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.

Accuracy of claims made by climate change deniers

The editor Peter Gulutzan has since at least November 2018 repeatedly removed reliably sourced content on climate change denial / fringe rhetoric on BLPs by claiming that there is a BLP violation in covering inaccuracies made by prominent climate change deniers:

• Myron Ebell[1] (removal of content sourced to Climate Feedback)
• Guus Berkhout[2] (removal of content sourced to Climate Feedback)
• Joanne Nova[3][4] (removal of content sourced to peer-reviewed publications, Science magazine, PolitiFact, National Geographic, and the Pulitzer Prize-winning InsideClimate News)
• Ian Plimer[5] (removal of Climate Feedback)

There is a consensus on the reliability of Climate Feedback, which the RSP list[6] describes as "a fact-checking website that is considered generally reliable for topics related to climate change. It discloses its methodologies and has been endorsed by other reliable sources. Most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source due to its high reviewer requirements." It's starting to get tiresome to deal with these reverts of RS content, so I'd just like to get confirmation here that there is no BLP violation involved in adding reliably sourced content about the accuracy of claims made by climate change deniers. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Have you discussed the issue with the editor on the various talk pages? I think we need to be very careful with a claim like that one removed from the Ebell article. The claim in question, "Ebell has falsely claimed that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC."" is true so long as there is one example of it being true. Absent the context in which it was made we shouldn't include such statements in Wikipedia voice. Such a definitive statement should include a link to the original claim as well as an attributed explanation to why the claim is wrong. I didn't review the other examples but this first one certainly doesn't support the view that Peter Gulutzan's edits are problematic. Springee (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. In fact Snooganssnoogans did start a thread on the Myron Ebell talk page, I hope that editors will look at my reply there. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 00:20, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Taking the points in order:

(Ebell) On 30 November 2018 Snooganssnoogans started a thread on the Myron Ebell talk page beginning with the incorrect assertion that I had had said climatefeedback.org is not a Reliable Source. In fact I had said no such thing, I had said "Not compliant with WP:BLPSPS and WP:WELLKNOWN.", and on 30 November 2018 I replied on that thread with a full explanation about the cited author/editor, to which Snooganssnoogans did not reply. On 2 December 2018 -- without pinging me and without discussing my actual objections -- Snooganssnoogans started a thread on WP:RSN and got 2 editors to agree (one editor did not) that in general climatefeedback looked like an RS. On 3 December 2018 another editor re-inserted the contentious material in the BLP. I asked if others had opinions (nobody did), and I did nothing further. Would anyone like to finally address what I said?

(Berkhout) Once again, a WP:RSN thread Factcheck from climatefeedback.org as a source at Guus Berkhout. I participated, others disagreed, the material in question was re-inserted in the Guus Berkhout BLP, I did nothing further.

(Nova) Snooganssnoogans points to this edit by me on 12 September 2019 and claims it was about various wonderful publications -- which is false, as anyone who looks at the edit can see. The cited source was cup.columbia.edu, my edit summary was "Removed "Nova is known for promoting fringe views on climate science". Cited source refutes some statements in her guide, but does not say she is known for that. Poorly sourced material." Nobody disputed that (as far as I can tell), it was a fact that the cited source didn't say it, and the statement has not been re-inserted.

(Plimer) In this case my edit summary was "Additional source is not compliant with WP:BLPSPS, and also unnecessary, there is already a cite." i.e. I made no change to the content, so this doesn't fit with Snooganssnoogans's opening sentence that I "repeatedly removed sourced content". (In fact not only did I not remove sourced content in this case, I didn't "repeatedly" remove in other cases.) I believe it could be discussed on the appropriate talk page, and wonder what's wrong with that.

(consensus) I refer Snooganssnoogans to the essay don't quote essays or proposals as if they were policy. More seriously, the reference to WP:RSP (which most charitably can be described as having "limited status" the same as an essay) should not be brought into a discussion as if people who are referring to WP:BLPSPS (which is a part of a real policy) need to bow to it. In this case, I looked deeper at the claim that "most editors do not consider Climate Feedback a self-published source" and found that it was added by one of the 3 or 4 editors who thought it was not self-published, as opposed to 3 or 4 who thought it was. If someone wants to establish a consensus whether Climate Feedback meets WP:BLPSPS requirements, let's have a talk specifically about that (which as far as I know has never happened) and let's have it on the relevant page which is WP:BLPN (which as far as I know has never happened).

I would greatly appreciate a confirmation that Snooganssnoogans's points are without merit, because Snooganssnoogans has used the same points to accuse me of "tendentious editing". Regrettably an administrator (Bishonen) after 11 minutes agreed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:25, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Credit: The statement about "most editors" was made by Newslinger, here. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"The cited source was cup.columbia.edu". Just to be clear: this is a Columbia University Press book published by a recognized expert in the field of climate science. This kind of misrepresentation, one among many, amounts to WP:TE at this point. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 14:19, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Anyone who looks will see that I did not say there was anything wrong with Columbia, I said the cited source did not support the statement in the Wikipedia article. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:27, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

(Question to all) Is Climatefeedback something should be treated like the Politifact? I don't recall the exact location but I think people recently concluded that Politifact should be treated as something similar to a think tank. Their opinions are often cited by others and often have WEIGHT. However, it was also felt that they aren't a source in and of themselves. Thus if Politifac says "Senator X was wrong..." that doesn't establish WEIGHT for inclusion. Weight would be established if CNN says, "According to Politifact, Senator X was wrong...". I think discussions around the SPLC have reached similar conclusions. If that same thinking applies to Climatefeedback then I think the Ebell content, as inserted way back in the day, didn't establish WEIGHT for inclusion. Stating a living person was "wrong" is something negative about them and thus the typical BLP concerns apply. That doesn't mean it shouldn't make it into the article but we really should be careful that we aren't over simplifying what might be a more complex claim. In general I would be uncomfortable with statements like the one in the Ebell article since it looks like a random sentence thrown in to discredit the person rather than true explanation of what is almost certainly a more complex position/claim by Ebell. - Disclaimer, prior to my responses here I was not familiar with Ebell. Springee (talk) 17:39, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Notified: Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Alternative views, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Skepticism. — Newslinger talk 10:50, 14 January 2020 (UTC) Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Climate change, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Environment — Newslinger talk 01:41, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Describing WP:RS/P as some kind of WP:ESSAY doesn't match the effects of, e.g., "deprecated" on not logged-in users, for examples see WT:WHITELIST, WT:RSN, and WT:AFC. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

What I actually said was: most charitably can be described as having "limited status" the same as an essay. That charitable description is the WP:SUPPLEMENTAL guideline: "In comparison to policies and guidelines, information pages, like essay pages, have a limited status, as they have not been thoroughly vetted by the community." Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:45, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Springee, I don't think that's a good summary of the consensus on Politifact. Here's the recent RFC [7] and an earlier one [8]. The consensus to me reads that Politifact is a reliable source for factual claims, equivalent to a high quality news source. The only exception is that their specific truth ratings of a statement ("True", "Mostly False", "Pants on Fire", etc), and any kind of analysis of percentage of false statements should be attributed as an opinion. Just wanted to note that, I don't really have an opinion on Climate Feedback Red Rock Canyon (talk) 05:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Nobody expects the spanish inquisition here: The Hill in a "Politifact fail" video on YouTube four days ago. –84.46.53.221 (talk) 05:55, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

RRC, you are correct. It was the opinion part that editors felt needed to be cited by others in order to establish WEIGHT. Do we think that is the same case here? If CF says Jane Doe made a false claim [here], should that statement have WEIGHT by itself or does that claim need other sources to establish weight? Also, should we just quote the high level claim or should the details be included. Again, I'm concerned about what look like random, negative statements without context. In general I think labeling people as climate deniers is problematic given the extremely political nature of the public debate. Springee (talk) 14:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Peter_Gulutzan here. As I understand, we are supposed to present all views of reliable sources in proportion... and for bios immediately remove poorly sourced contentious material.

• ClimateFeedback should be treated as an opinion blog site with recognition that the opinions come from credentialed academics (if verified). It carries some weight, but it's not the "supreme court" of climate change sources.
• My search for Myron Ebel at Duck Duck Go says most sources call him a director of a center at an institute, or head of the transition team, etc. Calling him a "denier" is a derogatory term, and cherry picking a particular source is not neutrally representing more than one source(s) available.
• Even the particular cited source (6 above) does not call Ebel a "denier."
• The source's opinions should be attributed as such, if you want to describe claims as "false" based on them.
• Factual accuracy and editing of material on Climate Feedback site: I spot checked this article looking at links to bios. Martin Singh's bio link gives a 404. This is a negative indicator regarding editing and reliability.

-- Yae4 (talk) 09:10, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Yae4: but if you searched for "Martin Singh, Postdoctoral Research fellow, Harvard University:' you would have found this. He is now at Monash University[9] which is probably why the link no longer exists. So the fact that page was removed is not a comment on the Climate Feedback site. The site has been discussed at WP:RSN[10] - people can read the entire short discussion, but here's the first two comments:

"An editor[11] insists that Climatefeedback.org is a self-published source run by nobodies and that we can't use it as a source for statements such as "Myron Ebell has falsely claimed that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC." Climate scientists note that past climate models have accurately predicted subsequent rates of global warming."[12] Climatefeedback.org has been cited favorably recently by sources such as Deutsche Welle,[13] Columbia Journalism Review[14], Axios[15], and the Guardian which referred to climatefeedback.org as "a highly respected and influential resource"[16]. It would be good if the RS noticeboard could clarify once and for all whether this source, which other RS cite and describe favorably and which rely on assessments by actual experts, can be used as a RS, so that editors who want to scrub this source and related content from the pages of prominent climate change deniers will stop doing so (or conversely, be allowed to do so). Snooganssnoogans (talk) 09:22, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

"Hard to argue against Deutsche Welle, Columbia Journalism Review, Axios, and the Guardian. --Ronz (talk) 16:53, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

"*Generally reliable. With published editorial and advisory teams, a clear methodology ([17] [18]), and multiple endorsements from established reliable sources, Climate Feedback appears to have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy required of a generally reliable source. — Newslinger talk 10:46, 3 December 2018 (UTC)" Doug Weller talk

None of that is relevant to the specific objections I made about the Myron Ebell cite, and I never said that climatefeedback.org is run by nobodies. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:57, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Peter Gulutzan: I have no idea why you are telling me this as I thought it was obviously a response to the post above mine by Yae4 Doug Weller talk 16:02, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: It was about me as well, you quoted from the WP:RSN thread that I'd mentioned, starring Snooganssnoogans's claim re what I'd said, and I have no idea why. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans, The fact that Singh's listing is out of date since around January 2017, or 3 years ago, and he reviewed 2 articles in 2019, including November, but they didn't update his info' is no reflection on their editorial performance or factual accuracy? With all due respect, I disagree. It's not a huge error, but it's an indicator; big errors start with small ones. His comments also struck me as being much too long, as compared with others, which is why I clicked. -- Yae4 (talk) 12:56, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

^This is a strange criticism of a RS. This well-regarded fact-checking website comprised entirely of recognized experts is unreliable because one author did not update his author bio on the website (moving from a postdoc to a tenure-track job) and because his comments are long. You do realize that author bios are usually written by the authors themselves? This applies to the author bios in peer-reviewed academic publications, as well as the folks who write op-eds for RS. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 13:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

I'm not here to exchange snarky insults. I stand by my original, concise list of comments above. -- Yae4 (talk) 14:29, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

To clarify my last comment ^, I did not see all your edits of your previous comment until after I replied.

So it might be good to review Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#Editing_own_comments: "even if no one's replied but it's been more than a short while, if you wish to change or delete your comment, it is commonly best practice to indicate your changes."

