bin Salman - human rights section

There are issues with the subsection in this article headed ‘Human rights’, which individually names a large number of activists whose relevance as individuals to the article subject is tenuous to say the least. None of the sources for the second and third of the three paragraphs in this section even mention Mohammad bin Salman. The five individuals named in the second paragraph were sentenced in 2012, five years before he became Crown Prince; and the UN Special Rapporteur’s findings mentioned in the third paragraph were critical of the Saudi authorities as a whole but did not mention him (he was again in fact not yet Crown Prince), and neither do the sources for that paragraph. There is already an article on Human rights in Saudi Arabia – surely that report and these accounts of individual activists belong in that article and not in this one? Tarafa15 (talk) 18:29, 10 April 2018 (UTC)

Dispute on Holocaust denial page

The holocaust denial page ends with a list of prominent holocaust deniers. I'm involved in a dispute on that page over (as far as I can tell) whether including someone on that list requires a citation, or whether it's sufficient for citations to exist on those people's linked Wikipedia pages. While this might seem like a silly dispute at first glance (at the moment it's just over an additional-citations-needed tag, and I think there's no disagreement that citations exist, somewhere out there, for the vast majority of entries on the list, or that having them would broadly be a good thing - so they can obviously all eventually be added and then the tag can be removed), I still think it's an extremely important question to resolve - I have concerns that eg. linked pages could change from their current state and we could end up with inclusion on the list being uncited anywhere as a result, while in many cases (where the linked page is long and complicated and doesn't contain a clear-cut statement with a single obvious set of sources) it's unclear exactly what source we're relying on. My reading of WP:BLP is that citations are needed on the page making the claim and that, even in a list, relying on there being cites on another page is insufficient. --Aquillion (talk) 01:57, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

You can see on the list now the results of Aquillion's insistence that his interpretation of BLP is the only possible one: a list in which every name (that has been worked on) has multiple citations, all lifted from other articles. (Aquillion did the ones at the top of the list, I'm working from the bottom). My contention is this: if the Wikipedia article calls the subject a Holocaust denier, and that statement is properly supported there by a citation or citations from reliable sources, there's no real need to copy the citation(s) over to the list of Notable Holocaust deniers, since it exists elsewhere on Wikipedia.

This is not a case of WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source, since we wouldn't be relying on Wikipedia saying it, but on the source which supports Wikipedia saying it. The list is, after all, a list of links to the articles about the subject, and no one on the list doesn't have an article. Requiring copying over the citations appears to me to be WP:BURO for its own sake. Beyond My Ken (talk) 02:18, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Copying the sources doesn't seem like a big deal. According to WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source:

"Wikipedia generally uses reliable secondary sources, which vet data from primary sources. If the information on another Wikipedia page (which you want to cite as the source) has a primary or secondary source, you should be able to cite that primary or secondary source and eliminate the middleman (or "middle-page" in this case)."

Seems to apply to this case or any similar situation. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:12, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Of course citations are needed on the page which includes a fact. That's the bare minimum. (As I said on the other discussion page, this section would be better as a prose, and even better - not existing at all, because who goes in and who doesn't is a subjective editorializing decision). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:54, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• WP:BLP is non-negotiable on this. Any contentious piece of information about a living person that is not sourced with an inline citation can be removed without discussion. It doesnt matter if it is sourced elsewhere in a different article. Other lists where living people are not involved it is generally considered fine as long as the blue-linked article has a source supporting the material and it is not contentious. But the BLP has stricter standards for sourcing regarding living people and contentious claims. See also WP:LISTVERIFY - although that is mainly for stand alone lists, its principles generally apply to any list. Only in death does duty end (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• It's a list that has a contentious inclusion criteria (that one is considered a HD). Absolutely sourcing is needed on the list itself; blue-linked is not sufficient. --Masem (t) 14:23, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• Agreed. Any person that's not directly and reliably sourced inline needs to be removed from the list. We've been exactly here recently with the list of LGBT politicians in the UK (not comparing holocaust denial with being LGBT, but both are contentious, of course). Black Kite (talk) 14:27, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

