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.

Using 'Legacy' for still active living entertainers

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

---

I recently got into a dispute at Madonna (entertainer) over the use of the term 'Legacy' instead of 'Impact' as a section title in the BLP. I tried to quote consensus from a previous discussion at Talk:Rihanna#RfC about exactly the same issue. I argued there that dictionaries generally define 'legacy' as something inherited from the past. I was informed that consensus at Rihanna has nothing to do with the article on Madonna.[1]

Hence I'd like to establish consensus here for BLPs in general. Please let me know if this is not the right forum.

RfC: Use of the term 'Legacy'

Should the term 'Legacy' be used for the contributions and impact of living entertainers, personalities, etc, who are still active in their field?

• A: The term 'Legacy' is appropriate for anyone who has a significant impact.
• B: The term 'Legacy' is appropriate for people who have not been active for some time.
• C: The term 'Legacy' is appropriate for people who have passed away.

LK (talk) 07:03, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

Comments

• C Per especially definition 2 on M-W. It implies something the dead have left us, their long term impact. I'm not sure why the word is preferable to impact though - legacy sounds more flowery and value-laden to me. —DIYeditor (talk) 13:43, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• B to A - provided WP:RS refer to the person's legacy - per m-w definition 2 - "something transmitted by or received from an ancestor or predecessor or from the past the legacy of the ancient philosophers The war left a legacy of pain and suffering." - past does not mean dead - it could mean a movie star no longer or active or perhaps in the wane of their career. However, I think the question we should be asking is whether RSes refer to a person's legacy - if there are strong RSes that do, then it is possible to refer to a legacy. For sporting figures - one often discusses the "legacy" (in sports) following retirement - e.g. Joe Montana's legacy - gNews "Joe Montana" legacy. Heck - we even have Montana discussing the legacy un-retired Brady - [2]. And Brady's legacy has been discussed for the past few years by others - [3][4]. I don't think this a BLP issue - more of a question of avoiding puffery (for dead or alive subjects) - this is a term that should be used only the most clear cases (supported by strong RS).Icewhiz (talk) 13:54, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• A because it's WP-practice and I don't see it changing (personally I think you've left a a legacy when you're dead). Like Bob Dylan (FA), Art Spiegelman (GA), Barack Obama (FA). For some reason Oscar Wilde (GA) doesn't have one, but that's WP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:31, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• B or C depending on the time frame implicitly stated. "Legacy" implies "something from the past" so should not be used for recent persons or acts. Collect (talk) 19:22, 21 May 2018 (UTC)
• A makes no sense. How can you assess the legacy of someone who has not yet died? And why are we using the euphemism "passed away"? Guy (Help!) 13:08, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Consider John Major. Twenty years after he left office and went into mostly-retirement, can we not assess his legacy?- Simon Dodd { U·T·C·WP:LAW } 13:47, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• I think we can and it won't take long. Drmies (talk) 18:07, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

• Very droll, Dr. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 16:26, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Lest we forget! Pincrete (talk) 20:51, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

That was a not inconsiderably important initiative. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 25 May 2018 (UTC)

I could go for some icecream. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:33, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

• C (or B if they are never going to be active in that area again). Yes, we can assess the legacy of an ex-Prime Minister (who will never be such again) as the legacy of what he did whilst in power. Madonna, however, is still an entertainer, thus "Legacy" is not correct. Black Kite (talk) 18:17, 22 May 2018 (UTC)
• A given how much impact those active can have (often lots). Lawrencekhoo, please stop with your absurd and completely unnecessary campaign to remove that from section titles of those who haven't retired or died. Snuggums (talk / edits) 22:49, 22 May 2018 (UTC)

Could someone have a talk with SNUGGUMS about being polite and collegial with other editors even if one disagrees with them about policy? Thanks --LK (talk) 00:43, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

I know very well how to be polite as well as collegial when disagreeing with others. That's not mutually exclusive with criticizing others' actions as faulty or calling them out on a blatant problem. Snuggums (talk / edits) 00:55, 23 May 2018 (UTC)

• C' Makes the most sense, but an arguement could be made for B. A legacy should not apply to people who are still actively wroking in their field. AIRcorn (talk) 21:30, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
• B and C though I would modify B to 'no longer active' (without the 'for some time' qualifier, which is vague and unnecessary). Especially in fields such as sports, where people retire very young, it is meaningful to speak of 'legacy' once they have 'left the field'. I'm sure sports writers are busy speculating about what Usain Bolt, S Williams, Ronaldo, Beckham, etc's legacy is - or will be - and the use of the term is meaningful, since their active lives in their professions are over/nearly over. This could be equally true of a figure like Obama, whose presidency might meaningfully be deemed to have left a legacy - though once again, as with the sports figures, the content is inevitably going to be speculation as to what that legacy will be. Using the term for a person still active in their profession is borderline 'puffery', since it implies we already know how they are going to be remembered. We aren't generally prescriptivists here on WP, but why use a term which is inaccurate, when other more accurate terms exist? The alternatives are even more readily understood - such as 'impact'. I presume of course that the use debated at this RfC is section headings and WP:VOICE text - not within quoted or paraphrased text itself, where we obviously would use the term used by the source(s). … … … "To evoke posterity is to weep on your own grave" - Though he doesn't mention other people's graves! Pincrete (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2018 (UTC)
• C Some Wikipedia articles using the word wrong doesn't change the meaning of the word. Go with the commonly understood dictionary definition. Darx9url (talk) 23:04, 24 May 2018 (UTC)

What if sources use it "wrong"? Trump’s new effort to destroy Obama’s legacy is very dangerous, The Legacy and Lessons of Bob Dylan, Five readers offer their views on Madonna's legacy, her skill for reinvention and that new single. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:31, 26 May 2018 (UTC)

I see "Obama's legacy" used all the time. However, an encyclopedia needs to use different words in an article summing up a person's life. In the article on Obama it would be premature. The man is just fifty-something and may be active for another three or four decades. Coretheapple (talk) 17:31, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Obama's Presidency is over - I think it is meaningful to speak of the legacy of that presidency, though not of the man himself. Ditto Blair, Major etc. Pincrete (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)

• C (Summoned by bot) While intended to be a compliment, the word implies that the article subject is either dead or as good as dead, per the definition "Something inherited from a predecessor; a heritage." If the person is still active in his field it even has BLP implications, implying the person is "over." There are so many wonderful words in the English language. Let's find a word other than "legacy" for living people. Coretheapple (talk) 17:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
• A (Summoned by bot) you can have a legacy prior to croaking ^{cinco de} L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 01:56, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
• Oppose codification of a brightline rule here: I don't often use this term (in fact, I think I may never have in my time on the project) but this feels like truly unnecessary policy WP:CREEP. This is clearly an editorial decision that needs to be made via WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and requires such a fact-specific analysis that any firm rule (even one of inclination) that is added to this [most bloated of all pages anywhere in project space] policy could never hope to address an approach good for every contingency, and will in fact only muddy the waters for the editors on individual articles. Some might say that this defaults my view to being closest to A, the broadest/most permissive interpretation, but I want to make it clear that I would not view that as terribly accurate; I don't think a specific one-size-fits all inclination towards any of the three options is appropriate here. Local editors familiar with the WP:Weight of the sources and the flow of the article are generally quite capable of puzzling out a pragmatic approach to questions like this, and BLP already constrains them (and clashes with other policies encouraging local consensus) quite enough as is.. Snow ^{let's rap} 09:06, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

Can you given an opinion on whether this Legacy section in the article on Tom Cruise is appropriately named? And if not, what policy should be used to justify changing the name of the section? LK (talk) 05:32, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