Also, referring to the heading here and at User_talk:Peter_Gulutzan#Tendentious_editing_on_climate_change_topics a review of Wikipedia:Talk_page_guidelines#New_topics_and_headings_on_talk_pages: "Keep headings neutral" also seems appropriate. -- Yae4 (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Snooganssnoogans has accused me of tendentious editing at least four times (15:38 11 January, 16:00 11 January, 03:55 15 January, 14:19 15 January), and if that's accepted then Snooganssnoogans's request is taken care of. Incidentally Snooganssnoogans's claim "comprised entirely of recognized experts" is not an opinion I could agree with. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 16:36, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

• Reliable. We are in a situation analogous to that with alternative medicine: the specialists who critique climate change denial typically do so in venues dedicated to the subject of denialism, because denialism itself is not a live controversy within the field. You don't publish papers in professional climate literature saying that $RANDOMDENIALIST is wrong because (a) it's obvious and (b) it does not advance the field of climate science. So we have a number of venues, of which this is one, where specialists gather to critique a specific aspect of pseudoscience. Obviously that critique necessarily personalises things (X is wrong to say Y is hard to discuss without naming X as the source of Y). That means we have to be careful not to slip into hyperbole, but the content linked above, doesn't do that. The only thing I would do is WP:ATT everything. Guy (help!) 15:31, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
• Include. Climate Feedback (RSP entry) is not a self-published source, just as the similar Science-Based Medicine (RSP entry) was determined not to be self-published in a 2019 RfC. InsideClimate News won the Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting in 2013, and is not self-published because it has a sizable editorial team. The guideline on fringe theories makes it clear that "When discussing topics that reliable sources say are pseudoscientific or fringe theories, editors should be careful not to present the pseudoscientific fringe views alongside the scientific or academic consensus as though they are opposing but still equal views." Climate change denial is contrary to the scientific consensus on climate change, and is a fringe theory because it "departs significantly from the prevailing views or mainstream views in its particular field". In-text attribution is appropriate in some cases, and I would reword some of the text to focus the criticism on the people's claims, and not the people themselves. — Newslinger talk 01:37, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

I made five points on a talk page post, one of which was about InsideClimate News, I've withdrawn it. It's disputed whether Snooganssnoogans's edits have always met WP:BLP requirements, and whether Snooganssnoogans's requests or accusations are laudable, but not (as far as I can tell) whether pseudoscientific views should be pushed. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

You've made some reasonable points, so I've taken a closer look at each of the edits listed in Snooganssnoogans's first comment in this discussion:

1. Myron Ebell (Special:Diff/871394198): The text in the article is consistent with the the Climate Feedback fact check, but in-text attribution of Climate Feedback would be appropriate, and the text should also state the year Ebell made the statement (2018). Something like 'In a 2018 Newsnight interview, Ebell stated that "the rate of warming according to the data is much slower than the models used by the IPCC", which was described as "factually inaccurate" by Climate Feedback.' would be fully BLP-compliant. It doesn't look like Ebell responded to the fact check.
2. Guus Berkhout (Special:Diff/919740851): This looks fine to me, since I don't consider Climate Feedback self-published, as explained in my previous comment. The text includes Climate Feedback's negative evaluation of the letter, but doesn't describe Berkhout or the other signatories with negative terms. However, the text could use some copyediting, and there's a typo in "scienctists".
3. Joanne Nova (Special:Diff/929091011, Special:Diff/915352813, Talk:Joanne Nova § A recent edit)
   • I agree that "known primarily for promoting pseudoscientific views on climate change and the harms of smoking" should not be used to describe the Heartland Institute, since Powell's book does not directly say that. The main article might have more supporting sources, but I'm not sure if they're relevant in the article on Nova. Alternative phrasing, such as "a think tank that opposed the Kyoto Protocol", would be better-supported and more relevant.
   • "The book argues that temperatures have not increased" is imprecise, as Nova's handbook states that "the world has not warmed since 2001". The text should add "since 2001".
   • National Geographic is one of the sources used for the text "The book promotes the myth that there is already so much CO2 in the atmosphere that adding more will not have an impact on temperatures." The magazine links to a UT News piece, which refers to a "myth" that consists of two claims: the CO₂ saturation claim, and the water vapor claim. Nova made the first claim in her handbook, but was silent on the second claim. I'm undecided on whether this is a potent enough counterargument to justify excluding "myth" from the text. There is probably some way to rephrase this unambiguously.
   • 'Her blog is described as "skeptical" of climate science.' isn't well-supported, since the cited NPR opinion piece doesn't explicitly mention Nova, but "a number of active bloggers".
   • There were other changes in those edits. No comment on these changes, since I didn't examine them yet.
4. Ian Plimer (Special:Diff/935260217): As I don't consider Climate Feedback self-published, I would keep the citation. The article text is unaffected.

— Newslinger talk 10:01, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

This thread isn't about whether to insert that material (it already is inserted). It's about Snooganssnoogans's request. (Update: I removed some unnecessary words in that last sentence before there was a reply.) I want to discuss the edits, but does anyone object if we do so on separate threads? Peter Gulutzan (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, I added a thread related to the first accusation, my revert on Myron Ebell. I'd like to do one at a time. I think that "what should be in the Myron Ebell article" belongs better in that thread, and "should the Snooganssnoogans request be supported" belongs in this one. Some people have suggested that there should have been attribution (meaning there was an WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV violation too?), but I didn't bring that in because it is part of the WP:NPOV policy not the WP:BLP policy. And, as stated, I regard talk about WP:RS guideline as unnecessary. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Update: The Myron Ebell thread is now archived. The Joanne Nova thread is still live and I hope editors here will give it some attention. There doesn't seem to be much interest so I won't continue with my plan to add separate threads in WP:BLPN about each article.Newslinger: since you used the word "yet", I'm not sure whether you intended to add something, or whether we're done with this sub-conversation. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 23:00, 1 February 2020 (UTC)

Newslinger: I guess you decided to not add something. The Joanne Nova thread is now archived. My other Joanne Nova revert has been discussed above. You have not tried to defend your claim about "most editors", which, as I indicated earlier, I believe is baseless. Re Ian Plimer, Snooganssnoogans re-inserted. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:36, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

• Adding a couple more observations about Climate Feedback (aka Science Feedback and Health Feedback): It's a little early to claim good "reputation" for accuracy when they only had the notability tag removed last April related to Facebook, and a few months later were censured for a review of a video on Facebook: "The failure to declare to their readers that two individuals who assisted Science Feedback, not in writing the fact-check but in reviewing the evidence, had positions within advocacy organizations, and the failure to clarify their role to readers, fell short of the standards required of IFCN signatories."[19] -- Yae4 (talk) 11:05, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Today I made a request on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Requests for closure for an uninvolved editor (I don't care if it's an administrator). Peter Gulutzan (talk) 20:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• Beyond reproach. I reject the WP:CRYBLP campaign to remove reliable sources by the climate change deniers active here at Wikipedia. jps (talk) 13:23, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Tucker Carlson, Category: American conspiracy theorists

This category was added two days ago, I reverted and Objective3000 reverted me. There is no source that explicitly calls Tucker Carlson a conspiracy theorist. This is a violation of BLP. Also doesn't meet WP:DEFINING and WP:LABEL. See Talk:Tucker Carlson#Category:American conspiracy theorists for more insight.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 11:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Technically, you have a point. But:Tucker Carlson Tonight is a highly viewed show on Fox News with 3.2 million viewers in 2018 and 2.8 million viewers in 2019. Among all viewers 25-54, he ranks second in viewership to The Sean Hannity Show on Fox. Reliable sources state that he regularly hosts conspiracy theorists and regularly pushes conspiracy theories himself.[20][21][22][23][24][25] RS tend to avoid the term conspiracy theorist itself preferring to say pushes conspiracy theories, probably because the origin of any particular conspiracy theory is often unclear. But, let us look at the purpose of Wikipedia categories. As per WP:CAT, The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics. Well, as Carlson has a show with millions of nightly viewers that regularly invites conspiracy theorists and pushes conspiracy theories itself, this would seem to be of interest to anyone looking for information on this subject. Wikipedia’s WP:purpose is to provide a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge. Toward that end, WP has grown to some six million articles. But how do you find what you are looking for with six million articles? Cats are designed to improve navigation. IMO, this categorization on this article aides navigation on this subject. O3000 (talk) 12:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

There are several problems with O3000's arguments. First, none of the sources call Carlson a conspiracy theorist. Per DEFINE the label should only be used when this is a defining characteristic of the person. Second, there are a lot of articles about Carlson. Just finding a few that suggest at conspiracy theorist isn't sufficient. This is especially true when all the provided sources are left leaning. HuffPo, Media Matters, Salon and even the commentary aspects of the Washington Post are all left leaning. Even then none are calling Carlson a conspiracy theorist. Finally, if Carlson is a conspiracy theorist then why isn't that a major part of the article? If the Wikipedia article text doesn't support the label, why should it be added? Springee (talk) 13:15, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Washington Post is a highly respected source. If you have problems with that, or other sources, take it to WP:RSN. O3000 (talk) 13:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

You previously made that argument and I replied with sourcing saying that there paper leans left. Not hard left but left leaning. And the WP didn't say Carlson was a conspiracy theorist only that he was repeating claims that the WP writer said are conspiracy theory. Springee (talk) 13:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Realistically we should not have any category based on any term listed WP:LABEL, and if there is a need to do so, they really should be named something like "People considered conspiracy theorists" and where there is no question from the article text that they are one, since you cannot source category inclusion. Based on the discussion on Tucker's page, he would not qualify for this category since repeating theories does not make one a conspiracy theorist. --Masem (t) 14:16, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Good point about LABEL. Perhaps it could be renamed to something inclusive of promoters resulting in a more informative navigation tool. O3000 (talk) 14:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I mean it is reasonably fair that if you're on a page where someone is more likely known or recognized as a conspiracy theorist their their actual profession (someone like Alex Jones in this case), you'd want to likely navigate to see others in a similar situation. But because of the inability to source categories and BLP requirements, we have to be a bit more impartial with naming and with whom gets included. I think there was a similar discussion around climate change skeptics too, I can't remember where. But if we're talking about Carson here, "conspiracy theorist" is not one of the first things that comes to mind so I'd be careful in including him. --Masem (t) 14:43, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

As you say, the category shouldn't be a LABEL anyhow. So, perhaps it should be changed. And while doing so, it might make sense to change it to something more inclusive as those interested in conspiracy theorizing may be interested in one of the top shows both promoting conspiracy theories and regularly inviting numerous conspiracy promoters and theorists. O3000 (talk) 14:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree with what Masem is saying but O3000 I think we need to be careful about using this as a bit of an end around the BLP concerns. Once the category becomes "people who interview people who are talking about what others consider to be a conspiracy theory" where does it end? Would we include all who said Trump was colluding with Russia during the election? Even if we change the name we need to be careful about a broad scope. Springee (talk) 15:07, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Again, inclusion in a category , since we cannot source that at the category, must be patently obvious from the article on the topic, and there should be no doubt, in the case of a category for people considered widely as conspiracy theorists, that that's clearly obvious from the entire article. People that dabble in such theories should definitely not be included. I'm looking at who's already included in the above cat and that seems far too wide a net for his. --Masem (t) 16:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

The category name is a problem for multiple reasons. One is LABEL and how to go about determining who should be added. Another is exclusion of folk who are very prominent promoters with huge audiences. (Although it was argued from early on that it include theorists who actively attempt to defend ideas currently included in articles under Category:Conspiracy theories, which would include Carlson.) We can’t call it “Prominent promoters of conspiracy theories” as such adjectives aren’t allowed. There is a need for a wider discussion, and the article TP probably doesn’t have enough active editors. O3000 (talk) 16:18, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

We probably do need a larger discussion on categories that are based on subjective labels, if/when they are appropriate, how to name them and what are minimum requirements to populate them. I personally am very much against being more inclusive in these; these type of categories should be for the cases that are clearly obvious where there is near universal agreement in sources that they consider the label applicable, but that itself is part of the larger discussion that needs to be had. As to where that discussion should be had, I dont know if that's a VPP or elsewhere. --Masem (t) 16:39, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Masem, please focus on the current issue we have with this article. Objective3000 seems trying to change the direction of this thread. See his irrelevant comment about the WaPo. We have now a problem with Tucker Carlson article, let's stick to that. If I reverted O3000 I would probably be reverted by him or MrX. Could you remove that category since it is libelous and it is not sourced and was recently added?. Thanks. We can discuss the category afterwards.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• Objective3000 since you agree, self-revert yourself. I don't want to be accused of breaking the 1rr restriction.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:20, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Actually, what I agreed to is that the entire category is a problem -- not that it doesn't belong in this one article. O3000 (talk) 15:23, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