• • I'd also add: is that list of people that assert they are HD's or are those that journalists/analysis believe are HD, or a combination of both? There needs to be some type of intro sentence to explain that inclusion criteria here, as if it is the people that are being called HDs by the media, we don't want to be looking like WP is saying these people are HDs in Wikivoice. --Masem (t) 14:25, 11 April 2018 (UTC)
• Yes, any contentious material about living persons has to come with a citation, even in a list. Yes, the list on the article is hideous with citations. The obvious solution at least to me seems to be creating List of Holocaust deniers, and linking to it, since there's already sufficient content there for a stand alone list rather than an embedded one. GMG^talk 14:29, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

While that may seem the obvious solution, historically we have had trouble with stand alone lists that are entirely negative and about living people. A better solution would be to reformat and set some clear criteria for the bottom section in line with BLP: Their holocaust denial is relevant in some way to their notability (historians concentrating on the 2nd World War for example) or they have received significant coverage - legal cases etc. Rather than just 'Oh a load of media says this person is a holocaust denier'. That should cut it down quite a bit and turn it less a list of name + citation into an actual encyclopedic section. No one could argue that a link to David Irving is not a relevant and suitable article for anyone who wants to read about holocaust denial (and what happens when as a holocaust denier you sue someone claiming you are not.) Only in death does duty end (talk) 14:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

I mean, I'm not saying you wouldn't have to tread lightly re: BLP. But the difference between a category and a list, is that in a list you actually can provide brief and direct explanatory content supported by reliable sources that supports inclusion in the list. GMG^talk 14:51, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Lawrence Liang

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

Repeated removal of {{PoV}} tag, despite ongoing dispute on talk page. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:24, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The controversial content discussed on the talk page is not included in the current version of the article, so there is no need for the tag at this time. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 16:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

The tag does not say that "controversial content is included"; it says that neutrality is disputed. Neutrality can be breached by omission, was well as by inclusion. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:46, 11 April 2018 (UTC)

Paul Nehlen

There are several pejoratives being used in this article Paul Nehlen that are not substantiated by Nehlen or any of the articles cited as references. Specifically, people are using articles suggesting Nehlen is a white nationalist and calling him a white supremacist. This is not a trivial distinction, and, even given the extra burden of proof when the subject is a public figure, calling someone a racist without corroborating evidence is dangerously close to, if not across, the line of being libelous. Nehlen has admitted to being a white nationalist but consistently and vehemently denies being a white supremacist (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2017/12/27/ryans-pro-white-primary-foe-denounced-by-breitbart-after-his-anti-semitic-tweets/?utm_term=.e691799d8d29). QPhysics137 (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

It seems problematic that the first sentence of the lead reads "Paul Nehlen (born May 9, 1969) is an American white supremacist and currently a candidate in the Republican primary for U.S. Representative from Wisconsin's 1st congressional district, which is being vacated by Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives." Perhaps as a first step that assertion that he is a "white supremacist" should be moved out of that position of prominence in the lead. Bus stop (talk) 00:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

If reliable sources consistently refer to someone as a white supremacist, and that is a significant part of their notability, it should be in the lede of that person’s biography. See Richard B. Spencer for an example of this. The question, then, is whether or not reliable sources call him one. If the statement can be sourced and there is no substantial debate among reliable secondary sources, we can and should state facts as facts, not opinions. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

He explicitly denies that characterization. Bus stop (talk) 01:20, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