No, reading through that section, I have to say that, were I an editor working on that article, I would definitely be urging against that header in that instance. But honestly, the section title is just the least of the problems with the section itself; it seems to be a random collection of tidbits that just didn't fit anywhere else in the article and were crammed together, without any connection, flow, or context tying together the handful of points of trivia--some of which arguably don't have enough WP:WEIGHT to be mentioned in the article in the first place. Clearly, this is an area which imputes a certain degree of subjectivity, but I can't say as those facts constitute much of anything that anyone would reasonably classify as "legacy". That said, this is an interpretation based on the current content in that section; I can very well imagine that enough has been said about Cruise's impact upon his industry that a legacy section might very well be appropriate for him, with better-suited content drawing upon the right sources. As to what policy should control here, I do see your implied argument that no policy is quite 100% on point. But even if the discussion might necessarily hinge on purely pragmatic arguments, I still think that in most cases the local editors can arrive at a rational solution in individual cases more expediently if they do not have to work around the proposed default rules here as a mandatory framework. Anyway, if nothing else, someone arguing against a legacy header in a case where they foudn it inappropriate would probably have at least WP:WEIGHT to draw upon; if anyone has a proper "legacy" then RS have probably described their notability in such terms, and provided some guideposts for which accomplishments/streams of influence qualify.

In any event, that is, of course, a very separate and more specific question than the one being asked in this discussion. FYI, even if you get an endorsement for this proposal (and I hope the need will be rethought before this goes much farther, but even if you do...) you are still going to need to re-introduce it at the talk page for the policy to be changed, and probably also publicize it via WP:VPP, WP:CD, or another central community space, per the usual approach to modifying policy pages. But maybe I am unaware of a habit of BLP-policy changes to originate here before moving to the talk page? Snow ^{let's rap} 07:40, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not proposing any changes to policy or guideline about this issue. I do agree that adding something as trivial as this to a policy page would be policy creep. I'm just trying to establish community consensus that in most cases, it would be in appropriate to use "legacy" to describe the impact of people still active in their field. LK (talk) 12:06, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see, my mistake--thank you for that clarification. Snow ^{let's rap} 12:33, 1 June 2018 (UTC)

• C WP:Use plain English sums up my view on the proper use of language. The word 'Legacy' has a clear dictionary definition (which can be seen from my survey of dictionary entries) – it is an inheritance handed down from the past. Many fans have decided that it sounds nice, and have inserted it into articles where it's not appropriate. Including it in our articles violates WP:PEACOCK and WP:BLPSTYLE as articles are supposed to neutrally and factually describe a person and their achievements. This word is only being used for it's connotation that the person has made great achievements. Without the positive associations, this term would not be pushed by the fans (and perhaps paid editors) who patrol the celebrity pages. LK (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2018 (UTC)
• C, along with the proper use of the term. Some exceptions could be possible for major figures no longer active in their field, i.e. heads of state, pop culture icons, etc - in line with the sources (i.e. the subject of the sourced discussion should be "Legacy of X"). This should be an exception to the rule, though. --K.e.coffman (talk) 23:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

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

Threaded discussion

Could someone uninvolved please write a brief conclusion based on guideline, and close this RfC? Thanks very much, LK (talk) 01:43, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Rockin' Rebel: Dead or alive?

Bit of a tussle between sources and doubt at Talk:Rockin' Rebel. Also a subplot about professional wrestling integrity versus police authority in America, and a marital murder mystery complicating what (I assume) would've otherwise been a straighforward reflection of the exact same reporters' reports, rather than a locked-down article. Strange case with potential for strange precedent, but a rather obscure celebrity, so I invite the board to ponder it. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:21, June 3, 2018 (UTC)

Fiona Bruce

Can anyone please review and comment at Talk:Fiona_Bruce#Unilever? It isn't really a legal issue but people are editing the article and ignoring its talk page. - Sitush (talk)

Amy Cuddy

• Amy Cuddy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Amy Cuddy is complaining on twitter with what appears to me significant justification that her entry in Wikipedia is a mess of BLP violations. I'd like us to take a very good look at it. The concerns mentioned are that it contains false information and excludes factual information. There is also a claim that quality references that are favorable to her work have been systematically edited out.

Separately, but relatedly, she says "Current language silences targets, warning that reporting bullying may elicit boomerang effect. Bullying experts would be appalled." I presume that she means some current language on some policy page at Wikipedia, but I'm not really sure what she's referring to. If we do tell people that, we need to fix that immediately as it is against everything that we stand for as a community.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 19:26, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

There are multiple issues on that page. I've fixed a few of the most egregious issues. I'm sure the content on how failed replications of "power posing" are handled will need extensive discussion on the talk page. power~enwiki (π, ν) 19:37, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Indeed, it looks to be quite complicated. One hard part is that the combatants on the talk page are bordering on engaging in original research which would naturally fall outside the realm of what we should be doing here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I have the put NPOV tag for now till the issues are resolved.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:38, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Thank you!--Jimbo Wales (talk) 21:00, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

The problem is, her biography is basically serving as a coatrack for Power posing the discredited hypothesis she co-authored (and note key word here is discredited, not 'unproven'. The co-author states the methodology was suspect in the first place and subsequent research has largely borne this out). Most of the neutral coverage of that is at the relevant article. If we removed most of the power posing related material it would be a relatively sparse bio. The problem with this is: subjects who do bad science like to have all the positive references on their biography, but none of the negative. This goes against our NPOV. So we end up with a bio that largely turns into a giant 'Subject did/said this - here are references saying they are wrong'. Which isnt really what an internet biography should say. It should be 'Subject co-authored a now discredited hypothesis Power posing' and thats it. Leave all the to and fro for the article on the paper itself.

RE reporting issues, about the only thing that is relevant from the talk page and the article history is that the subjects publisher attempted to make changes at one point and was pointed/asked nicely (and yes it was nicely for ENWP) not to edit the article directly. Only in death does duty end (talk) 19:48, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

I think it quite unfair to say that "subjects who do bad science like to have all the positive references on their biography, but none of the negative", except to the extent that of course this is naturally true of virtually everyone who has a biography, a rather uninteresting observation. Invoked in this way, you seem to suggest that the subject of this article is asking for a whitewash, and that's a pretty bad violation of WP:AGF. I think it's a huge mistake to take on this kind of "gotcha" battleground mentality. The concern is that the article currently doesn't live up to our principles of WP:NPOV and that's not ok. It's further not ok to compound that with veiled criticism of the subject for asking for it to be better.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 20:59, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm reading Only in Death's statement a little differently. I think what he is saying is that these types of articles become focused on bolstering and subsequently refuting the subject's views or theories rather than actually defining the subject. (See, for example, the Neil Gross section above.) In many cases this may in fact be due to the subject trying to push their own ideas, while others work diligently to refute them, but I think a majority of these cases is between editors that have no affiliation with the subject other than a personal belief/disbelief in their work. A person's biography is not a good place to debate a scientific theory; those debates should be in the articles about the theories. For a biography, it is enough to simply state what their views are and link to the articles which expand on those views, which is what I think Only in Death was trying to say. Zaereth (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

If so, then great, and I agree completely.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

I took a look at her twitter thread, the article, and googled for some more information, and I don't see any information in the article that is counter to the information from reliable sources online. Of course she would be upset about it, she got viral fame for something that was later discredited over and over and over. This is an upsetting event, but it's really all she's known for, so removing it from the article would results in a completely untrue article. Natureium (talk) 17:27, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