This is disruptive. You don't have any arguments. An admin has told you that it shouldn't be there.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Masem, this editor is refusing to remove this recently added category even though it is potentially libelous.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a 1rr on that page. Am I missing it? Springee (talk) 15:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

No there is no 1RR although it is under DS. Hope you're not suggesting that that's a good reason to editwar. This thread is only four hours old on a Sunday. O3000 (talk) 15:32, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) even if there isn't, I would probably be reverted but this article is under some restrictions. I would make this incident as a reference in a case in an arbitration committee report if such behaviour from these editors continued. BLP is not a joke.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 15:36, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Do you have any comment on the wider problem brought out by Masem before you bother arbcom because I made one revert? Or, would it be easier to just get a rope and find an oak tree? O3000 (talk) 15:53, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I said if you continued this type of disruptive editing. This case shows that there is absolutely no reason to add that defamatory category in a BLP, yet you are still refusing to remove it.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:30, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

It has already been removed and there is absolutely nothing disruptive about my edits. I want to solve the larger problem brought out by Masem. As far as defamatory, I don't know that conspiracy theorist is any more negative than conspiracy promoter; which he undoubtedly is as per RS. O3000 (talk) 16:34, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't notice it was removed.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

While I opposed inclusion, I don't see anything wrong with O3000's article or talk page actions. In good faith they restored an edit they supported and offered a edit summary to support the change. When the talk page discussion came up they made their case. All disagreements were civil. Of course the best way for these disagreements to play out is everyone agrees with me in the end. Absent that ideal outcome ( :D ) a respectful disagreement without any edit warring is certainly acceptable. Springee (talk) 18:05, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Read WP:BLP, Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. (Emphasis is NOT mine). Objective3000 should have looked if sources support the category and made the case in the talk page, not me, because the edit was added recently and was challenged. O3000 also refused to self-revert even after he agreed that there is no source that call Tucker Carlson a conspiracy theorist.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

As MrX posted: According to Wiktionary a conspiracy theorist is "One who believes in, follows, or advances a conspiracy theory." According to the sources, Carlson is well-known for doing all those things. Inclusion is a matter of editorial judgement. But, if you want to take me to ANI or AE, you know the way. O3000 (talk) 19:45, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't say I want to take you to there but I was referring to the restrictions of the article.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:01, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

• For the categories issue, there was a discussion before that concluded that such categories should not be used in individuals or organisations articles Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_February_9#Bias_categories:

Consensus for a unified approach to these categories; most support to ban individuals & organisations. This has been a lengthy discussion but both the general trend and the BLP policy incline against the inclusion of individuals and organisations.

This is why Category:Anti-Semitic organisations was removed. However, when I tried to argue in Talk:Houthi movement about this and started a RfC, they all said that the RfC is old (from 2011) and no body is following it.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 16:48, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't see a BLP problem here, but I do agree with @Masem: that we should not be labeling people and the better approach is to say instead that he promotes such theories. We should discuss categories elsewhere, but it's well documented that Carlson does promote debunked narratives on his highly-regarded talk show. SPECIFICO talk 16:57, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

SPECIFICO, I agree - we should rename the category. But to what?

• People identified as conspiracy theorists?
• Promotion of conspiracy theories?
• Conspiracy theories (people)?

We should avoid weasel words, because this will only be for people who are identified with the promotion of specific, identified conspiracy theories. Birthers, for example. Guy (help!) 00:11, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't know a good answer to that. A related issue keeps coming up at Racial views of Donald Trump where "views" is referring to everything from a nasty tweet to alleged violations of law. Even mention of the word "racism" at that article gets some editors claiming it's too close to labeling Donald Trump a "racist". Only one letter away, maybe? SPECIFICO talk 00:42, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I had started a pre-RFC drafting at WP:VPP for this, but it has been pointed out there that we specifically have WP:SUBJECTIVECAT which says these categories should not exist as they are based on subjective assessment. But I have a feeling there's more subtly here involved in that. --Masem (t) 00:18, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Categories are navigation tools to help readers research areas of interest. In this case, readers who want to know about conspiracy theorists are presented with a list for further reading. But if we add everyone who advocates conspiracy theories then the list would become unwieldy and useless for navigation purposes. TFD (talk) 19:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Riley Reid

An editor, Morbidthoughts, at this diff reverted the removal of information about this BLP (Riley Reid). The information there had been removed because it was sourced a non-reliable website, (Reidlips.com). Since the website is third party to the subject of the article, the text in question, per WP:BLP, doesn't belong in the article about the subject.

In his revert, the editor was following up (thus, supporting) the argument made here that "'Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves' as long as they don't involve third parties" , and claims the website in question is run by the subject of the article and that the subject is talking about herself ("she operates her website so the information is coming from her"). The claim is essentially that, based on the website qualifying under that exception, the source is reliable. The editor, however, presents no supporting evidence that Riley Reid operates the website nor that the information is coming from her. It's only his claim.

The fact is that the same website, at this page, shows Riley Reid as one of dozens of other models that the site covers. Clearly, this is neither Riley Reid's site nor is she talking about herself thru this website.

The editor's claimed here "That's a way too strict interpretation of BLP. This information should not be contentious". I believe the BLP policy is clear about this.

I have undone the edits once again and invited the editor that if he still feels the source is valid per WP:BLP, he should make his case here. I have also advised him that he has the WP:BURDEN of proof, and should not re-enter information from the website until his interpretation of the BLP policy has been resolved here in favor of restoring the information. Mercy11 (talk) 00:37, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• Evidence that the site genuinely belongs to Riley Reid is easily found with a quick look at the porn trade press, (like this AVN promo press article for example). The subject is openly promoting herself and a relaunch of the website. If reasonable doubt about authenticity is put the rest, the site is an acceptable primary source within the limits of WP:SELFPUB. The contested material is basic background stuff, that can be sourced elsewhere.[26] It may be porn kayfabe, but there are no extraordinary claims here. • Gene93k (talk) 01:15, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
• The key phrase of BLP you are trying to apply is "Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion." This information on where she lived should not be considered contentious and it's obvious (WP:BLUE) to me that REIDmylips.com is her site considering she's in every scene and the bottom of the site shows that the site won a PERFORMER Website of the Year. The point is moot now because I can't tell where the information is on the website since the redesign. Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:24, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

It's too bad that javascript does not seem to be archivable on archive.org Morbidthoughts (talk) 02:32, 17 February 2020 (UTC)

• I do think there is a concern with using reidmylips.com for biographical information. It is also a sales site. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

If you look at the edit that prompted my opening this discusion, this edit here, the problem is the article claims "Growing up, she often moved around Florida and has lived in Tampa, Carol City, Miami, and Fort Lauderdale", but the words Tampa, Carol City, Miami, or Fort Lauderdale are never mentioned in that cite. If an editor wants to put that info in, he will need a cite that actually states that. The other half of my removal above is the claim that "She is of Dominican, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Dutch, German, Irish, Puerto Rican, and Welsh descent." But again, the words Dominican, Cherokee, Chickasaw, Dutch, German, Irish, Puerto Rican, and Welsh aren't found at all in that source. So the 2 statements make BLP claims which aren't sourced. That said, whether or not the site is her site becomes a moot point for purposes of the discussion here, and moves to the fact that the info about this BLP isn't verifiable. The end result, of course, is still the same, namely, that the 2 statements under scrutiny doesn't belong in the article. Mercy11 (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'm not against using one's own source regarding their own background as long as it's a reliable source (reidmylips is her website though; I don't have time to watch one of her YouTube videos where she answers personal questions about herself but I assume at one point it may have been addressed there). I removed the categories regarding ethnicity because nothing in the article mentioned anything about it, giving the appearance of original research. IAFD simply says she's multiethnic, for example. ⌚️ (talk) 22:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I did not understand why the ethnicity categories were reinstated without proper citation pending a non-existing discussion and re-removed them. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

@Trillfendi: If there's a video on that page where she gives info pertinent to where she lived and her ethnicity, info which can substantiated the 2 statements under scrutiny, then the editor that wants to keep the 2 statements under scrutiny needs to identify the video in the cites, together with the "time=MM:SS" location of the statements, much as we give full cites of books/magazines and the pages where their info in found. Mercy11 (talk) 11:19, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

B-Complex

An edit conflict on the pronouns and name reference Bi-gender artist B-Complex. The article is being reverted repeatedly between an un-cited use of "he/him" pronouns, and cited use of "she/her" pronouns as the latest self-identified gender (MOS:Gender_identity) in interviews, and a cited discussion of use of "they/them" pronouns due to lack of direct statement of preference and other expressions of Bi-gender identity as non-binary ("Call me Matia, sometimes"). A general need for eyes on this topic seems merited since an edit with summary "he is a man + source" with the following interview (Interview) as citation for "However, he does not intend to undergo gender reassignment surgery" was made and is still in the article due to reverts and the article's contents are clearly not in support of the gender assignment in the edit. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2020 (UTC)— Antisymmetricnoise (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

IMO this is the wrong venue for this content dispute. MarnetteD|Talk 20:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I am new and have read but not fully understood many of the guidlines, in the header of the talk page it says "If material violating this guideline is repeatedly inserted, or if there are other related issues, please report the issue to the LGBT noticeboard, or, in the case of living people, to the BLP noticeboard." Edits on this page are repeatedly violiting the guidline including the pronoun changes. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Offtopic, but I feel having a noticeboard specifically related to BLP/Bio related to specific concerns of transgender, gender identity, deadnaming, and the like may be worthwhile as these problems tend to differ from the usual BLP problems. --Masem (t) 23:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Well there is the LGBT Noticeboard board on which a post has been made about this but it does not really have the conflict resolution speed required for BLP issues where having the wrong content up can mean direct offense in for gender identity issues. So yeah it would be nice to have a place to get more urgent action, then again if the talk pages and BLP's are not working for this sort of thing it makes sense to just go straight to conflict resolution. Most Gender pages already have discretionionary standards for administrators so it's just a matter of getting the gender properly sourced then preventing reversions that don't provide new evidence or arguments. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Antisymmetricnoise (talk • contribs) 01:01, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

As of today there is continued edit warring that between me and another user. But the other user is not engaging on the talk page and dispute resolution requires extensive discussion on talk before proceeding. How is this sort of BLP undo war best prevented other than trying to get more eyes from this noticeboard? 128.40.76.3 (talk) 13:59, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos -- should use of "ridicules" and other unsourced material remain in the lead?

Milo Yiannopoulos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

With this and this edit respectively, GergisBaki (talk · contribs) added "ridicules" and "transgender people" to the Milo Yiannopoulos article. But these aspects are not sourced, and "ridicules" is his personal POV. There isn't even a Transgender section in the article. That was removed, as made clear in this section on the talk page. So the "transgender" part doesn't even summarize the article per WP:Lead. Because of this, I reverted and noted why I on the talk page. In addition to that, the article is under WP:Discretionary sanctions. When one edits (or attempts to edit) the article, the edit notice clearly states, "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." I challenged GergisBaki's edit (including taking the matter to the talk page where I pinged him), but he reverted anyway. And when warned on his talk page that he should revert, he ignored it and made this edit, where he engages in more POV editing by removing "political commentator." I took the matter to ANI (permalink here), but because the discretionary sanction warnings did not come until after the editor's revert, he apparently gets a pass for reverting in that regard. It, however, is not a pass as far as BLP compliance goes.