So what? So does Richard Spencer. To use an example on the other end of the spectrum, Rachel Dolezal explicitly claimed to be black. It doesn't matter what people claim to be or not to be, if reliable sources disagree with them. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 01:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Denying being a white supremacist and using euphemisms such as "white nationalist" is a known tactic of white supremacists. Here's a snippet from white nationalism: "Critics argue that the term "white nationalism" and ideas such as white pride exist solely to provide a sanitized public face for white supremacy, and that most white nationalist groups promote racial violence." --ChiveFungi (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Do we know his beliefs better than he does? He says "I reject being called a White Supremacist..." Dictionary definition of white supremacist: "a person who believes that the white race is inherently superior to other races and that white people should have control over people of other races". The first sentence of the lead is hardly the place to contradict a person's expressed beliefs. I would suggest language such as "he is widely described as a white supremacist". Bus stop (talk) 04:28, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

His beliefs are not relevant here - his actions and statements are. One can claim not to be an anti-Semite, but if one declares that Jews are responsible for all the world’s problems, one will be labeled an anti-Semite by reliable sources. His actions and statements have defined him as a white supremacist by reliable sources, and those are who we rely on on Wikipedia. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Regardless of what RSes say about him, the approach taken in this article (at least as of this version) is completely inappropriate per BLP, NPOV, and NOT#SOAPBOX. It is not an encyclopedia's place to level every negative connotation about a person that is seen to have values contrary to the prevailing public view (or at least as stated by the media), simply because his believes, statements, and actions suggest his supports those values - we are not here to right great wrongs, nor try to put people that may be seen in a negative light by the public/media in the darkest, most negative light possible. It is fair and necessary by weight of RSes to identify as criticism towards the person that he is seen as supporting white nationalistic views, but the section "White nationalist campaigning" is basically loading a bunch of coattrack arguments to support this ("he used triple parens in one of his tweets" as evidence of white nationalism is total BS for us to have in a BLP). This article is the epidemic of the combination of the current media hysteria around right-leaning politics and too many editors saying "we have to say what the RSes say!!!" and ignoring the basic tenets of what BLP and NPOV tells us not to do. --Masem (t) 13:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I have to agree with Masem on this. We shouldn't just blindly repeat what sources say, but use some editorial judgment to summarize, weigh, and balance the article so that we can ultimately make it all encyclopedic rather than the typical media crucifixion. I'd also be careful as to labeling a person as one thing or another. If their actions indicate something about their character, then its better to describe those actions and let the reader decide. (ie: If so-and-so is an a-hole we don't call him an a-hole, but rather show the reader what makes him an a-hole. It's a basic principle of writing; "show, don't tell".) If some sources decide to call them by a specific label, then we should attribute it to those sources. If the subject denies the particular label, then their denial should be included. However, unless their sole source of notability is being white supremacist or whatever, then we shouldn't be labeling anyone using Wikipedia's voice, because that would be giving the reader our own conclusion, when we really should be giving them the information to draw their own conclusion. Zaereth (talk) 20:55, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

That’s not how Wikipedia works. We call spades spades, when reliable sources do. We do not simply throw up our hands and say “both sides” when one side is a slew of reliable sources and the other side is an avowed racist and anti-Semite plaintively crying “unfair.” Our mission is to write an encyclopedia based upon reliable sources, and the reliable sources here are undisputed. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Labels can be problematic because the definition of the label is rarely if ever airtight. We have a good idea what a white supremacist is but there is bound to be wiggle room given the variety of understandings different people might have. Labels are only approximations so we shouldn't rely on them too heavily. Bus stop (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

BLP, NPOV and WP:LABEL are very clear that we do not simply treat the media as judge and jury in such cases; their opinions are still important, but they are not required to be taken as fact nor piled on per BLPCRIME. We need to remain apolitical and stay out of the media's current rampage of the right at this point, though clearly still need to acknowledge it, otherwise WP becomes a soapbox for the media, which we are not. Neutrality is just as fundamental to reliability to WP, and we can met both as long as we recognize the use of labels and attribute them appropriately, as well as appropriate tone and structure that still will keep the criticism but in a much more appropriate tone for an academic work. --Masem (t) 22:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

The problem with labels is the same as with all stereotypes, and this is exactly what leads to things like racism in the first place. I've posted many reliable sources here on just that subject and will be more than happy to do so again. People are far more complex than a simple label, and labels, stereotypes, and other forms of categorization are far too useful a tool for those who want to rally a people against another. It is a tactic used by white supremacists, neo-nazis, Nazis, ancient Romans, going back to the dawn of civilization, but should be avoided by respectable journalists. (In fighting monsters we should make sure we don't become them.) A label like this is an opinion. Possibly a righteous one, but an opinion none the less, thus it needs at the very least to be attributed to someone.