The squeaky wheel gets the grease. This whole approach, where someone complains directly to Jimbo Wales on Twitter that, as he puts it above, "her entry in Wikipedia is a mess of BLP violations," and then we all rush to the rescue, makes me queasy. Now that Jimbo has brought it to our attention and weighed in with additional replies, I think the community can take it from here without the founder's further intervention. KalHolmann (talk) 17:36, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Why can't Jimbo be just a regular human being and editor like the rest of us, working on what caught his interest and he feels is right? Zaereth (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Jimbo Wales is not just a regular human being and editor like the rest of us, nor will he ever be. And for the record, he has not made a single edit to Amy Cuddy. None. Never. KalHolmann (talk) 19:59, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks. I see now very clearly what your problem is and who it is really with Zaereth (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

As an analogy, let's say the article on Joe Schmo says he believes the moon is made of green cheese. That's fine, because it tells me something about Joe Schmo. Do I really need a bunch of statements from scientists, celebrities, and "experts" from Saturday Night Live telling me how wrong Schmo is? What is the purpose other than to a.) prove Joe's theory wrong, thus protecting the world and our children from his outlandish ideas, or b.) to show the world just how stupid Schmo is? It doesn't serve to define Schmo, thus is really irrelevant to his article. That really belongs in the "Green-cheese moon theory" article, where I can go look it up myself if I want to know more about it.

I'd like to think this is something new, but it's not. For over 200 years the top theory in thermodynamics was the phlogiston theory. Old Johann Becher was like the Einstein of his time, and his theory enabled people to make precise and correct calculations. Turns out, it was completely backwards, but we don't spend time trying to prove that in his article. We simply state it link to the article about the theory. When Lavoisier came up with his oxygen theory, people called him a quackpot, because they knew that phlogiston was real. Thomas Young, whom Einstein regarded as one of the most brilliant men of his time, received death threats and was even attacked for daring to suggest that light is a wave instead of a particle. That is what articles like this often turn into; a battleground for people who either have something to prove or are just looking for that "gotcha" moment described above, when all we really need to do is define the subject. Zaereth (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

That's not a good analogy. Everyone knows the moon is not made of cheese, so by stating that, it's obvious that the person has some crazy scientific ideas. This is more like creating an article that talks about all the things Dr. Oz promotes without noting that they are pseudoscience (which the article on Dr. Oz does in the first sentence). Natureium (talk) 19:56, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

• The real problem here is the community's customary distaste for quack therapies running counter to the more recent inclination to believe women qua women and dismiss their critics as chauvinists. Watching this play out will be interesting. 199.127.56.89 (talk) 21:20, 18 June 2018 (UTC)

Nice trolling, but serious people have serious work to do here.--Jimbo Wales (talk) 11:49, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Comparing the version from 48hr before to now, clearly most egregious issues are removed, but this article represents the trend throughout WP that people want to include RS-sourced negative information about a person as high or as predominately as possible. The original lede here was bad, but the current single sentence lede still spends half the time focusing on the negative. We can't bury the impact of the "power posing" issue, but given there's a separate article for it, most of those details should be there on the separate article, and summarize her introduction of the concept, and its subsequent rejection by the scientific community on the BLP page. And this by far is a mild case of where past editors have focused heavily on the negative, which can lead to this improperly POV-ish BLPs. --Masem (t) 23:26, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

Every time there is a BLP problem, we should indeed be rushing to the rescue

@KalHolmann: you say above that it bothers you that Wikipedia editors rush to the rescue when a BLP subject sends a tweet about inaccuracies aimed at Jimmy Wales, is worthy of further consideration. Do you know what? Any time a BLP subject is concerned that their article has -- in their view -- inaccuracies, then we should indeed all be rushing to the rescue! Wikipedia does not have any right to publish inaccurate information about living people, and it has been repeatedly proven that it does. If you have a problem with such errors being fixed -- regardless of who is publicly addressing whom and what medium they use to do so -- then you will need to coherently explain what your problem is. MPS1992 (talk) 23:01, 19 June 2018 (UTC)

about KalHolmann's user talk page

By the way, that's quite a talk page you've got there. I won't offer you advice because you've declined it before. MPS1992 (talk) 23:07, 19 June 2018 (UTC) I agree that when BLP subject is upset, we should take a serious look at the article. But, I don't think BLPN is the venue to resurrect past grievances against fellow-editors. Anybody who wants to hat this digression would do us a favor. HouseOfChange (talk) 23:18, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Discussing BLP policy on BLPN is not a digression. What past grievance are you referring to? MPS1992 (talk) 23:22, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Discussing BLP policy is great, I agree. Attacking fellow editor KalHolmann is inappropriate use of this space, IMO. Anybody want to hat this? HouseOfChange (talk) 23:47, 19 June 2018 (UTC) Attacks are not called for. MPS1992 (talk) 00:21, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Moving Forward

Jimbo Wales has found "significant justification" in Amy Cuddy's complaints of what Wales calls the "mess of BLP violations" that constitute her Wikipedia page. After editing that page 19 times over the past two days, with varying degrees of confidence, I propose the following longer-term remedy. Amy Cuddy should:

• register a user account in her own name, which is available.
• understand that per WP:BLPEDIT, "The Arbitration Committee has ruled in favor of showing leniency to BLP subjects who try to fix what they see as errors or unfair material. … Although Wikipedia discourages people from writing about themselves, removal of unsourced or poorly sourced material is acceptable."
• per WP:BLPSELF, open a new section at Talk:Amy Cuddy, identifying herself as the subject of this BLP and proposing further changes to be made by interested editors. Dr. Cuddy must bear in mind, however, that most editors are not scientists and will require simplified instructions in plain language suitable for content to be included in a popular online reference work.
  

In the interest of fairness, we could also offer the same arrangement to critics of Dr. Cuddy. I am hopeful that as long as editors consistently maintain WP:NOPV, this open collaboration will violate no Wikipedia policy or guideline. KalHolmann (talk) 01:31, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Additional, related complaints by Amy Cuddy

In introducing this section at BLP/Noticeboard, Jimbo Wales alluded to Amy Cuddy's complaints on Twitter of BLP violations. He also mentioned Cuddy's separate but related charges of bullying at Wikipedia. To facilitate addressing Dr. Cuddy's concerns, I have compiled a list of tweets from Amy Cuddy's verified account @amyjccuddy posted within the timeframe that she tweeted to Mr. Wales. After two days, most of her accusations remain undiscussed on this noticeboard. I encourage editors to address these.

• "Hadn't looked at my Wikipedia page in a year. Someone just directed me to it. Wow, it is a mess of false and defamatory info. Why is it okay for people to continue to vandalize by adding false information and excluding accurate information? Where are the actual Wikipedia editors?"
• "Let me add: Wikipedia has become a playground for bullies."
• "Hi, @jimmy_wales. Please make a clear, pro-social statement to targets of repeated @Wikipedia defamation on correcting record & protecting selves. Current language silences targets, warning that reporting bullying may elicit boomerang effect. Bullying experts would be appalled."
• Kelly Silbernagel @KellySilby asked, "WHY!! Why would anyone bully you in the first place?? I. Don't. Get. It."
• Cuddy replied, "It's fun? Makes them feel powerful? Righteous?"
• Kelly Silbernagel responded, "Ugh. Gross."
• Cuddy went on, "It's not just intentionally defamatory. It's flat-out wrong. I just—how is that allowed?"
• "Learning more: Apparently people have made correcting edits and contacted the people who unjustifiably deleted those edits, which only led to addition of more false and defamatory info."
• "The wrongdoing causes actual harm to people."
• "And miraculous, isn't it, how none of the publications that demonstrate effects of power posing end up on my Wikipedia page, like our 55-study meta-analysis?" http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0956797617746749?journalCode=pssa (Note: this publication has since been added to Amy Cuddy.)
• "I am just totally dumbfounded by how many false statements are included on the page and how much accurate, highly relevant information is excluded. I know, there are bigger things to worry about. But it hurts. Truth."
• "Well, this is just another topic to cover in a book on bullying. If you (1) have a @Wikipedia page that's been vandalized or that's included defamatory information, and (2) have found it impossible to get Wikipedia to correct the record, will you please contact me? Thanks."
• "If you look at the history, you can see where people tried to do that but they were reversed. I totally do not understand this."
• "I don't know who adjudicates when getting it right requires expertise."
• "I think of myself as a pathological optimist. No matter what, not matter how bad things get, I wake up the next day feeling that things will be okay. I'm feeling like it's time to abandon some of that optimism."
• "I would just like to be represented accurately, fairly, and concisely in the places that so many of us default to for basic information. And I would like other people and concepts to be represented accurately, fairly, and concisely."
• "People who want to destroy often do so with greater passion and energy and time than people who want to build. It's not an easy problem to solve, but If we want to see positive change, we need to direct passion and energy and time toward building."
  