Thoughts? This might turn into an RfC. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:24, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:38, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Milo Yiannopoulos called Islam a 'barbaric, alien' religion. Is that criticism, or ridicule? I'd say it's closer to ridicule. It's not like Yiannopoulos has the credentials to be considered a serious student of any religion, let alone a serious critic. - Nunh-huh 00:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Nunh-huh, and like I stated at ANI, "Yiannopoulos not being considered (by many) to be a good person doesn't mean that editors should get to repeatedly violate BLP at the article about him. And I get the feeling that editors continue to let BLP violations happen there just because they don't like Yiannopoulos." We should not let our personal opinions about BLP subjects affect our editing of their articles. WP:BLPCOI clearly states that "editors who have a strongly negative or positive view of the subject of a biographical article should be especially careful to edit that article neutrally, if they choose to edit it at all." We have the WP:Verifiability and WP:BLP policies to follow. Not to mention...guidelines like WP:Lead as well. What is the point of including "transgender" in the lead if there isn't even a section on that lower in the article? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Characterizations of an individual's words and actions are best not expressed in Wikipedia's voice. To avoid misinterpretation, they should not only be cited but have in-text attribution. The way to deal with provacateurs is not to rise to the bait, but to describe their words and actions in objective terms and quote others in matters of opinion. Kablammo (talk) 01:07, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

GergisBaki, this is in response to your edits. Kablammo (talk) 01:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I didn't suggest we violate policy in any way, and you have no idea what my personal opinion of Yiannopoulos is. I said nothing about including transgender in the lead (in fact, it should not be). So I think you probably should direct your remarks to someone else. Wikipedia is characterizing Yiannopoulos comments re: Islam in both versions. In one version, it is saying that characterizing a religion as barbaric and alien is a criticism, and in another it is saying that characterizing a religion as barbaric and alien is ridicule. The latter is more correct. Other formulations are of course possible. He "expresses his disapproval of Islam by calling it barbaric and alien". "He says that Islam is barbaric and alien." "Alien" is a criticism only if one is a bigot or xenophobe, and "barbaric" is a value judgement not a "criticism". - Nunh-huh 03:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Nunh-huh, I never stated that you violated BLP. I never stated that you mentioned anything about "transgender" in the lead. My question in the title of this thread is "Should use of 'ridicules' and other unsourced material remain in the lead?" I clearly addressed "transgender" as one of the unsourced items. I have no idea what your personal opinion of Yiannopoulos is? Besides your latest comment, I got an idea just from you stating, "It's not like Yiannopoulos has the credentials to be considered a serious student of any religion, let alone a serious critic." And I was not criticizing you for that viewpoint. Since you stated that and "Milo Yiannopoulos called Islam a 'barbaric, alien' religion. Is that criticism, or ridicule? I'd say it's closer to ridicule.", I was stating that it matters not what an editor personally thinks is ridicule. What matters, like I and others in this thread have stated, is what reliable sources state. Use of "ridicules" is obviously POV. But if enough reliable sources use that term with regard to Yiannopoulos's opinion, it can be due for us to use that term. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

If you think it's debatable that Yiannopoulos is a religious critic, present your sources stating he is. - Nunh-huh 02:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Sighs. You very well know I wasn't arguing that. You haven't helped at all. And your commentary in this thread was/is completely unhelpful. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 23:28, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Ridicule, mockery, insults, and the like are all forms of criticism, and we can always neutrally describe someone making these types of statements towards a group as criticism without having to evoke in-prose attribution. But to the point of the OP, sources must be there to support that. If the article has nothing about Milo making statements about transgender individuals, then it should not be mentioned in the body and definitely not in the lede. This is BLP 101, and the editor seems willingly ignoring the numerous warnings about this. --Masem (t) 04:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Any material which isn't either sourced in the lead or the article needs to be removed. I don't think there is any need for an RfC about that. So for the transgender stuff it has to stay out until and unless a source is provided. I see there is one source which mentions transgender issues in the article [27], but it's an interview so is difficult to use it for anything like that without WP:Syn. Until and unless a source is presented, I don't think we can discuss whether it's fair to use the term 'ridicules' in relation to transgender people. IMO it's not possible to discuss this in the abstract. If most sources talking about someone says they're known for ridiculing transgender people, I don't think it's a BLP violation for us to also mention that.

Adding something to the lead which isn't discussed in the article is sloppy writing, although unfortunately common and I've potentially did it on occasion. IMO it isn't inherently a BLP violation depending on whether the material belongs in the lead, and has an inline citation in the lead. There is a greater risk of it being a BLP violation since readers may not be able to read in the article more details of the context of what is stated in the lead but still I wouldn't say it's always a BLP violation.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:04, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Note that the discretionary sanctions awareness requirement for arbcom discretionary sanctions is set by arbcom. While I guess it is theoretically possible for us to forcefully change it by amending arbitration policy, practically that's never going to happen. While there are a few ways editors can be aware, the main way is by giving them alerts. You have to give the specific designated alert. Simply mentioning it isn't sufficient.

My suggestion is don't be afraid to give alerts. Yes you do have to do some basic checking to ensure that the editor isn't already aware but you get an edit filter warning to help you. I know some editors feel that editors giving such alerts when they are in a dispute with another editor comes across as retaliatory or using the alert as a warning which it is explicitly not supposed to be, IMO it's better than opening a case to get someone else to give an alert.

Editors can of course be sanctioned outside the DS regime, but since the DS regime is so much simpler, many prefer to just let it be dealt with that way.

Nil Einne (talk) 06:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I stand by ridicules as a NPOV summation of RS; Milo's article titles include "Would you rather have feminism, or cancer?" and "birth control makes women unattractive and crazy." That is ridicule, not merely criticism.

As to transgender people, Milo has made his view clear, calling trans women sexually confused men and potential sexual predators. https://www.huffpost.com/entry/milo-yiannopoulos-transgender-people-truth_n_58a84dcae4b07602ad551487

I am not sure why we think criticizes is more neutral than ridicules, but I am willing to discuss this matter further on talk and on this thread before reverting. GergisBaki (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

GergisBaki, per the sanctions, it's a good thing you reverted yourself here. To repeat, "You must not reinstate any challenged (via reversion) edits without obtaining consensus on the talk page of this article." Per what Kablammo, Masem, Nil Einne and I stated, you shouldn't be looking to revert to that at all without first having reliable sources that address the viewpoint that Yiannopoulos ridicules, without transgender material first being covered lower in the article, and without obtaining consensus for your changes. And there is no RfC on this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree. Article headlines are supposed to be attention grabbers, and often have little to do with content of those articles. Whether good, bad, or ugly they're meant to draw people in. I wouldn't try to classify anything as ridicule without first seeing what the articles contain. "Ridicule" is defined as: "the subjection of someone or something to contemptuous and dismissive language or behavior". "Criticism" as: "the expression of disapproval of someone or something based on perceived faults or mistakes". The former is based on "contemptuous and dismissive", which requires a conclusion on the part of the writer. What is contemptuous to one person may be normal speech to another. (If you heard me and my brother talking, you'd think we hated each other, but we just poke fun, it's just part of our personality types. Not mention some people I've met in my travels really get off on ridicule, such as your average sissy, which are predominantly made up of straight, non-crossdressing men that simply like the humiliation, and you wouldn't want to take that away from them). So we're implying an intent to be hurtful, which, of course requires a conclusion on Wikipedia's part. If a source called it ridicule, we could conceivably say, "so-and-so source calls it ridicule" because then it's someone else's judgment call. The latter is a neutral term that relies on factual information; eg: expressed disapproval based on expressed perceptions of faults. I say stick with the more factual term and leave the colorful descriptors for the op/ed columns and other persuasive writing. Zaereth (talk) 02:27, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Note: GergisBaki seems to have gotten the idea for "ridicules" from the Mike Enoch article, which he recently edited. "Ridicules" was added there by the BugsyBeaver account. I haven't yet looked into the BugsyBeaver account to see if there is a connection between it and the GergisBaki account. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

Chris Noth

As detailed at Talk:Chris Noth#Redlink editor treating this as a fan site, an editor who began on Wikipedia less than a month ago has added problematic content to the "Personal life" section of Chris Noth. (Issues of BLP, including tabloid rumors, non-encyclopedic tone, fannish trivia, Manual of Style, punctuation and grammar and more.) A quick comparison is his edit here and the section as it was immediately before. (Or this and this, if that's most immediately visual.) A disinterested third-party editor, having read the discussion, suggested notifying the BLP Noticeboard.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 20:43, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

• I'm the third party. The stripped-down version is much preferable. Right now there are references to tabloid reports and a baby's heartbeat. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 20:55, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • And frankly, a quick look at the theater section finds similar minutiae. Too much, and he received 'glowing' reviews for a 'lauded' performance. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:02, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

    Plus he garnered accolades. EEng 20:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

    I posted the exact quote below: "Noth received glowing reviews as petty criminal "Teach" in David Mamet's play Amercan Buffalo at the 2005 Berkshire Theatre Festival.[44][72] Noth's performance was lauded for being compelling in its menace while also connecting with the play's humor.[72][73]" and said the wording can be changed and asked for suggestions. As mentioned, "glowing reviews" was a direct quote from the ref and I can change it to "good reviews", etc.-Khawue (talk) 21:11, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

    • I have addressed the false claims of WP:BLP and WP:MOS violations. It was mentioned that the abuse claims were in a tabloid report by WP:RS but it was also documented in the WP:RS with an official statemnt from Noth. The "heartbeat" of the first baby was addressed in media reports as I mentioned in the discussion. "Glowing reviews" is a direct quote from the article from broadwayworld.com and is backed by other sources. I have also been shortening sentences as I go.-Khawue (talk) 21:17, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
      • If you think that quoting Broadwayworld directly validates WP:PEACOCK language, you've made the case for me. Wikipedia may not be your venue. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 21:52, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
        • Correction, broadway.com https://www.broadway.com/buzz/11269/chris-noth/, it was backed by other sources showing the reviews of his performance American Buffalo which I included and referenced and proved that he received good reviews in my two very brief sentences about that play. I can change the word "glowing" to something else if it's problematic but there is no violation of policy or for you to personally attack me "Wikipedia may not be your venue."-Khawue (talk) 22:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
          • Again, that's not a personal attack. There are publications for which I'm not well suited, and others which pay nicely for my contributions. It's a recognition of appropriate tone. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 23:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
            • So you made the claim ""Wikipedia may not be your venue." based on use of broadwayworld.com to which you have a personal opinion but which I did not use. I linked to you the actual article and again mentioned repeatedly there were other sources as well lauding his performance. So I can change the word "glowing" to something else. What else? -Khawue (talk) 23:50, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
              • Sorry, there's a WP:OWNERSHIP issue here, and I'm not in the mood anymore. You're acting as a gatekeeper to your writing, and it's not worth the energy. Good luck, 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 01:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                • Moving the goalposts -Khawue (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                • I was genuinely asking about the issue "and he received 'glowing' reviews for a 'lauded' performance". Here are the exact sentences, "Noth received glowing reviews as petty criminal "Teach" in David Mamet's play Amercan Buffalo at the 2005 Berkshire Theatre Festival.[44][72] Noth's performance was lauded for being compelling in its menace while also connecting with the play's humor.[72][73]" I am open to changing and also acknowledge minutiae which I have said I am willing to make more concise. I had tried to provide different POV to the different performances, etc. and delete extra details as I go along. I provided sources to disprove repeated claims that I violated MOS:SAMESURNAME, removed sources confirming his son's birthdate, etc. does not mean I oppose to making changes. I addressed uncivil blanket comments made and was civil, trying to address each specific issue. -Khawue (talk) 01:59, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
                • Also, with regards to the baby's heartbeat, I mentioned in the talkpage that it was reported in the media & it's significance leading to involvement in fundraising and that there were also reliable sources reporting the abuse allegations, even if they mentioned a tabloid. I have intended to trim the details down. I just tried to address the claims that the former was only mentioned by Oprah and the later is only tabloids. I intended to include involvement with charities. -Khawue (talk) 02:06, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Khawue seems to have a mental block against understanding what all these other editors are saying. The fact that not one other editor agrees with him is not sinking in. For example, all we need to say is, "He had a 3-year [sic; should be "three-year"] relationship[14] with model/actress Beverly Johnson that began in 1992[132] and ended in 1995.[133][134]." That's the plain, straightforward, pertinent fact.