Aside from that, it's just poor writing. Whether fiction or non-fiction, a reader doesn't like to be told what to think (and I can source that too). Zaereth (talk) 23:05, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

• Of course we need editorial judgment to go along with reliable sources. Is the dude more or less a professional at white supremacy? Is that how he makes his money? And if he is a white supremacist, whether professionally or part-time, why would that be pejorative? If one is a supremacist, isn't that supremacy thing something to be proud of? I never got that with these cats.

  I looked over the article and its sources, and I think we can say safely that it's worth mentioning in the opening lines, yes. BTW these cats and their Jesus-shaped holes...nobody better tell em Jesus wasn't white... Drmies (talk) 02:36, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• I was going to say the sourcing wasn't really there, but I saw this nytimes article where he is described "The most prominent conservative challenger to Mr. Ryan has been Paul Nehlen, a white nationalist and anti-Semite who challenged Mr. Ryan in 2016". If not literally the first couple of words, it still should be in the first sentence, i.e, "widely described as white nationalist" Galobtter (pingó mió) 09:42, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Sources also describe him as far-right: [10][11] Galobtter (pingó mió) 10:01, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

It is not so much that there isn't sourcing for "white nationalist" or other labels to be includes as criticism, but that our article treats the labels as fact nor accounts for his counterclaim that he isn't. Policy is clear that these labels must be treated as attributed opinions, and there's shouldn't be a pile-on of attempts at evidence of why they consider him a white nationalist, particularly into the trivial elements like triple parens in a tweet. Having the views of a white nationalist, last I saw, wasn't a crime, so this should be treated more as criticism as far less as it is now as a scarlet letter of shame as the article is written. --Masem (t) 13:37, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

In almost every sense, secondary sourcing trumps primary because through the lens of a reliable outside source we get a clearer picture. Someone's political views absolutely fall in line with this. Secondary sources report on someones actions, despite what they might try to tell people, and there's a saying about actions and words, you know? Parabolist (talk) 20:34, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

There are neutral political views, like if one is a Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, and so on. Those aren't labels. Polical labels like "white nationalists" absolutely have to considered as opinion and treated as such, and understanding the nature and bias of sources as to whether the negative connotation of the term has encyclopedic value. The media has made it clear they are out to shame anyone that they feel doesn't match their stance and engaging in treating divergent views as thought crime, but WP is not in the business of shaming people. We must be apolitical and much more neutral here. We can't ignore the fact, here, that Nehlan is criticized for having white nationalist views, but key is to make sure that's presented as the opinions of the press, as well as making sure that (if we can source it) that Nehlan denies this label. --Masem (t) 22:19, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Shame, what? You have cited nothing to support your Original Research, POV -- ascribing to RS a desire to "shame" just because they use words you don't personally approve of is nonsense. Alanscottwalker (talk) 22:40, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