Personally, I consider that last allegation especially unfair. As an active Wikipedian for the past 12 months, I've had plenty of run-ins with other editors and have fallen afoul of admins who do sometimes bully. But I've never thought of them (or myself) as "people who want to destroy." KalHolmann (talk) 19:01, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Update: Less than 24 hours after I posted the above hyperlinked tweets, Amy Cuddy has protected her verified account, meaning only her 76,709 confirmed followers have access to @amyjccuddy's tweets and complete profile. Coincidence? KalHolmann (talk) 15:04, 21 June 2018 (UTC)

I have seen this issue before on some articles of academics I've created, where the section on "research" or whatever gets bloated with excessive discussion of the minutiae of their research and whether it's valid/replicated/whatever. This is certainly a problem and these details definitely don't belong on articles about scientists, and the opinions of your harshest critics almost certainly don't belong on your BLP. Also, Cuddy's Twitter is apparently now unprotected again. Everymorning talk to me 23:12, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Comments on Cathy Young at Columbia University rape controversy‎ article

Columbia University rape controversy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi All. Regarding this and this revert: Do we want to disparage a living person based on one article (even attributed), in an article not about them (Columbia University rape controversey), with the sentence also not (mostly) being about the subject of the article? Responses so far are on a talk section I started here Arkon (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Also another revert. I've asked the editor to self revert for now. Arkon (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Took it out again. Can't justify leaving what (I believe) is a BLP vio while waiting for a good faith revert. Arkon (talk) 21:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm really struggling to see how an attributed statement of opinion about a public figure constitutes a BLP issue. As I mentioned in my edit summary, Cathy Young is cited 13 times in the article and she's mentioned in text in 6 other places. Young's article prompted a response from Sulkowicz, and the Washington Post describes Young's article as the most extensive and sympathetic treatment of the accused student. If Young is not central to the story, it seems like we should remove some of those citations and in-text mentions. If she is central to the story, then it's reasonable to mention at least one author who criticized her work. Perhaps it makes sense to move the quote to another section, or to find another.Nblund ^talk 21:59, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Citing those articles and their contents would be ok from what I can see (haven't read extensively), however stating that Young is "reliably rape-skeptical", based on one article, which sorely veers into opinion territory is a different matter. Arkon (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Think I'm caught up on those links now, if we feel it's encyclopedic to have criticism of a (as the WAPO article says) reporter, from Sulkowicz (attributed of course) I don't, but reasonable people can differ and it's doable I think. Wording would need to be sussed I'm sure. Arkon (talk) 22:09, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It veers sorely in to opinion territory because it's an opinion piece. It's attributed in-text and it's mentioned alongside several other opinion pieces - some of which are critical of Sulkowicz and some of which are supportive. There's certainly no policy-based reason for prohibiting opinions and criticisms from being mentioned. If you're simply objecting to the phrase "rape skeptical" I think we could simply remove that from the quote without losing the central point. Nblund ^talk 22:42, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Well yes, I have a problem with that phrase. That's why the talk section was opened first. Arkon (talk) 22:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

It's also just sourced to one opinion piece on Jezebel, not the sources you provided above in which that text never appears. Arkon (talk) 22:53, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Okay, so that makes it sound like your real objection is to the content of the criticism itself. I don't think constitutes a BLP issue or even a policy-issue at all. I went ahead and restored the quote minus the "reliably rape skeptical" wording. I'm fine with that but other editors might not be.

Opinion pieces can be reliable for statements of opinion attributed to an author. Every quote in that section is sourced to one opinion piece - unless columnists are engaging rampant plagiarism that's sort of normal. The idea expressed in that story - that Young has a history of questioning or dismissing stories about rape is actually mentioned in both of the piece I pointed to above. Nblund ^talk 23:06, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm sorta astounded that it took this much, if you read the text, to understand why I said it was BLP vio. But you haven't really been the one to restore it without any substantial comment. I still believe you need to A) go to talk page to discuss the wording now B) use the WAPO or primary source as the basis. The current text still is flimsy at best, content wise, perhaps not BLP wise, so please talk page. Arkon (talk) 23:10, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

To be clear: I'm offering a conciliatory gesture, but I don't think it's anywhere close to a BLP vio. It sort of seems like you have a problem with the content of the opinion itself, which isn't a valid policy reason for removing something. I'm not married to any particular wording, but the section cites multiple opinion pieces, I don't see what makes this one flimsy if the rest are fine. Nblund ^talk 23:23, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Well if you think calling someone "reliably rape-skeptical" in a random wikipedia article, that they reported on (per your source), from one opinion piece....alright. At least you removed it, no matter your motivation. You still need to respond to the content on the talk page however. Whatever it "seems like" to you, I really don't care. `Arkon (talk)

I would absolutely see your point if this were being treated as a statement of fact, but it's not - it's an opinion that is being attributed to someone else in-text. I think WP:RSOPINION, WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, and WP:BIAS answer your issues regarding sourcing and fact/opinion. Nblund ^talk 23:39, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

I would absolutely see your point if you didn't restore text to a source that you haven't once brought here, Edit: Crap, this could be misread, sources not used as justification for this report, after reverting earlier ) and not responded anywhere else regarding the content and provided sources when prompted (talk page, user talk). See ya at the talk page. Or not. Arkon (talk) 23:51, 20 June 2018 (UTC)

Opinion columns and blogs (and I don't believe Jezebel is a news organisation, so we can safely ignore NEWSBLOG) that lack editorial oversight are questionable sources and hence they are not reliable sources for controversial claims about living persons. ATTRIBUTEPOV does not give us a blanket permission to include biased opinions for that requires sources be verifiable, which Jezebel fails per WP:QS. Jezebel does not exactly have a good track record of accuracy and corrections. For instance, Anna Merlan wrote an opinion column about UVA rape story and made one relatively minor correction with a snarky comment "This is what a professional journalistic correction looks like", but did not retract the column or correct the major errors when it was revealed that the Rolling Stone report was, in fact, riddled with errors. Merlan did admit that the premise of that column was wrong and apologised for being "dead fucking wrong", but the so-called correction is included in the original column only as one link among six others.

If Jezebel is cited in multiple reliable secondary sources (for example, I have not heard that Jezebel's reporting of sexual assault allegations related to Al Franken[5] [6] has been called into question) we may cite those secondary reliable sources and possibly attribute the claims to Jezebel.