I do not "have a mental block against understanding what all these other editors are saying". You specifically made some false claims which I addressed. I am accepting that the amount of details can be reduced. I can understand this as well as address personal comments about me and incorrect facts.-Khawue (talk) 03:05, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The specific false claims I mention above which I addressed in the talk page and disprove. Below is a new specific issue being discussed and you can see I am participating in a civil way and trying to address specific details and not make blanket statements.-Khawue (talk) 03:17, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The rest of this is tabloidy rumor-mongering — which absolutely violates BLP — and tangential, WP:INDISCRIMINATE, non-encyclopedic content consisting of public figures cautiously giving fluffy, inconsequential statements. I can't believe Wikipedia contains this:

In January 1996, New York Daily News reported that they broke up a year ago and a story that he used to beat her had surfaced in a supermarket tabloid. Johnson could not be reached for comment.[134] A few months later, Noth said the relationship "gave me some inner knowledge about myself and about people" and "changed my idea about what love is. So even though it was a very painful experience, it was a very enlightening one."[14] In 2009, a tabloid reported that in 1995 Johnson filed charges against Noth for abuse allegations similar to those that she was suing another ex for. Criminal charges were not brought against Noth who stated, "There is no basis to the claims Ms. Johnson made back in 1995."[135] In 2012, when asked if she was once romantically linked with Noth, she replied, "that was many years ago. I can't think back that far. But yes, he was an old boyfriend and a great guy."[136] In July 1994, she only had praise for him, saying "besides being terribly handsome and a brilliant actor, he's terrific with [my daughter] Anasa."[137] There was no abuse mentioned when she wrote about him in her 2017 memoirs.[138]

What do experienced BLP editors think of that blockquoted passage?--65.78.8.103 (talk) 02:47, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

And I think overall that this editor is treating the Chris Noth Wikipedia page as a fan site. I've been pointing out significant issues in the "Personal life" section, but this editor's multitude of fannish edits bear examining.--65.78.8.103 (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

You can see in the talk page and my talk you repeatedly had issues with MOS:SAMESURNAME, claiming that there were no WP:RS for Orion's birth, etc. and I showed sources showing otherwise in the talk page and my own talk page where you also posted. I have no opposition to discussing the passage below and breaking down the details.-Khawue (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

: shortened revision:

In January 1996, New York Daily News reported that they broke up a year ago and a story that he used to beat her had surfaced in a supermarket tabloid. Johnson could not be reached for comment.[134] A few months later, Noth said the relationship "changed my idea about what love is. So even though it was a very painful experience, it was a very enlightening one."[14] In 2009, a tabloid reported that in 1995 Johnson filed charges against Noth for abuse allegations similar to those that she was suing another ex for. Criminal charges were not brought against Noth who stated, "There is no basis to the claims Ms. Johnson made back in 1995."[135] In 2012, when asked if she was once romantically linked with Noth, she replied, "that was many years ago. I can't think back that far. But yes, he was an old boyfriend and a great guy."[136] In July 1994, she only had praise for him, saying "he's terrific with [my daughter] Anasa."[137] There was no abuse mentioned when she wrote about him in her 2017 memoirs.[138]

• I think it's pertinent and tangible that New York Daily News tried to contact Johnson about the allegations and Noth's quote on the relationship, acknowledges there was a significant conflict. Then his official statement about the abuse claims.
• Then her statements in 2012 are pretty clear and concise, and that she did not mention abuse in the 2017 memoirs, it's significant to mention that.

I attempted to show different POV, to be precise but I can see that certain details can be reduced.-Khawue (talk) 03:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

• Sentence about 2009 revised without mention of the tabloid story, directly from the ref:

In January 1996, New York Daily News reported that they broke up a year ago and a story that he used to beat her had surfaced in a supermarket tabloid. Johnson could not be reached for comment.[134] A few months later, Noth said the relationship "changed my idea about what love is. So even though it was a very painful experience, it was a very enlightening one."[14] In 2009, another ex of Johnson's was suing her for the abuse allegations she made against him and he wanted Noth to testify. Criminal charges were not brought against Noth who stated, "There is no basis to the claims Ms. Johnson made back in 1995."[135] In 2012, when asked if she was once romantically linked with Noth, she replied, "that was many years ago. I can't think back that far. But yes, he was an old boyfriend and a great guy."[136] In July 1994, she only had praise for him, saying "he's terrific with [my daughter] Anasa."[137] There was no abuse mentioned when she wrote about him in her 2017 memoirs.[138]

-Khawue (talk) 15:15, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not seeing the point of all this. It's written like a newspaper. I mean, "Johnson could not be reached for comment." Why is it written like Wikipedia is trying to contact this person? It reads like OR, which is a newspaper's job, not ours.

If this is to be added to the article, then it really needs some encyclopedic value. How does this fit into the overall story? What am I supposed to be learning about this person from reading this? How has it affected his life and career? In other words, what is the significance of this information within the context of the overall picture? Just because something was reported in a newspaper somewhere doesn't automatically make it worthy of inclusion. We need to be able to demonstrate that the info has encyclopedic value, and that it is not just gossipy material, and then we need to put that into balance with the rest of the article. Unfortunately, this all appears to me to be the latter with no indication of the former. It's really all just "He said... She said... Nothing really came about from it, and nobody ever said anything about it again." There's just no point. Zaereth (talk) 19:01, 20 February 2020

The newspaper was not able to get a comment from Johnson. "Johnson's modelling agent, Bryan Bantry, was unable to reach her, and her publicist Jimmy Hester did not return calls". It was a notable widely reported event in their relationship. Noth did say that it impacted his performance in Law & Order: The Unofficial Companion p.119 https://books.google.com/books?id=LWpVPgAACAAJ

"In the third year...I was at the time also in a very crazy relationship [with model Beverly Johnson]...There were a few times when I was a mess." -Khawue (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Do we have a consensus to revert to the previous version of the "Personal life" section? Not a single editor here agrees with Khawue's version. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 19:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I have just replied above to Zaereth.-Khawue (talk) 19:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

What don't you understand about the fact that Wikipedia cannot report rumors that someone beat his girlfriend?--65.78.8.103 (talk) 19:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

He made an official statement denying the abuse claims in 2009 in the midst of the lawsuit by her ex. "There is no basis to the claims Ms. Johnson made back in 1995." It was not just rumors that those claims were made.

Shortened revision, clarifying newspaper unable to get comment from Johnson:

In January 1996, New York Daily News reported that they broke up a year ago and a story that he used to beat her had surfaced in a supermarket tabloid. The NYDN was not able to get a comment from Johnson.[134] A few months later, Noth said the relationship "changed my idea about what love is. So even though it was a very painful experience, it was a very enlightening one."[14] In 2009, another ex of Johnson's was suing her for the abuse allegations she made against him and he wanted Noth to testify. Criminal charges were not brought against Noth who stated, "There is no basis to the claims Ms. Johnson made back in 1995."[135] In 2012, when asked if she was once romantically linked with Noth, she replied, "that was many years ago. I can't think back that far. But yes, he was an old boyfriend and a great guy."[136] In July 1994, she only had praise for him."[137] There was no abuse mentioned when she wrote about him in her 2017 memoirs.[138]-Khawue (talk) 19:38, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, this is not a BLP issue, but a content dispute, which is why nobody else has bothered to jump in. That said, the onus is on the one who wants to include to demonstrate why it should be. The general idea is that contested material should stay out until consensus is achieved one way or the other. This does three things: 1.) it keeps bad, poorly written, or possibly policy violating material off of mainspace until everyone is sure of its quality and compliance, 2.) it helps the readers by keeping the article stable instead of rapid changes taking place, and 3.) it gives incentive for those involved to discuss it and try to reach a compromise. (It's the anticipation of a reward that motivates, whereas actually receiving the reward has the opposite effect.

Personally, I think the writing poor and the info is just gossip, and unless the questions I asked can ghet answered satisfactorily, then I think it needs to go. And the above answers only increase my feeling that this is just gossip.Zaereth (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

My focus was on the statement "Criminal charges were not brought against Noth who stated, "There is no basis to the claims Ms. Johnson made back in 1995."" Which to me made it more than just a rumor that allegations were made. Reliable sources were used for the refs. The book which quotes Noth about the impact of the relationship is published by Renaissance Books.-Khawue (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Sorry that does not link to the publisher but here are the authors of the book which was written in cooperation with the cast member. I can send you pages from the book. https://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/life/2019/04/29/tribute-late-free-press-writer-susan-green/3615853002/

https://www.criticsatlarge.ca/2018/10/kevin-courrier-1954-2018.html

New York Daily News is very widely read. How would you improve the writing? -Khawue (talk) 20:00, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Full quote from the book: ""In the third year, I already knew. Ed and I went nose to nose a lot. I was at the time also in a very crazy relationship [with model Beverly Johnson]...There were a few times when I was a mess." The book was also referenced in Law & Order

The references used in the paragraph:

• Rush, George; Molloy, Joanna (January 2, 1996). "LESS-THAN-MODEL BREAKUP DRAGS ON". New York Daily News.
• Lee, Luaine (April 24, 1996). "Television: Law and Order fans remain loyal to Noth". Life & Times. The Windsor Star. Scripps Howard News Service. p. B.6 – via ProQuest Global Newsstream.
• "Noth Tangled In Ex's Lawsuit". Contact Music. WENN. February 26, 2009.
• Williams, Kam (April 5, 2012). "HEAVENLY BEVERLY". Entertainment. Los Angeles Sentinel. p. B1 – via ProQuest Global Newsstream.
• Capuzzo, Mike (July 3, 1994). "A beauty tames the beastliness of fashion fame". Style. The Philadelphia Inquirer. p. H2 – via ProQuest Historical Newspapers. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameters: |1= and |2= (help)
• Johnson, Beverly (2017). The Face That Changed It All: A Memoir. Simon and Schuster. pp. 220, 224, 240. ISBN 1476774439.</ref> -Khawue (talk) 20:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Ref not used in the paragraph but mentioned above,

Courrier, Kevin; Green, Susan (1998). Law & Order: The Unofficial Companion. Los Angeles: Renaissance Books is distributed by St. Martin's Press -Khawue (talk) 21:03, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm not sure you're quite picking up what I'm laying down. I'm referring to the way the suggested material is written. When I asked, "Why is it written like Wikipedia is trying to contact this person?" I mean, we shouldn't be stating that in Wikipedia's voice. If sources tried to contact her, then say so, but the way it reads it gives the impression that Wikipedia is doing the investigation.

Same with the information itself. You know, an entire article can be speedy deleted if it demonstrates "no indication of importance". This doesn't mean that the person is not important, but that we, the readers, cannot tell from the writing just what is important about them. It's no different with this kind of information. As written, there is no indication of importance. But you can't just cite a single line in a policy like you can for speeding an entire article. For this you have to look at all the policies as a whole, the most directly involved one being WP:WEIGHT. And this is especially true for a celebrity, where gossip like this is rampant. For the normal Joe Blow, WP:BLPCRIME would apply here, but for a celebrity, we need to demonstrate some serious significance and impact, and then balance that information with the entire article (meaning not just weighing your sources against the sources used in the article, but against all sources out there about this subject). I hope that helps, and good luck. The article talk page would be the best place to discuss this, and RFC is always around the corner if consensus can't be reached. Zaereth (talk) 21:26, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

@Zaereth Okay the way I read it it was that the NYDN was not able to contact her, not Wikipedia, due to the NYDN cite being at the end of the sentence "Johnson could not not be reached for comment" and the first sentence which was "The New York Daily News reported..." Maybe it is also harder to see that here without the linked refs.