It is the way we write the thing that matters. You don't start out the thing by saying "Paul Nehlen (born May 9, 1969) is an American white supremacist and a candidate in the Republican primary for U.S. Representative from Wisconsin's 1st congressional district, which is being vacated by Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives." He isn't a white supremacist. He is an upright vertebrate. He favors bipedalism. My point is he is many things. But all don't belong as the first descriptive term. We are offering an opinion. I agree that we are "shaming" him. Bus stop (talk) 01:22, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Evaluation the nature of sources and any issue with them (bias, unreliability, expert-ness, importance) is not OR, but a fundamental part of what we as editors do in building the encyclopedia as a summary work. We rely on that ability to judge sources to make sure we are providing reliable sources and neutral coverage to know what sources to use and how to organize information. We use that to, for example, put heavy restrictions on the use of Daily Mail due to outright fabrications, or to recognize that works like Brietbart have been found to be manipulative to mudslinging on left-leaning targets, and thus unreliable. We have every ability to apply the same considerations to the media today, and its very clear the media is making it a stigma to be considered anything close to alt-/far-right. Those people may not be popular, and we should not hide that they are unpopular and disliked if that is a significant point in the coverage (like here), but we absolutely should not be taking up this mantra that the media unabashedly uses that we must shun and ridicule anyone to the alt/far-right, particularly when they have not done or been convicted of anything legally wrong; we can't judge morals, so we have to stay amoral here. That's why LABEL exists, that's why BLPCRIME exists. It is not in any way or shape original research to recognize this; we are a summary work and we need to look at the situation from a high level to understand how to place the coverage appropriately, and that includes recognizing coverage that is not sufficiently objective, even if it is coming from a reliable source, for a encyclopedia with strong BLP provisions. But to stress, this is no way changes WP:V or NOR; biased coverage does not cause an RS to no longer be reliable, and we still can only include material that comes from RSes and avoid those we know are not RSes barring statements of opinion, its a matter of how that material is presented that is affect that by how the sources are evaluated. --Masem (t) 12:57, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

That's quite a long disquisition, but none of it supports your POV-pushing/OR shaming claim. `Alanscottwalker (talk) 13:28, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Just noting that I added BLP and American Politics sanction notices to the talk page 2 days ago. Doug Weller talk 14:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

The first thing we should be saying is why he's notable. After we've said why he is notable ("he is a candidate in the Republican primary for U.S. Representative from Wisconsin's 1st congressional district, which is being vacated by Paul Ryan, Speaker of the House of Representatives") we can delve into neutrally-stated and well-sourced qualities that fall under the general heading of white supremacism. Bus stop (talk) 14:36, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope, because his minor fringe candidacy is not why he’s notable. Last time he ran in the primary he got like 16% of the vote. Nobody would ever have heard of Paul Nehlen except that he’s a white supremacist candidate. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:05, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

That doesn't make any sense. There are many white supremacists. Nobody who is a white supremacist attains notability in the absence of some other facet of the person that raises them to the level of clearing the notability threshold. But candidacy for political office is a rarer thing. Yes, it is combined with his white supremacist political views, but the attainment of or even the candidacy for political office is more standard fare of notability than mere "views" of a political nature. Everyone can be said to have a political viewpoint. Bus stop (talk) 17:24, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Eric Greitens [resolved]

An article on an individual involved in a high-profile legal matter. Edits by an IP have introduced a serious BLP violation, outing a low-profile individual and an alleged victim of assault: [12].

Is it worth a rev-del? There are 25 revisions involved: [13]. --K.e.coffman (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Lemme check... – Muboshgu (talk) 04:52, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

I don't think rev del applies. It doesn't meet any of WP:CRD. Those edits added information in a matter-of-fact way about a serious allegation that came out in the news today. I agree WP:CONSENSUS needs to be built on the talk page before that goes back in, but I imagine that it will in some form go back in. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:54, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Thank you for looking into this. K.e.coffman (talk) 00:38, 14 April 2018 (UTC)

Lawrence Krauss

Much text that violates WP:NPOV is suddenly being added to Lawrence Krauss by User:Steeletrap. I have been working on maintaining NPOV with many other Wikipedians, but I don't want to get into an edit war with somebody here to right a great wrong. Can others weigh in? Thanks! HouseOfChange (talk) 05:34, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Krauss has been accused of sexual assault or harassment by numerous women. He has been suspended from his university position at ASU, and the two previous universities for which he worked sanctioned him for sexual harassment of undergrads.  : His WP fanboys are claiming that because the allegations against Krauss are unproven--because there is no videographic evidence of the assaults, I guess?--that they must be stricken from the article. There is no policy on which they base this claim. And many WP pages, such as Harvey Weinstein and Bill Cosby, mention "unproven" sexual assault allegations.