If editors who restore disputed content are aware of BLP discretionary sanctions, e.g. through {{Ds/alert}}, they may be reported to WP:AE (see example). Politrukki (talk) 14:11, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

It's not really possible to verify an opinion. I think the reference to verifiability in WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV is simply saying that we need to verify that Erin Gloria Ryan actually made the statement being attributed to her. If we required editors to verify the content of quoted statements, it would be pretty much impossible to write about flat earth advocates or other cranks. I'm all for using some caution and common sense when it comes to quoting opinions about a BLP, but this is just one of several opinions expressed in the section. It's not particularly outrageous, and it's not any better or any worse than sources like the National Review that are cited in the same section. Nblund ^talk 19:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I think you know very well that conforming to WP:V does not mean that we should "verify an opinion". Verifiability means lots of things: I mentioned WP:QS, but WP:SOURCE is also a part of WP:V and I have argued that Erin Gloria Ryan's opinion in Jezebel is not a reliable source for contentious statements about living persons (clarify: who are not Erin Gloria Ryan). The major difference between Jezebel and National Review is that the latter is a news organisation. But I would tend to agree that in this case the content cited to a column in National Review may as well be removed. Politrukki (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Koniuchy massacre

Koniuchy massacre and reporting of investigation of Yitzhak Arad within. The Koniuchy event itself (Soviet assault on AK self defense force position) has been mainly a historical footnote with some far-right coverage (see for instance this thesis), until it became a subject of Lithuanian/Polish investigation (which what makes this otherwise non-notable incident notable). The investigation itself was lambasted by media and academics world-wide (one academic source going as far as saying it was viewed as a "contemptible farce", Michael Marrus said that Polish and Lithuanian authorities chose to investigate to draw attention away from their own atrocities such as the Jedwabne pogrom and Kielce pogrom) due to the merits of the case, the targeting of Holocaust survivors (while Lithuanian and Polish Holocaust participants remain untried), and the derailment of the Lithuanian war-crime commission (which Arad was a member of) - which was looking into actual crimes and was disbanded as a result of the opening of investigation (with the commission members resigned in solidarity with Arad).

The investigation was closed in 2008. A couple of editors are:

1. Removing sources in English (mainly strong academic sources).
2. Entering non-English sources, an English book by a far right Polish activist (described as "there are conspiracies everywhere in this book" in one review by an academic in the field), as well as the Polish IPN, whose conduct in this case was harshly rebuked (in its role as an anti-communist prosecuting agency) - entering the IPN would be akin to entering an FBI document - just that the IPN has a much poorer reputation (overtly nationalist content of its mission led to its over-politicization[7], Who has been promoting the anti-semitic fascist NSZ as "heros",[8], and recently has been ordered by the government to popularize history as "an element of patriotic education" and oppose so-called false allegations that "dishonor" the Polish nation.[9]).
3. Removal of world-wide reception of this affair.
4. Removal of the closure of the investigation.

In short - reading our article one could understand that Yitzhak Arad is still being investigated for war crimes (for a case closed in 2008), and that this case has strong merits (which is not the way this is viewed worldwide).Icewhiz (talk) 20:27, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

What is suppose to be the BLP violation concerning Arad??? Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:19, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

And if you have a source which says the investigation was closed, then please provide it. The issue here was that the source provided [10] (nor the quote from it) actually said the case was closed. Unless I'm missing something, in which case, I'd be happy to add it in myself.Volunteer Marek (talk) 23:22, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Gross misrepresentation of the investigation against Arad - as it is covered in WP:IRS (which, the IPN would not be - the IPN prosecution cooperated in this "contemptible farce"). The case was indeed closed in September 2008 - as was abundantly clear in the source cited, on the bottom page 340 (In September 2008 the Lithuanian prosecutor's office reluctantly closed the case against Dr. Arad in a clumsily worded announcement, but this did little to mollify critics of the "latest campaign to prosecute Soviet anti-Nazi Jewish partisans". The outside world, and even some Lithuanians viewed the entire case as a contemptible farce")- and is available in multiple other available sources for this case - this is a non-controversial fact, and saying that this wasn't in the quote (which was present for other uses of this source) - is not a valid cause for removal - which is a clear red-line BLP violation. Describing the case per WP:PRIMARY documents of the prosecuting agency would again be a BLP violation (WP:BLPPRIMARY) - particularly when this agency has severe reputation problems in general and in this case in particular - we do not use sources from within the police, FBI, district attorney, etc. - but rather SECONDARY independent sources. Considering that we have a University of Nebraska book in English, a Scarecrow book (Rowman & Littlefield), as well as coverage in well-regarded English language news orgs - the use of Polish language documents, counter to WP:NOENG, and in a clear violation to WP:BLPPRIMARY is particularly egregious.Icewhiz (talk) 05:55, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Ah, I see, it's on a different page than was linked. All you had to do is say so. Restored the fact it was closed. (I have no idea why you're bringing up IPN here since none of the info about Arad is sourced to IPN. Which is reliable. This looks like you're just trying to continue your little crusade against IPN but as you know, you haven't convinced anyone). Other than the closing of the investigation, there's no BLP problems here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:05, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The citation was clearly marked as paged 339-342 (the link was the first page) - not reading past the first page is not an excuse for a BLP violation (for information available in several other sources as well). The page is still rife with BLP issues - the IPN (beyond general problems with this source - and "anyone" does not mean "VM is not convinced) - a cooperating prosecuting agency in this case - is a WP:BLPPRIMARY source - strictly forbidden for such material (Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person.). This is still a severe BLP issue - as is the excision of secondary academic sources that cover the case in a neutral manner.Icewhiz (talk) 06:15, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Uh... the citation had a SUPPPPEEEERRRR long quote provided just to cite that one claim. The claim was not in the super long quote. You wanna blame someone? Blame whoever put that quote in there without including the actual relevant info. So no, it was not "clearly marked".

One more time - what does IPN have to do with the text on Arad? The sources used for Arad stuff are Haaretz, Haaretz, and Jewish Currents (all dead links btw), not IPN. Or are you seriously claiming that any article which mentions a living person and happens to use IPN (a reliable source, sorry buddy, you can do all the wishful thinking you want) as a source for some other stuff is automatically a "BLP vio"??? That. Does. Not. Make. Any. Sense.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:20, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The IPN is a very poor source (sorry buddy - there never has been a clear consensus to use this anywhere) with serious reputation issues (in general, and in this case specifically). In this particular instance - the entire scope of the IPN's work on the case was an investigation for prosecution. Any and all findings of that investigation by a prosecuting agency on a case which involves a BLP - are WP:BLPPRIMARY. We wouldn't use a LAPD document to source that they chased a white bronco on June 17 1994, while mentioning OJ in a separate sentence. As the case here involved a BLP - all details of the case (e.g. details on the charges) are related to the BLP.Icewhiz (talk) 06:27, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

The IPN is a fine source. But nevermind that for now. Can you point out which part of the text related to Arad is sourced to IPN? Please? Can you? Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:34, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

It is a very poor source, widely criticized, and in this context a BLPPRIMARY violation. Specifically it is presently sourcing:

1. "carried out by a Soviet partisan unit along with a contingent of Jewish partisans" (for which there are other sources - so just not needed.
2. "Koniuchy is located at the edge of the Rudniki Forest. In this forest partisan groups, both Soviet and Jewish, set up their bases from which they attacked the German forces. The partisants regularly raided nearby villages to rob them of food stocks, cattle and clothing" - which is sourced solely to the IPN, and relates to the IPN investigation regarding Arad using highly POV language ("to rob them") on the taxation or requisitioning of supplies by the Soviet partisans (which included Arad) - this is a highly POV accusation of a crime presented in Wikipedia's voice, based on a very poor BLPPRIMARY source (the IPN source here being an undated press bulletin on the state of the investigation - a press announcement by the investigating agency (which itself has an extremely poor reputation) - that's just about as bad as it gets - a press release!).