Yes I see with WP:WEIGHT "articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects." So we would try to balance out the size of description in how much detail we give it with the entire article. As mentioned, I can see I added more details to try to get a balance of POVs and the details can be trimmed. I think there is significance/notability in that it was widely reported, e.g. TV Guide volume 46, 1998, "relationship with Beverly Johnson ended publicly and badly" and an official statement was made by Noth to address it. (Also significance for Noth personally with his quotes about how the painful relationship changed his perspective and was a factor impacting him during Law & Order but I think the focus is more on the notability). So maybe this shortened version has the appropriate balance:

• A claim that Noth abused Johnson was reported by the New York Daily News a year after the relationship ended[134] but criminal charges were not brought against Noth who stated, "There is no basis to the claims Ms. Johnson made back in 1995" in 2009 when Johnson was in a legal dispute with another ex over abuse allegations.[135] Johnson spoke well of Noth interviews in 2012 and in July 1994,[136][137] and no abuse was mentioned when she wrote about him in her 2017 memoirs.[138] -Khawue (talk) 00:05, 21 February 2020 (UTC) Edited: 00:23, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Anyone can allege anything against anyone. Unless charges are brought, that's all they are. This is absolutely a BLP issue when Wikipedia is broadcasting denied, unproven claims that someone beat his girlfriend. Denied and unproven claims are rumors. This section as written is like some WP:TABLOID magazine. And "in 2009 when Johnson was in a legal dispute with another ex over abuse allegations" is pure WP:SYNTH trying to paint Johnson as a serial accuser. Not a word of this gossip-mongering belongs in Wikipedia. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 14:54, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• All this alleged beating crap is way outside an encyclopedia's purview, and it does cause considerable WP:BLP problems. At least five editors have weighed in on this unambiguously here and at the article talk page. None of this is of lasting importance. A revised version was posted by IP 65, and was promptly reverted. As I wrote two days ago, there is a WP:OWNERSHIP issue here. Yes, Zaereth, it's time to honor consensus on reverting the personal life section, and to making necessary changes to the career, as well. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:12, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

• Zaereth said above that this is not a WP:BLP, not is it WP:SYNTH to say "in 2009 when Johnson was in a legal dispute with another ex over abuse allegations", this was directly from the article. Noth made the statement when another ex was suing Johnson over abuse allegations she made against him in 2009. Can shorten to if that is a concern (but it is not WP:SYNTH)
  • A claim that Noth abused Johnson was reported by the New York Daily News a year after the relationship ended[134] but criminal charges were not brought against Noth who stated, "There is no basis to the claims Ms. Johnson made back in 1995" in 2009 when Johnson was in a legal dispute with another ex.[135] Johnson spoke well of Noth interviews in 2012 and in July 1994,[136][137] and no abuse was mentioned when she wrote about him in her 2017 memoirs.[138]

These two editors are saying it is BLP.

-Khawue (talk) 15:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the above incident was a significant aspect of the relationship that is addressed in a brief, factual, and neutral way with statements by both parties, the official denial by Noth and statements by Johnson. Does not imply guilt in any way. I would like some input from admin on this. Let's start with this one. Then let's discuss the separate issues separately. There has been mischaracterization of me and what was said and done. Discussion first to avoid edit warring.-Khawue (talk) 16:52, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I am closing the above admin help request, because no issue requiring administrative tools was mentioned. However, if Khawue continues to fail to accept consensus, administrative action may become required JBW (talk) 21:22, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Every editor here except the one in question is in consensus, for varying reasons, that this material should not be in Wikipedia. Given this consensus, I'm going to revert to the previous status quo. If Khawue chooses to ignore consensus and WP:OWN the article, then this needs to be escalated to WP:ANI. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 15:42, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Looks like that won't be necessary. Another editor has independently removed the contentious content, and [User:Khawue|Khawue]], quite responsibly, is following consensus. --65.78.8.103 (talk) 15:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I would like to continue discussion about all the issues but separately e.g. abuse claim in the relationship with Johnson, early relationships, etc. I have been doing revisions to the sentences about the allegation throughout this discussion and would like to continue from my last statement above below the Admin help template. 65.78.8.103 & 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 object and I shortened again in response to 65.78.8.103. -Khawue (talk) 18:59, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

If we're going to nickel and dime this over every inappropriate edit [28], then this ridiculously lengthy discussion over an open and shut content matter will end up at ANI. This really doesn't need to drag out over multiple noticeboards, but the disruption is considerable. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 15:58, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Not inappropriate to restore brief references to reviews about the performance. It is common to have these to provide context. Can try to limit, change language. Yes let's discuss each issue separately instead of numerous as the same time.-Khawue (talk) 16:33, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, he originated that role in the world premiere of Farragut North (play) and reviews should not be omitted for such a significant role. There are smaller roles where maybe no reviews, but not for roles like this which receive a lot of press attention.-Khawue (talk) 19:38, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Admin help is welcome. I did not WP:OWN the article, you made that accusation above after I replied with the exact article and quote against your claim "he received 'glowing' reviews for a 'lauded' performance" and I asked you for suggestions. I provided sources for my arguments and always said I was receptive to discussing the details and working to reduce them. -Khawue (talk) 16:37, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, this is most certainly an ownership issue. No, it's a timesink to explain Wikipedia policy re: every edit, each sentence. It's your responsibility to read the guidelines re: WPBLP and WP:PEACOCK. We're not Time Out NY or Playbill, and their content is not ours. Time for a tutorial is running out here. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:50, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Incidentally, I do see this as lurching inevitably toward ANI. An editor can't use being new as a defense and continue editing disruptively. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 16:53, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

No, the disruptive editing was not on my part. I did not inappropriately use content from Time Out or Playbill nor was this ever and issue that was raised. I welcomes Admins to help with this.-Khawue (talk) 17:14, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Sri Bhagavan

Biased reporting is being done by editors User:Csgir and User:Prodigyhk on this page, editors (having pro bias) are blocking my edits to this page (without an explanation) despite being made by me and others in good faith and referencing objective sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Govindaharihari (talk • contribs) 19:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Comment - User:Ronyrockford moved the page name from Sri Bhagavan to Kalki Bhagwan without a Move discussion and is undoing edits that does not match their narrative. The editor's prime objective is to add the term "Godman" in the lead sentence and the link https://tat-tvam-asi.org/bhagavadpadas-profile/ as a reference in a later paragraph, even though it does not have any content about Dr Sankar, the subject's childhood friend, introducing the subject to Jiddu Krishnamurti. The editor also reached out to my Talk page to issue a veiled threat of "escalating this issue" if I didn't explain why I undid their action of adding the above mentioned link. Csgir (talk) 12:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Natural News

• Natural News (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Arthistorian81 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• QuackGuru (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
• Jytdog (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)

BLP issue: defamation and character assassination of Mike Adams indirectly through attack of his website, Natural News. Sources not neutral, mainly opinion based blogs etc. Defamatory quotations directed at Adams sprinkled throughout article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arthistorian81 (talk • contribs) 00:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you have any specific and real examples, instead of generalized moaning?--Calton | Talk 07:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

User:MPS1992 has made several changes whose WP:ES seem like they are in accord with the original comment here (how's that for WEASEL/AGF!). I undid one of them, as it seemed to attenuate what is a strongly supported position. Some others also seem to write off as "blog" posts from potentially credible voices but I haven't had time to look in depth. Would be useful to get more eyes there. DMacks (talk) 16:42, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

It is unclear how action could be taken on this complaint. No editor is mentioned and no diffs were provided. The filer has never edited the article they have reported. The lead of the article does contain harsh criticism of the founder of the site, Mike Adams (attributing 'conspiracy theories' and 'pseudoscience' to him) but the material is sourced. EdJohnston (talk) 21:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

@EdJohnston: this noticeboard is not for review of editor conduct, so there is usually no specific need to mention editors. Or even diffs. I see that blocked editors QuackGuru and Jytdog have both made numerous edits to the article. Material like this and this and this primary-sourced material is unhelpful in an article about a different topic, for the reasons explained. And that's before even looking over more than a third of the article. It's probably that kind of thing that provokes the "generalized moaning" mentioned above. MPS1992 (talk) 00:38, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

And for what it's worth, I would guess that The filer has never edited the article they have reported because the article has been indefinitely semi-protected since sometime in 2016. So they would not have been able to edit it, before posting here. MPS1992 (talk) 00:45, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Prince Mongo

Prince Mongo is a negative BLP even after this edit by another editor removing unsourced negative content. .It is under construction in mainspace.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:46, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Elliot Fletcher

Please could someone review recent the history of Elliot Fletcher? Subject has apparently made good-faith attempts to remove some personal information, which has been restored. If consensus is to remove it again, some revision-deletion may be in order. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:52, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

Markus Persson page written in an incredibly negative manner

• Markus Persson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The page for Markus Persson contains intensly inflamattory materials citing media websites that have poor reputations when it comes to fairly representing issues (ex. the guardian). The controversies section is written in a biased manner. It only explains negative statements that Persson allegedly said or wrote. There are other controversial matters like Persson's opinion on the efficacy of Voxel technology that could interest readers. Or the conterversial nature of his Minecraft userbase being split half and half when deciding if the moon should be round or square (he ended up doing a mix of both). The wikipedia page is biased to inflammatory issues. Persson's opinion on those matters are irrelevant to readers. If it wasn't biased it would also have some positive things that Persson has said or done.

I believe donald trumps page is written in a less inflammatory style. Even it doesn't have a conteroversies section.

Following Persson before the release of Minecraft was an extremely exciting activity that the article could discuss more. It doesn't really mention that Persson is (or was) a blogger. Persson has contributed to the world; to children and to technology, an astounding game and vision that created a new community. Many found inspiration through Persson. This page is an absolute disgrace to Wikipedia.

Markus Persson#Controversies

--65.255.181.151 (talk) 08:10, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

There appears to be nothing in that section, nor indeed in the entire article, that is cited to the Guardian. What we do have is a reasonable and moderate description of some pretty unpleasant behaviour, and how others called it out. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:19, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Tulsi Gabbard

Page

Tulsi Gabbard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Is this weasel-wording?:

"[Tulsi Gabbard] was raised in part on the teachings of the guru Mr. Butler, who founded The Science of Identity Foundation, and whose work she said still guides her."

Per the Manual of Style, "Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated."

I think that unless it specifically says what part of the teachings Gabbard was raised on and how his work still guides her, that it doesn't say anything meaningful. It reads more like an opinion piece than an encyclopedia.

TFD (talk) 15:36, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Two points: As written, it seems wrong, but the version in the current version of Gabbard's article, which is not the same, is worded differently to avoid the problem.

Second, alot rests on sources as this all at first blush appear to be unduly self-serving and not appropriate per WP:BLPSPS-- but this all appears to be information drawn from a NYtimes piece - perhaps in her words but still as reported by NYTimes, and thus, at least in the version in the article presently, is fine. --Masem (t) 15:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

I see that in the article version you refer to [29], only the word "guru" (which could be seen violating WP:BLPSTYLE, WP:LABEL) is removed from the quote given by user TFD. This small difference does not solve the problems of weasel wording in the sentence. Xenagoras (talk) 00:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

• The material quoted by the OP is from this New York Times article. The article says

  In a race with a lot of history-making candidates, Ms. Gabbard lays claim to many potential firsts — she would be the first female president, the first American Samoan, the first from Hawaii, the first surfer, the first vegan.
  
  She would also be the first Hindu. She was raised in part on the teachings of the guru Mr. Butler, who founded The Science of Identity Foundation, and whose work she said still guides her.
  
  “Muslims have imams, Christians have pastors, Hindus have gurus, so he’s essentially like a Vaishnava Hindu pastor,” Ms. Gabbard said. “And he’s shared some really beautiful meditation practices with me that have provided me with strength and shelter and peace.”
  — [30]

The text in the Gabbard BLP is

Gabbard was raised in part according to the teachings of the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) religious community and its spiritual leader, Chris Butler.