All RS mentions of Krauss since the allegations were publicized in February 2018 mention the controversy. (For example, a WaPo eulogy to Stephen Hawking Krauss wrote in March was prefaced by a extended mention of the controversy: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/posteverything/wp/2018/03/15/the-time-i-took-stephen-hawking-to-a-cowboy-bar/?utm_term=.90d9a0600955 Steeletrap (talk) 05:38, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

More than half the lead is an obvious undue WP:RGW campaign. Johnuniq (talk) 05:50, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

ASU, where Krauss has worked for more than a decade, reports it has had zero complaints about Krauss during that time. CWU, which he left in a contentious way, reported interactions with two undergrads that made them feel uncomfortable. Perimeter Institute, where he visited and gave a talk in 2009, responded in 2012 or 2013 to allegations made by one woman, back in 2009. Your attempt to build this into action against Krauss by 3 universities where he worked, (and to equate the behavior he's been accused of with much more serious behavior by Cosby, Epstein, Weinstein, etc.) reflects shallow knowledge of the topic and an attitude unsuited to creating NPOV text that belongs in an encyclopedia. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:41, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Laura Loomer

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

There is a user called "Dr. Fleischman" who seems to believe that Laura Loomer is "alt-right," citing this (https://forward.com/news/breaking-news/376148/jewish-alt-right-woman-takes-on-richard-spencer-amid-infighting/) source, and ignoring an article from the same site (https://forward.com/series/forward-50/2017/laura-loomer/) where it states, "Her efforts didn’t get her much love from the 'alt-right...' ”

I am arguing Laura Loomer is not alt-right, and it is potentially libelous to characterize her as such. I am also arguing The Forward cannot be used as a source in this instance because of its own contradiction.

--72.42.159.123 (talk) 06:45, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Nope, she's definitely alt-right, insofar as reliable sources characterise her that way. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 08:03, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

Both Forward sources call her "alt-right", although as a Jew, she squabbles with anti-Semitic elements of the chaotic and factionalized alt-right movement. The full range of reliable sources make it clear that she is a far right wing provocateur who can fairly be classified as alt-right even if every source does not use that term. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 02:47, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Herbert Schendl, Herbert Koziol et al.

Moochooroo (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) appears to have a clear undeclared COI and has been creating poorly sourced (often only using primary sources including (own webpage, CV, symposium webpage, university course information!) biographies of living academics in their field of linguistics. I have created a listing for Herbert Schendl at AfD and prodded Herbert Koziol but then realised a lot of similar articles by the author that need investigation. Meters warned the user back in February. They didn't respond but also haven't edited since February either. Still a lot of cleanup of their articles needed and might need a concerted effort, hence why I'm posting here. Polyamorph (talk) 20:17, 12 April 2018 (UTC)

As I said in my posts on Moochooroo's talk page and my talk page, I'm reasonably certain this user is <redacted per WP:OUTING.> See User talk:Meters#External examiner on Stefan Dollinger and User talk:Moochooroo#Managing a conflict of interest. The user is an SPA on English linguistics, including substantial edits to Stefan Dollinger, A Dictionary of Canadianisms on Historical Principles (the second edition of the DCHP was directed by Dollinger), Herbert Schendl (one of Dollinger'sPhD advisers) and Nikolaus Ritt (another of Dollinger's PhD advisers). I also suspect that the same user has also used IPs to edit some of these articles. Note also the odd edit by an IP to the Dollinger article [14] claiming that the article had been written by Dollinger. Meters (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your input Meters. I've sent Stefan Dollinger to AfD, as well as Herbert Koziol after the PROD was removed by an anon user. I'll take a look at Nikolaus Ritt Polyamorph (talk) 06:24, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

I'll comment on the AFDs. Thanks for opening them. Meters (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Steven Leifman