This is also additional BLPPRIMARY material (e.g. an operation's log on JVL (not a good source in general) - which is used to make stmts in Wikipedia's voice (used a few times - some attributed, some not), a primary account by Lazar (sourced to an appendix in Stachura) - at least this is attributed). The use of the quite WP:QS Intermarium ("there are conspiracies everywhere in this book" per one academic review) and histmag.org (which probably qualifies as a blog in terms of editorial control) is also questionable.

perhaps if a blanket revert back to a interim 22 May version was not performed - such BLP vios and mishaps (including reintroduction of spelling mistakes - "partisants" could've been avoided).

Finally - removing well-sourced coverage and criticism of this "investigation" (scare quotes due - following multiple news orgs who scare quoted this) - is a severe NPOV violation on a BLP issue - as the "investigation" was on a BLP (and this is a NPOV issue regardless of BLP). Icewhiz (talk) 08:44, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Parish

I am Matthew Parish Matthew Parish. My Wikipedia entry keeps being amended to add a section called "criminal charges" which is grossly false and defamatory. I am deleting it now. Please lock my page so that no further amendments adding defamatory material (the veracity of which is denied - this should be obvious; the amendments say I am in prison but obviously I am not or I would not be writing this) may be made.

This is top urgent. Please confirm you have acted upon this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:1205:501B:A190:7475:4B04:3D53:FCF2 (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Mr. Parish, while I would agree that the section is given undue prominence, and that the French source is probably not appropriate for English Wikipedia, to my mind, the Bloomberg story is both newsworthy and reliable and would rate a mention in the article. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 22:01, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Agreed that it is WP:UNDUE and potentially has other problems too. I am going to trim it somewhat, unless someone else gets to it first. Some of the grammar is absolutely dreadful as well. "Accused ... participating ... purported ... established ... faked ... circulated ... supposedly implicated ... prominent ... overthrow ... " all in one sentence?!? Please, people, try SUBJECT VERB OBJECT. MPS1992 (talk) 22:31, 23 June 2018 (UTC)

Just a note that, as from 24 June 2018, the article has also been protected from editing by new editors for a month or so. This should alleviate problems somewhat. The various unregistered editors who wish the material removed from the article entirely, should read WP:LEGALTHREAT. MPS1992 (talk) 23:14, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

Matthew Tye

Needs rev/deletion of defamatory content. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 14:51, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

• the usual wikiwedia shite - living person published attack - it's been removed thankfully - I am watching the page now, please add it also to your watchlists. This is what wikipedia published https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Matthew_Tye&diff=847327073&oldid=847326953 Govindaharihari (talk) 18:48, 24 June 2018 (UTC)

I nominated the article for deletion, only to discover that it has been deleted twice already and has been recreated. It seems to me that the simplest approach is to delete and salt the article, possible also an investigate into the activities of the creating editor could be warranted. Shritwod (talk) 02:59, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Category:Opposition to same-sex marriage

QubecMan (talk · contribs) has recently added a large number of individual politicians to the category Category:Opposition to same-sex marriage. I'm not sure all of these are appropriate; I'm also unsure that adding any politicians to that category is reasonable (as opposed to a sub-category of some sort). power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:24, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Politicians voting records in most democracies are public record. While I don't approve of the category in general (I don't particulary think using categories as badges of shame/labelling is a good idea) if a politician has publicly opposed same sex marriage it should be easily sourceable (and probably already in the article if it includes a section on their political views) and so justify inclusion of the category. If there isn't a source/reference in the article justifying the category, it can't be added. Only in death does duty end (talk) 18:46, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

Voting records are actually a problematic source for such claims. If Suzy Politician voted against the Gay Marriage Legalization Act of 2009, it may be because she was against same-sex marriage, or it may be that Suzy saw that that act created a second form of marriage that did not give gay couples all the rights that straight people get, or it may be the Mandatory Puppy Sandwiches For Lunch Amendment that someone hung on the bill. --Nat Gertler (talk) 19:00, 25 June 2018 (UTC)

• As ever, someone needs to go over all these and remove most of them, deleting the Cat would be better and easier. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:13, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• Subcategory might be appropriate, and I also agree that voting records alone aren't enough for inclusion. Voting records are primary sources that are subject to interpretation. Per WP:CATDEF it seems like anyone included in a category like this would need to be more than someone who merely voted against same sex marriage. Tony Abbott might count, but maybe not Stuart Robert.Nblund ^talk 19:23, 25 June 2018 (UTC)
• It's a strange category, as if opposition to or even support for marriage equality were an immutable characteristic. The same person could belong to Category:Opposition to same-sex marriage and Category:Support for same-sex marriage. To which category does Barak Obama belong (different position in 1996 (pro), in 1998 (undecided), in 2004 through 2010 (for partnership, against marriage equality, in 2012 (pro))? To which category does Hilary Clinton belong (hint: in 1999 & 200 pro union, anti marriage; in 2004 averring marriage "is between a man and a woman", but also voting against a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriage; in 2007 pro union anti marriage; in 2013 pro marriage equality)? - Nunh-huh 06:45, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Hillary and Obama would not been in the category because they Support Same sex marriage Now. the category is for people who are Currently opposed to it. QubecMan (talk) 07:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

That's recentism, a bias we seek to avoid. - Nunh-huh 07:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You can't make up the rules as you go. Natureium (talk) 15:36, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

All of those individual politicians are opposed to same sex marriage and are well sourced for it. QubecMan (talk) 03:48, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Remove this category "Opposition to same sex marriage" is not like a light switch with just two options, on or off. This category seems like a would-be Wall of Shame, and whatever the intention of its creators will be used as such, if it ever gets used at all. HouseOfChange (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• that's a bias comment: this category seems like a would-be Wall of Shame. they do have people who are opposed to same sex marriage doesn't mean they are doing something shame.QubecMan (talk) 08:28, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep this category people who are opposed to same sex marriage should have a category. QubecMan (talk) 08:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Remove this category This is not a concrete category. It is based on subjective judgments about someone's opinion on a topic. Opinions can change, and there are no set criteria for deciding that someone is opposed to same-sex marriage. - Donald Albury 12:20, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I do think the category is inappropriate for people. - Donald Albury 22:47, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• This category should not be applied to people. This category is perfectly fine for organizations and laws for which opposite to same-sex marriage is a defining characteristic. Natureium (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

if that's the case you should get rid of the category of Muslims. what is a criteria for deciding that someone is a Muslim. they should have a category that marks somebody down that they are opposed to SSM. QubecMan (talk) 12:29, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Pinging users QubecMan, Donald Albury, Nunh-huh,Nblund, power~enwiki, Only in death does duty end that I nominated this category for deletion. I can't find the right link to post here, but I will when I find it. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • @HouseOfChange: Categories are deleted by nominating them at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion, not by adding something to the category page, so I reverted your edit to the category itself. That said, the category should probably not be deleted but only the recent additions removed. The category does make sense for other topics, such as California Proposition 8 (2008) or Romanian constitutional referendum, 2018. Regards SoWhy 13:26, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
    • Thanks, @SoWhy:, I know I messed up with that effort so I will redo it using Twinkle instead. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:30, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

      I wish you had considered the rest of my message as well before redoing the nomination because you failed to take into account that this is a category from 2012 that was not problematic before yesterday because it did not contain biographical articles. Unfortunately, most commentators here seem to have missed this. Reverting QubecMan's edits fixes the pointed out problems without having to resort to deletion. Regards SoWhy 13:41, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