The material in the article is backed by two other sources: [31][32]. I would also note that our style guide does not extend to the New York Times. - MrX 🖋 16:15, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

The issue is not whether it is sourced, but whether it is weasel-wording. There may be an issue of Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing too. TFD (talk) 16:19, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

If the statement by Bowles is a paraphrase of the quote from Gabbard that follows, it introduced ambiguity and vagueness where there was none in Gabbard's original. If it is not a paraphrase of what Gabbard said to her in the interview, it's Bowles's opinion presented without evidence or attribution. Humanengr (talk) 03:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Gabbard'w statement doesn't say very much either except that Butler explained some meditation practices to her. It's not possible to take a passing reference to someone and infer much. TFD (talk) 05:33, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

When the source attributes material to the subject, as the NYTimes ref does ("she said still guides her"), it's going to be difficult justify mention or provide encyclopedic context for the material. Yes, it's vague and ambiguous, and intentionally so. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:47, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

A way to state the material from the NYTimes w/o appearing weasel would be, simply, "Gabbard adheres to the Hindu religion and follows the teachings of Chris Butler, the founder of the Science of Identity Foundation." (Note that, carefully, she has not asserted she is a member of the SIF, only that she sees Butler as her guru) Mentioning the SIF relative to Butler is fine only as both the Times gives that as that helps gives an idea of what "teachings" Gabbard gets. --Masem (t) 18:21, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

• I think we should just quote Gabbard here, as her own words are straightforward and avoid any suggestions of possibly significant but unclarified adherence. -Darouet (talk) 18:29, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
  • This can be an issue of "unduly self-serving" though this is not quite an SPSBLP issue (no doubt those are her words as quoted by the NYTimes). We want to identify she states she is Hindu and that she follows his teachings, at bare minimum. Everything else in her quotes is excess, though we certainly can include her admiration for Bulter after doing that. --Masem (t) 18:32, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Masem: There are two issues. First, what do you find self serving in Gabbard's comment about Butler?

Second, are you confident that the statement that Gabbard is still guided by SIF guru Butler is accurate, given the evidence available, and skepticism from a number of editors here? -Darouet (talk) 18:58, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

The New York Times is a reputable newspaper that is considered a highly reliable source on Wikipedia. If you have some sources that say that they botched this story, let's see them. - MrX 🖋 19:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

If you'll look at the broader sources, you'll see that Gabbard is notoriously tight-lipped about her religious beliefs and upbringing. That's why the NYTimes settled with attributing the brief statement. In this context, it's a statement by a politician trying to manage her image. That's self-serving. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 19:03, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

So, you think that by saying that she is still guided by Butler's teachings, she is helping her political image? Do tell. - MrX 🖋 19:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

@Hipal: I think what you've written is possibly accurate, though it's unclear what the fuller description Gabbard could conceivably give would be.

What about my second question? -Darouet (talk) 19:10, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Stepping back to our purpose, for any bio, we'd like to identify a notable person's religion if it is clearly made note of in reliable sources. When it is not covered by reliable sources, using primary ones to include that may be unduly self-servicing particularly to the level of detail asked for here. Eg; if Gabbard said this in social medium, the only piece I'd even consider mentioning is the Hindu part and nothing of Butler/SIF. And note this would not be "first Hindu candidate", just "Hindu" (the former being self-serving). But that's not the issue as the NYTimes chose to cover that facet in this piece on Gabbard; they could have opted to omit those comments completely. There is no second-guessing that that is what she says she is, or that's how she views Butler. We also do not expect the NYTimes (being as highly reliable as it is) to be "managing" any politician's image, which is an understandable concern if this was, say, Fox News or similar.

In terms of if she's basically lying or exaggerating to the Times, then the way to manage that is, taking what I said above with modificaton: "In an interview with the New York Times, Gabbard says she adheres to the Hindu religion and follows the teachings of Chris Butler, the founder of the Science of Identity Foundation." Now that leaves the potential for the exaggeration or the like but leaving any excessive "unduly".

Remember that per BLP, unless we actually have sources that explicitly state doubt with self-made statements, we should not be trying to second guess what BLP say about themselves. We're not here to try to assess how valid a self-made statement is, only how appropriate it is to include, and to that end, that's the self-serving side. --Masem (t) 19:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I hope this proposed wording by Masem addresses everyone's concerns. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 20:00, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

I'm of the mind that attribution is not needed, but if it helps move us past this minor content dispute, I have no objection to using the wording suggested by Masem ("In an interview with the New York Times, Gabbard says she adheres to the Hindu religion and follows the teachings of Chris Butler, the founder of the Science of Identity Foundation."). - MrX 🖋 14:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

I personally don't think its needed either. Again, unless someone can pull RSes that expressly doubt Gabbard's statements or what the NYTimes has actually said, I think what I stated above is a copyvio-free (not close paraphrase), accurate, non-self-serving encyclopedic summary of her religious stance that we can source and there's little doubt left open from the NYTimes article to need the attribution. If this were Fox News... eh, maybe. But not the NYtimes. --Masem (t) 17:34, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Masem’s proposed text ("In an interview with the New York Times, Gabbard says she adheres to the Hindu religion and follows the teachings of Chris Butler, the founder of the Science of Identity Foundation.”) is another misleading paraphrase. It substitutes the weasel word ‘follows’ for the weasel word ‘guides’, while leaving the weasel word ’teachings’ for what could be a canonical example of “creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated.” What are these mysterious 'teachings' alluded to but not specified? All that the Times quotes her as saying is that she learned some meditation practices from him.

I think I can safely guess that neither Bowles nor any editors here have even a reasonable level of comfort and familiarity with – let alone expertise in – Hinduism, the guru system, meditation practices, etc. I’m not sure why we are even entertaining the use of subjective judgement characterizations from non-experts as "fact statements" about a living person in an encyclopedia entry.Humanengr (talk) 02:24, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Ronz:, can you clarify what this means: “the NYTimes settled with attributing the brief statement”? Humanengr (talk) 02:25, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

We are not allowed to question that unless you can point to RSes that question that Butler doesn't offer "teachings" or similar. We as editors cannot stoop to this level of doubt if no sources give this. --Masem (t) 02:46, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

MASEM, neither Gabbard nor the NYT analysis say that she follows the teachings of Chris Butler. Gabbard merely said that Butler shared some meditation practices with her. Compare with the Jeremiah Wright controversy. Unlike Gabbard, Obama was a member of the clergyman's congregation and we have more than a single paragraph where he discusses him. But despite the claims of Fox News personalities, it would be a leap of faith to conclude that Obama adhered to Wright's teachings. Obama did not think America was evil or that black brains were constructed differently from white brains or that the Jews had undue influence. TFD (talk) 18:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Okay, I just dug just the tiniest bit into looking at more sources, and this gets messy fast because other sources want to dig a lot more eg NYMag from last June. I look at what is presently written, squitting my eyes between the NYTimes the sources like this NYMag, this more recent NYTimes piece, This piece in The Nation, and a few others , and then look to what is currently there Perm link at the 3rd para under Early Life and the only issue I can see is with the close paraphrase of the first sentence "Gabbard was raised in part according to the teachings of the Science of Identity Foundation (SIF) religious community and its spiritual leader, Chris Butler." but I cannot see any easy way to dissamble that without bringing in OR....

The only way I can see a way to strip out the close paraphrase while staying exactly to what the NYTimes is saying is something like "While growing up, Gabbard was given/taught mediation practices by Chris Butler, the founder and spiritual leader of the SIF religious community." (which then the rest of the para still flows from that) --Masem (t) 18:53, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

And as a wholly separate note, based on just these sources I list above, I'm surprised that neither on her BLP page or or political page is there a more detailed discussion about how she believes her connection to SIF is being used against her. This is not self-serving - you have articles going into depth trying to map her relationship to SIF and Butler. We don't need that level of detail, but there feels like there should be more here at an impartial level. Something like "In her president campaign, her critics have tries to identify her relation with SIF and Butler and what influence Butler may had had on her positions. Gabbard claims that these accusations arose from bigoty against her Hindu faith." (the same NYTimes above as source for one). --Masem (t) 18:59, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

@Masem and The Four Deuces: I apologize for silence - busy with work. I agree with your most recent statements on this issue. Will look forward to contributing shortly. Thanks for attention here. -Darouet (talk) 21:04, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

We can't even say that she was given mediation practices when growing up because we don't even know if she met Butler. The connection we have is that her father and mother worked for Butler at one time, Gabbard attended a boarding school owned by Butler for two years (although we don't know when) and her husband also worked for him at one time. What teachings if any they adopted is unknown. Nor do we know very much about Butler. He was born in Texas and came to Hawaii in the 1970s where he organized a splinter group of about 20 Hare Krishna who lived in a tent, before pursuing business interests in the far east. Whether or not he maintained his organization is unknown. i assume he still identified as a Hindu when he attended a Hindu conference and Gabbard briefly mentioned him as her "gurudev", whatever that means. It could be a pronouncement of deep loyalty or just a term of respect. It's difficult to put together a narrative based on snippets of information and comments made in passing. TFD (talk) 21:51, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

This again is second-guessing what NYTimes has said and Gabbard has said. We as editors cannot go here. We have this "And he’s shared some really beautiful meditation practices with me" along with the other sources that all this was her early part of her life ("growing up", but can't say "childhood" or the like) suggests that in her words and taken by the Times that she met him. We summarize sources, we don't deep-dive analyze them. --Masem (t) 22:01, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

This. If someone wants to show us a source that says "The New York Times article about Gabbard was wrong in saying that she was raised in part on the teachings of the guru Mr. Butler", then that would merit examination. Everything else is unqualified analysis by anonymous Wikipedia editors. - MrX 🖋 22:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Of course we cannot second guess, that was my point. We do not know what connection there is between Gabbard and Butler so we cannot pretend we do and we cannot imply a connection beyond what we know. All we know for certain is that Gabbard says that a non-notable person shared some meditation practices with her. I cannot imagine any editor here seriously advocating inclusion of that type of information in any other BLP article. TFD (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Just between the few articles I linked above, there is some type of notability between the SIF and Chris Butler (per GNG). I don't know if you can separate them, but it is not like this is some random organization no one knows anything about. The NYMag and New Yorker pieces have tried to go indepth to learn about the SIF and Butler as to better understand Gabbard's background. I would agree with you that if Gabbard say her faith was based on the teachings of a random Mr. Smith she met an at airport of which no one has identified since, then yes there might be reason not to include but at that point, there would likely be no coverage of it at all. But it is clearly obvious that the reliable media has been drawn to the possible connection between Gabbard and Butler/SIF (I get a rough count of 20 separate articles from known RSes on Google News) especially since she has acknowledged a connection herself. What I wrote above does not say she "met" Butler but that only she received teachings from him. That could be handed to her from him, that could be having been played taped messages from him, a whole host of things, but all that she knows that she credits it was his words that she was receiving. --Masem (t) 02:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Butler is non-notable per policy in that there is insignificant coverage of him in reliable sources to write an article. I agree that numerous writers have attempted to connect Gabbard with Butler, but the only thing they have found is a couple of sentences she made in passing. I don't think I have ever seen a case where 20 articles in mainstream sources do this. But I don't think Wikipedia articles should repeat ambiguous claims. Maybe Gabbard is Butler's Manchurian candidate, maybe she merely followed the meditation instructions in one of his pamphlets. Probably the truth lies somewhere in between. But where? If a source tells us that, and it is significant, then I would agree to put it in the article. But for all we know, she never met him. TFD (talk) 02:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I do agree there is zero need to go into any more detail on Butler as covered in Science of Identity Foundation due to how little accurate information there is. But there is more than sufficient RS sourcing that beg whether there is a connection that to not cover it would be failing DUE. It is hard not to find a detailed article on Gabbard that does not touch on this angle. Again, we don't have to go into any detail, the high level detail that the NY Times uses is sufficient. --Masem (t) 03:08, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Despite the great ambiguity present, I think at an absolute minimum we need to link the NY Mag article so that a reader who’s very interested in this topic will find it. That’s the point of an encyclopedia. -Darouet (talk) 05:48, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely that's fair. As said, I do not expect any further detail on Butler or SIF than I've suggested to be included in Gabbard's article, but the ref to NYMag is fine even if it digs farther than our BLP policy would go (NYMag is still an RS). --Masem (t) 08:26, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Darouet, the point of this encyclopedia is not to create a link farm to dubious publications. That's a stunning misstatement of what we do when we evaluate sources and write policy-based summaries of them in our articles. SPECIFICO talk 15:13, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

NY Magazine is dubious? --Masem (t) 15:32, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Whether a specific news story is reliable for a fact or statement should be examined on a case-by-case basis. And because WP:BLP directs editors to adhere to the highest standard of verifiability and to do no harm to the reputation of a living person, I examined the specific NYT claim that Gabbard has said Butler's work still guides her. [33] I found it to be unreliable because there is no quote from Gabbard for that claim and it is contradicted by many other sources. It is even contradicted in the very same NYT article: The socially conservative guru Chris Butler. ... The progressive movement has always had their share of peaceniks [like Gabbard]. Vox describes Gabbard as "socially progressive" [34]. It is very dubious to claim that a "socially conservative" person (Butler) can guide a "socially progressive" person (Gabbard), because "conservative" and "progressive" convictions are mutually exclusive. Other sources make the contradiction more obvious. "I was raised in a very socially conservative household with views and beliefs I no longer hold today. Like most of the country, my views have evolved." [35] Gabbard explicitly disagrees with Butler on social issues: Gabbard says that she and Butler have discussed same-sex marriage—“perhaps, a while ago.” She says, “It’s something that we don’t agree on.” [36] Gabbard's Congressional record on LGBT issues shows her to be in strict opposition to Butler's anti-gay teachings [37] [38]. Therefore Gabbard is not "guided by Butler's work (teachings)" on social issues (which is what causes Butler's bad reputation). Civil Beat found no evidence that Tulsi Gabbard is a Butler devotee ("ardent follower" [39]). [40] For the above reasons, the usage of the word "guided", which has the synonym "directed [41], should be dismissed altogether.