Steven Leifman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) Not sure whether these recent edits are appropriate, given the fact that they all rely on primary sources. Sure, it's not controversial that an order was filed against Leifman, but the other stuff (about the videos) seems inappropriate to attribute to primary sources, especially some of the things he is alleged to have said in some of the videos. Every morning (there's a halo...) 01:16, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

• I have removed the content describing the videos and/or Leifman in a biased way that was sourced to the videos themselves in light of the concerns I noted above. Every morning (there's a halo...) 01:19, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Agreed - the content should not be included. I've watchlisted the page and will revert if its restored. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:21, 13 April 2018 (UTC)

Simon R Taylor

Dear Community,

I am posting this message further to correspondence with the Wikipedia Volunteer Response Team. I am the subject of the above-mentioned article.

I’m afraid that none of the impressive BBC references exist. The only legitimate links are to my own website, an article in the local press, and a few reviewers of my two self-published books.

Some of the revisions are defamatory and distressing. I don’t believe that I meet Wikipedia’s test of notability, and on that basis I would request that the page is removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simtaylor (talk • contribs) 17:33, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I believe that the article in question is Simon R. Taylor. The article creator, Authorprofiler, has been inactive for 3 years. The citations being queried were introduced with the original version of the page - see this revision. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:39, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I have never been interviewed by the BBC. I am not a public figure. Can the page be removed? Thanks Simtaylor (talk) 17:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @Simtaylor: Regarding the overarching issue of defamatory revisions, you can request that an administrator use the revision delete function on the affected versions. The notabilility guideline in question is WP:NAUTHOR, but I think the general notability guideline is more likely to be satisfied. Offline sources are hard to verify, especially a 7 year old radio programme. As a general rule, we assume good faith on these citations, but at the same time verifiability is a key policy. If we strike the BBC reference, then notability is borderline in my opinion, as I'm not sure about significant mention in multiple secondary sources. As such, I'd suggest nominating the article for deletion, and state your case there. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:51, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

I also note that there has been previous discussion on this noticeboard - see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard/Archive262#Simon R. Taylor. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 17:59, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps nobody was sufficiently interested at the time. I've tried to take the action you've suggested above but I'm a bit confused by it all to be honest. I anticipate that, as the subject, if I indicate the sources do not exist then the burden of proof would fall on anybody wishing to retain the article to demonstrate otherwise. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Simtaylor (talk • contribs) 18:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Simtaylor: no problem, a bot waltzed in and linked the discussion, it's always hard your first time (people who do it regularly generally use twinkle to get it right). I still feel lost with the speedy deletion templates on other projects like commons. I'm not sure about the burden in this case, I'll do some digging on the offline sources page. Regarding being the article subject, as editors are anonymous, there's fairly often a degree of skepticism over such claims. Consequently, you may wish to contact the OTRS team to verify your identity, as it would make sense to me that the subject of the article challenging sources like you are would be taken with more weight. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 18:31, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

@Bellezzasolo: Thanks for all your help :) Simtaylor (talk) 18:35, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

John Philbin

Can someone please have a word with user:SemiHypercube who is trying to re-add a totally undue Personal Life section to this biography? Cheers. 94.118.33.196 (talk) 23:02, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

And same user, same problem, at Reby Sky. 94.118.33.196 (talk) 23:04, 15 April 2018 (UTC)

Blaire White

I'm looking for an editor to monitor the situation of the Blaire White article, which has been subject to repeated (3x) vandalism today on the basis of Blaire's transgender identity.

Disclaimer: I am not a seasoned wikipedia editor, simply a transgender bystander who noticed vandalism and is struggling to report it through the proper channels. I signed up for an account in an attempt to flag someone with more knowledge, but discovered that this process is a lot more complicated than that. This is why my profile is sparse. I am looking for an experienced editor to follow up on this problem, as I'm out of my depth.

Thank you! Foxgloved (talk) 23:13, 15 April 2018 (UTC)