It seems to me that the category contained biographical articles before QubecMan came along. Examples: Alexandra Colen, Marcelo Crivella, Ted Cruz. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 22:12, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• Can we have a sub-category of some sort. I truly believe we should QubecMan (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• In general, "contentious categories" should not be used for any living persons unless they are self-described as being members of that group. We already use that requirement for religion, ethnicity and nationality, sexuality and the like, and it would appear that this category is clearly of that same nature. Using categories otherwise is easily abused, and a pox on the desire of Wikipedia to "do no harm." I further note that Wikipedia, like it or not, will end up having to follow EU laws concerning contentious claims, and the earlier we accept that, the better. Collect (talk) 13:55, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

• This category is badly-named if its purpose is to be a container for laws or policies that oppose same-sex marriage. All names of people should be removed asap, as per WP:SEPARATE, and perhaps the category should be re-named, or else marked with an informative message at the top, to prevent this mess from happening again. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:04, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
  • In what way is it badly named? It doesn't say "People opposed to same-sex marriage" and there's no reason to think that people belong there. Natureium (talk) 16:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Remove category. This is just looking for trouble. When do we identify people for this category? Would Obama be included? Using any metrics to decide inclusion is just asking for trouble. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 14:08, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Remove category. - all activist cats like this are basically closer to propaganda than cited relevant cats, for living people it's unless totally clear then it's a obvious WP:BLP violation Govindaharihari (talk) 20:52, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Remove category. As per other editors. For example, I noted that Pope Francis is included in the category, along with his other categories like 21st-century popes and Christian humanists... something seems a bit out of place with this category for the majority of those who are in it, and I can't think of any good reason to have it. --HunterM267 ^talk 21:25, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
• Keep or Rename category. we need to have a category of people who are opposed to same sex marriage.QubecMan (talk) 04:01, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
• This discussion seems to have turned into a !Vote on whether or not to keep the category, but I don't think this is the right forum for that.

Going back to the original question of whether politicians should be included in the category, my view is that this should only happen if they are vocally opposed to the concept. Politicians might oppose specific attempts to introduce laws for any number of reasons, of which opposition to the concept is only one. For instance they might not think the proposal goes far enough, or the law being discussed is badly drafted or open to interpretation, none of which mean they oppose the concept. Neiltonks (talk) 07:40, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• All the politiicans I putted on are known to be against same sex marriage are Known to have been the only few MPS who voted against it when governments legalized it. that sick's out. QubecMan (talk) 08:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Expressing your opinion multiple times is not going to have any stronger of an effect. Natureium (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• Remove category as per arguments already articulated, we shouldn't be making controversial statements in cats ever. QubecMan comment above this "that sick's out" indicates this editor is not motivated by BLP and neutrality but by o`pinions on same-sex marriage. ♫ RichardWeiss talk contribs 09:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I'm not sure why people are !voting here instead of at the deletion discussion.--Auric talk 16:15, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

I think people are voting here on whether people should be removed from the category and there whether the category should be deleted. Natureium (talk) 16:29, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

• If Quebec man can have three votes in this odd election, can I? -Roxy, the dog. barcus 16:51, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Ravshan Irmatov

Please read the offending comments in the header of the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.85.78.250 (talk) 15:14, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Content on this page was recently reverted - does this clear up the concern? --HunterM267 ^talk 16:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I reverted again. Meatsgains^(talk) 01:37, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Richard B. Spencer

In recent weeks there has been a campaign to add cherry-picked, unverifiable, and non-neutral content to the lead section of Richard B. Spencer in violation of BLP. I have little appetite to defend neo-Nazis, but our policies must be enforced everywhere, and I believe at this point the lead section is so distorted that the article has lost its credibility. Perhaps folks here would be interested in helping out. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 18:33, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Dr. F is currently engaged in WP:Forum shopping. He filed an AE enforcement action alleging BLP violations and was laughed out by multiple admins, one of whom even threatened to block him. The talk page is also almost uniformly in favor of the current lede: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Richard_B._Spencer#New_lede

There is no BLP violation but there is apparently a WP:TE issue here. Steeletrap (talk) 23:31, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

You may want to consider DrFleischman's failed and increasingly desperate attempts to convince anyone at WP:AE about his POV, as well as here and here. --Calton | Talk 09:04, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Prem Das

Looks like a vanity page maintained by the subject himself--may not meet notability guidelines. More eyes on this will be appreciated. 2601:188:180:11F0:CDA0:623:849E:B032 (talk) 19:23, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

I researched the subject and the citations provided and have opened an AfD here. --HunterM267 ^talk 19:58, 26 June 2018 (UTC)

Talk:Harmon Wilfred

Article-subject asking for assistance. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Caroline Danjuma

I am bringing this here on the advice of Voceditenore, and mainly incase I am off-wiki for some days or the subject does something new that I might not have access to. There are three issues here, 1. Caroline Danjuma wants to change her date of birth without providing a reliable source or sending a confidential birth certificate to Wikipedia that was issued in the 80s or 90s. 2. She also wants to change her Wikipedia name to something that violates WP:COMMONNAME. 3. Failure to achive (1) and (2) has led her to get disgruntled and lay false accusations on me. I thought she had understood how Wikipedia works after a discussion with her representative on the talkpage until when I saw this publication, where she libelously laid accusations on me. Going forward, I want to make the following assertions and propositions:

• I have never at any time communicated with Caroline Danjuma, or anyone that claims to be her representative, either through mail or in person outside my WP talkpage or the article tp. Infact I haven't spoken to anyone at all concerning the article outside en-Wikipedia.
• From the discussion on her tp, and the manner so many experienced editors became involved in the discussion, it suggest to me that she has been in conversation with some Wikipedia representatives, I don't know how this works, but I want to suggest she is made to understand that paid editing is not allowed here, and encouraged to forward any evidence that will assisst in fishing out the Wikipedian that requested for it, although my guts tells me she made that up. Finally, those Wikipedia representatives that responded to the request of her supposed rep privately should also make her understand that Wikipedia works with reliable sources, and does not make up information. She is fighting the wrong battle, instead of calling out Pulse, Eagle and other respected news platforms that published correct info on her, she is calling out WP.
• Finally, I think she has deleted her IG account so you would not have access to the original post. HandsomeBoy (talk) 19:13, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

Linda Katehi

Dear Editor, I entered accurate information about this person and I made sure that this information was cited appropriately. The information was totally deleted by James Allison w/o any explanation. My understanding is that deletion of accurate information w/o explanation is considered VANDALISM according to wikipedia guidelines. I would appreciate it if you could look into this and let me know. Thank you GlassFort (talk) 22:23, 27 June 2018 (UTC)

As multiple editors have now undone your additions, the proper thing is to raise the issue on the talk page of the article, Talk:Linda Katehi, and gain consensus for the additions before re-adding. (And no, there are plenty of legitimate reasons to delete even accurate information, and while doing so without explanation may not be the best practice, that would not automatically amke it vandalism.) --Nat Gertler (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

Dennis Herrick

• Dennis Herrick (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
• Dennish1942 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

Self-promotional account. The article is an autobiography, with almost all the sources of the primary type, leading to his publisher or personal website. I'm not finding much from Google searches to support notability as either an author or academic, and would AfD this if I could. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 00:52, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

• There are multiple conflict of interest issues elsewhere. Mr. Herrick added his books as references [11]; [12]; [13]--the last one is yet unpublished; and created an article about one of his books [14]. The subject may be well versed in his field, but before we can accept his scholarship and self-sourcing, let's see if the bio can stand with acceptable sources. Otherwise there's a history of adding original research to multiple articles. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:01, 28 June 2018 (UTC)
• I'm concerned by continuing edits like this [15], and am asking whether this merits discussion at ANI. Thanks. 2601:188:180:11F0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:42, 28 June 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Quigg_(developer)

Continual posting of unbiased articles from a party directly involved in a dispute with Robert Quigg. Only intent of reposting reference note 16 & 17 is to harm Robert Quigg's reputation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buckaroo Jeff (talk • contribs) 16:05, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nellie_Bowles

This article libelously describes Jordan Peterson as Alt-Right after he has repeatedly repudiated the movement and disavowed the label. It appears to be deliberately attached to his name in this article as a way to discredit him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.8.91.11 (talk) 17:38, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

Template says person is living when he is deceased

Can we have a different template for Robert Mandan?— Vchimpanzee • talk • contributions • 20:35, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The template does not directly say he is alive, but says the article is a BLP and falls under those rules. Since he is deceased, there is a pretty strong argument for removing the template entirely. However, BLP rules still apply to those who are recently deceased, so there may be a good argument for leaving it in place for the time being. (Difficult to say without delving into the edit history. See: WP:BDP) What I would suggest is opening a discussion on the article's talk page about whether or not it should be removed at this time. Zaereth (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2018 (UTC)

The person is "recently deceased" and there is no "deadline" for Wikipedia. Unless you create a "recently died but still covered by BLP - template", no reason to have a fit. Collect (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

I don't see anyone having a fit, just someone raising a reasonable concern. This template is awkward on this page for anyone reading "biography of a living person" in actual English rather than through Wikipedia editor lingo. Using the non-BLP template may be a better choice, barring a rewording or development of a new template. --Nat Gertler (talk) 13:03, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angela_Nagle

User Grayfell continues to insert unfound claims about Nagle copy-and-pasting and plagiarizing her book using anarchist blog Libcom.org as his only source. This source qualifies as extremist and low quality (the blog has no fact checkers and is full of all kinds of highly ideological, dubious accusations against people) under Wiki living biography guidelines. I have asked Grayfell to use a more reliable source for the Libcom claims of plagiarism but he refuses. The Daily Beast mentions the accusations but, contrary to what he claims, does not corroborate any copy and pasting/verbatim lifting/etc.

The only reliable source he uses is The Daily Beast, which merely accuses Nagle's book of 'Sloppy Sourcing'. There is a retraction of the original accusation of "copying content" in bold at the top of the article but user Grayfell refuses to engage with this fact.

These are very serious and potentially libelous accusations that require immediate investigation when promoted on the internet's encyclopedia.

FriendlyKor (talk) 08:07, 30 June 2018 (UTC)FriendlyKor

Minor cavil. Read WP:NLT and the fact that accusing editors of libeling others is fraught with peril. Nagle appears to have had a "demand letter" sent to The Daily Beast or the like, but the gist of the criticism rests on whether Nagle went beyond "close paraphrasing" or not, as neither source asserts lengthy plagiarism as much as non-attribution of sources. What the sources would support is a claim that Nagle failed to list all sources used, nor credit such sources for certain claims made by those sources. Pretty serious, alas. Collect (talk) 12:13, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

National Space Grant College and Fellowship Program

Should all the addresses and contact info really be listed? Seems to me this is BLPVIO--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 14:48, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

Alan Sabrosky

I have been trying to correct a page created on me by @Seraphim System, which has been (according to him) been vandalized continuously for months. But the vandalism is, oddly enough, the lesser problem. The article itself is seriously flawed, and with the vandalism added, it is in the demeaming-to-defamatory range. @Seraphim System has caught some issues, but has not been responsive for weeks and is obviously busy. A user named @SPINTENDO identified several factual or demeaning issues on the Talk: Alan Sabrosky page. And a volunteer editor named Lawrence Devereaux has been very responsive but apparently cannot do much.

I have tried to have the errors corrected and an accurate entry crated, but to no avail. Let me tell you what happened in the hope that we can reach an amicable resolution, and yes, I'd be willing to undertake an edit at your request for your review before it would be posted. I created an account and looking at the entry, found that an editor named "Seraphim System" had created the page and had been forced to deal with ongoing vandalism for months. A user named "SPINTENDO" had caught several factual errors and identified them. I tried to address SPINTENDO's errors but did NOT attempt to edit my entry myself, which would not be ethical. I did post an explanation of what had happened on my Facebook page and asked any Facebook friends who were interested to take a shot at correcting things. I did suggest that they do searches using "Alan Ned Sabrosky" rather than "Alan Sabrosky" (and mentioned the same thing in a message to Seraphim System and on the "Alan Sabrosky" Talk page), since without my middle name almost all of my academic and government work and publications are not visible, leading to the scarcity of sources noted by Seraphim System.

So after a week or so, I got an information copy from a Facebook friend of a major revision to the entry which he (with help of other Facebook friends) intended to use to replace the existing entry. I put it in the Talk section for information, and let the others proceed. They indicated it lasted a day or so before Seraphim System reverted it to the page he had originally created, factual errors and all, after which one of the usual vandals added his two shekels worth.

What do I mean by factual errors? The first sentence starts "Alan Sabrosky is a retired Marine officer and a former mid-level civilian employee ....", and there isn't a word of truth in it: I am not a retired Marine, I was never an officer nor claimed to be one (I was a sergeant), and I was a GM-15 (senior civilian) at the Army War College not a mid level civilian employee, as SPINTENDO pointed out. And so it went.

I am more than frustrated by all of this. I get enough flak for taking "politically incorrect" but factually accurate positions, and simply do not need this type of disinfo out there - particularly on Wikipedia. I was flattered to have an entry, but only if it is accurate. Seraphim System is at a minimum too busy to respond. If you can designate another editor to take over this issue, I will ask my Facebook friends to give it another shot, after which the page needs to be protected to avoid the endemic months-longvandalism to which even Seraphim System referred. If you cannot do that, then pull the page (for the second time) and block any attempt to re-insert something. I would prefer greatly the former, but I'd rather the latter than what is now there.

Many thanks, Alan Ned Sabrosky Docbrosk1941 (talk) 19:41, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Alan Sabrosky

Not investigated the content . Govindaharihari (talk) 20:10, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• I reverted to an earlier version to remove some uncited additions due to BLP concerns and have protected the article for the moment to encourage talk page discussion. MilborneOne (talk) 20:20, 30 June 2018 (UTC)

• Article nominated for AfD as "No evidence subject qualifies under NAUTHOR or NACADEMIC." I can't edit the article to add that tag to the article, but Twinkle did the rest of it, I think. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:49, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Jodi Forrest

IPs have been repeatedly inserting statements into this BLP that she has died. The only sources offered have been Reddit and a former colleague's Facebook post. I can't find anything. I'm not 100% sure she's notable, but AfDing would be a nuclear option and especially sad if she has died, and I don't want to request semi-protection since there have also been good IP edits; and the IP editors adding the information may be the people best equipped to find an acceptable source. Help, please. Yngvadottir (talk) 12:44, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Closest I found was this where a variant spelling was used for a relative (brother). Other than this - there is the reddit post and a change.org petition (on next season). Taking this to AfD - I don't see how this individual is notable.Icewhiz (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Jennifer Welles

Subject passed on June 26, 2018. I have made edits with reference. Do I need permission to remove the BLP header? Thanks! BenBurch (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

BLP still applies to people that are recently dead. (WP:BDP) Natureium (talk) 01:13, 2 July 2018 (UTC)

Thank you! I'll check back in a few months then. BenBurch (talk) 01:18, 2 July 2018 (UTC)