The NYT's summary, Gabbard says that Butler' work still guides her is unnecessarily very vague and implies much more than Gabbard actually said. It implies things that are disproven by many sources. It is harmful to the reputation of Gabbard, because Butler has a bad reputation for his anti-gay activism and his leadership style. To claim that "Gabbard is still guided by Butler's work" creates guilt by association. WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD states, when you are supporting a direct quotation, the original document is the best source. The original document is the direct quote by Gabbard in the NYT article and I recommend using that in the BLP (e.g. as paraphrase). Instead of Gabbard says that Butler' work still guides her, we should therefore paraphrase what Gabbard actually said: Gabbard said that Butler is to her what a pastor is to Christians and that Butler told her helpful meditation techniques. Xenagoras (talk) 02:02, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

You do understanding you are putting into doubt the New York Times, pretty much the gold standard of reliability, verifability, and accuracy on Wikipedia? We are not going to cast any doubt on what the NYTimes says unless you have an equivalent RS that specifically calls into doubt what the NYTimes is saying. Period. The NYtimes article is old enough that if there was soemthing inaccurate they would have put on an errata about it. If the New York Times say, in a non-opinion piece, that "X is Y" but doesn't seem to give any source for that, we're still going to assume "X is Y" is a fact.

Now, in terms of using Gabbard's direct quote from the Times article, this is where the issue of self-serving comes into play. It doesn't make any sense from above to go into excessive detail on Gabbard's article of who Butler is or the SIF is as they are rather unknown entities. To that end, it doesn't make sense to use Gabbard's "gushy" statement related to Butler for the same reason, in addition to being self-serving. All that makes sense to state out of the NY Times article is that at one point in her earlier life she had teachings from Butler that she was guided by, and considered him his guru. Don't need more, can't use less. --Masem (t) 02:46, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I do not want to seem pedantic but when we are discussing facts, it would be helpful if we spoke factually. The New York Times did not say whatever you want to include. It is taken from an article by Nellie Bowles, who writes about technology and social media for the New York Times. She is being sued for implying that Lawrence Lessig approved of taking money from convicted sex offender Harvey Epstein when in fact Lessig said it was wrong to take money from him.[42] It is clear that in Gabbard's case, she is providing opinion rather than fact. Like most opinions, it cannot be verified or refuted, because opinions are an analysis of facts, not facts themselves.

The implicit opinion expressed is that Gabbard is not progressive and still holds reactionary views which for some reason she hides. If we want to add that observation to the article, that is fine, but it should not be presented as a fact.

TFD (talk) 02:36, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

What Lessig is suing over is that Bowles took statements out of context to create that implication that Lessig implicitly approved the school to take Ipsteins money, which he never said as one direct thought and which was in counter to a statement he made that said the school should never have taken Ispteins money. There's lots of ways to dissect the statement but at no point was Bowles falsifying anything, but unfortunately was simply engaging in opinionated reporting to try to draw the reader to a specific conclusion without stating anything wrong. Just associating facts out of context or without the complete picture. Now, was Bowles doing that on Gabbard's article? I have no idea, and if it was a "bad" article for Gabbard, she's had plenty of time to express it. But focusing specifically on the issue of the Hindu faith and what she sees as her relation to Butler, there's very little in Bowles' article that can be taken in question, working on the assumption that this article passed through the Times editorial review desk before it hit publication. We have not only what Bowles wrote but Gabbard's quote, which shows that Gabbard considered Butler as being a religious teacher of some sort - whether that was directly, by tapes, by some other means, we can't tell, but that's basically all that is possible to read off the NYTimes without any doubt, and that's literally all that we need to go into on the matter. Add that this all aligns with past articles from other RSes, this is not some previously unknown revelation. We don't need to be trying to dissect these sources any further because that is going waaaaaay beyond what we are to do as editors, particularly when it comes to BLP and RSes. We summarize RSes. NY Times is an RS, perhaps THE ur-example. Ergo, we should not be doubting this at this point.

I don't see how any of this part, simply stating that she state that she followed teachings of Butler, implies anything about not being progressive or holding reactionary views and hiding them. --Masem (t) 15:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Jan Jämsen

Jan Jämsen (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The article doesn't have any references in it and I've tried looking for them, but couldn't find any beyond trivial mentions and listings. I find the subject to be non-notable as per WP:NBIO, can an experienced editor look into this? Thanks. FelixtheNomad (talk) 09:24, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Your assessment of this article seems spot on. I see only trivial mentions and a lot of self-published or user-generated sources. Obviously not notable. I was tempted to slap a {{BLPPROD}} tag on it and be done with it but it looks like there may be a WP:WALL situation going on with the band Finntroll and its albums and its members. I don't see any substantial coverage in reliable sources for any of its members or the main band article. Some more investigation is needed. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:22, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Having looked into it further, FelixtheNomad, I must revise my earlier assessment. There is good evidence that the band Finntroll is notable within the Finnish music and death metal scenes and has received critical attention. Although we generally hold that notability is not inherited, it is impossible to separate the notability of the band's member from the notable band and its notable albums. Part of the problem is that much of the reference material is, not surprisingly, in Finnish and its relevance and reliability is difficult for an English speaker to evaluate. The current {{BLP unsourced}} tag is appropriate and improvement should be preferred at this time to deletion. I hope this helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:11, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

All right, perfect. Thank you for taking a look into this. I came across this page in the Community Portal and thought I should discuss it here since I didn't know what to do with it. Based on your evaluation, I would personally refrain from making any edits to the page as I am not familiar with the Finnish language and wouldn't know where to look. I'll leave this to an expert. Again, thank you, @Eggishorn:. FelixtheNomad (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Jeanette Wilson

Jeanette Wilson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Someone has created a malicious and libelous Wikipedia page in my name. I have emailed about it but no one has got back to me. The page was created by a member of the Good Thinking Society and contains views about me of Good Thinking Society members.( previously called the Skeptics Society) Several Wikipedia rules have been broken: Conflict of interest through a previous relationship with me Poorly sourced references Clearly not neutral — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peace11111 (talk • contribs) 10:20, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

You mean the Wikipedia article is about you? The article was created by User:TheYarnBender at 07:12, 24 December 2019‎? It may take a while for you to get an email reply, as the service is staffed by volunteers? Martinevans123 (talk) 10:43, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Note there is also a separate article for the Good Thinking Society. Martinevans123 (talk) 14:06, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Hello. I took a look, and while I would say under normal circumstances you would not usually pass our notability guidelines. But in your case this has stirred up some controversy, and people are talking. As such, the likelihood that this article will be deleted is small.

But there are a lot of things that need fixing there. First, I'll go through the sources: 1.) Echo -- Good source, well written news article. 2.) Noted -- No good, op/ed column, 3.) Eventfinda -- No good, ad, 4.) Timaru Herald -- No good, plug for upcoming event, 5.) -- Good source, neutral news, 6.) Otaga Daily Times -- Good source, 7.) Checkpoint -- Good source, 8.) Taranaki Daily News -- No good, plug for upcoming event, 9.) Eventfinds -- No good, ad.

Many of these sources are not quite represented faithfully in the article, and there appears to be a level of WP:Synthesis thrown to give a narrative not supported by the sources. A dead giveaway is when you see nine different sources (many of questionable nature) being interstitially dispersed all throughout the article, and even dispersed throughout nearly every single sentence. But when you read the good sources you can tell the difference, and how they remain neutral, neither endorsing nor debasing your beliefs but rather calling attention to the controversy it has caused. That's what our article should reflect as well.

Unfortunately, I don't have time to clean it up myself right now, due to other pressing issues in my real life, but those are the tools you need. You may be able to have a shot of getting it deleted by nominating it at WP:Articles for deletion, since there are only a handful of good sources, but then again maybe not. You never know how those things will go. While you should not edit the article yourself, due to your COI, you most certainly should take your concerns to the article's talk page and ask the people who watch it to make these corrections (eliminate the bad sources and any info associated with them, and fix the synthesis issues), or perhaps someone here will come along, read this and think, "what the hell, I got nothing better to do". (Just remember, you're not famous until you're unhappy with your Wikipedia article.) Zaereth (talk) 02:12, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

I wouldn't agree with you on 2. It looks to me to be a long-form investigative journalism written in a narrative journalism style. Such sources need to be used with care in BLPs but unlike with opinion columns, I wouldn't say they're automatically excluded. Definitely if you tried to exclude all New Yorker pieces like that which aren't not covered in other RS, I'd expect significant pushback. Nil Einne (talk) 09:58, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Brian Littrell

If anyone has a few minutes to take a look at Talk:Brian Littrell#Miscarriage, I'd appreciate other editors' views on the question in order to establish consensus one way or another, in lieu of the current slow edit war. Schazjmd (talk) 15:50, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Clearly inappropriate to include this per WP:BLPREMOVE. I'll comment there and watchlist the article. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 16:11, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Christopher Michael Langan

Thanks in advance for reading this report and taking appropriate action. I understand how hard your job must be and that you are volunteers.

I am the wife of the subject of this bio. Recently an anonymous editor using IP address 90.219.111.127/EarlWhitehall made numerous factually incorrect changes, painting my husband as a racist. Per WP:BLP, I respectfully request that the (now semiprotected) page be reverted to the state prior to the onset of this recent vandalism (the last edit by Johnnyyiu). I would like the time to defend this neutral version before the potentially libelous material is re-inserted. I have clear arguments as to why the information is inappropriate, inaccurate, and taken out of context. The bio itself must remain in the neutral state while this is decided per Wikipedia policy.

I characterize it as vandalism because the user above [outing redacted] has a personal vendetta against my husband and has come to Wikipedia to nurture his grudge and exact revenge. My husband kicked him out of our Facebook group 2 years ago and he has been hounding Chris ever since. He has set up Facebook and Patreon groups, using our brand, to mock him and divert our potential members (I am currently in discussions with Facebook legal to address this problem; his trolling is driven and extensive).

Thanks for your attention to this matter. DrL (talk) 19:23, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

GorillaWarfare has already been working on cleaning that up. Can you be more specific about what you think is the problem? The changes seem to be sourced. I do not think it would be appropriate to revert Gorilla's work without some better reasons. Don't try to out people's identities or you will probably be blocked. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:22, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

In fairness, DrL created this section before I was able to start cleaning up the article in any meaningful way. @DrL: Could you say whether you feel the article is acceptable in its current iteration? GorillaWarfare (talk) 03:36, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Without violating WP:Outing, does anyone know what's going on with the above article and especially talk page? It's not just one editor, there seem to be a bunch of SPAs. Has the article been brought up somewhere else or is there some off wiki dispute that is being brought here? Nil Einne (talk) 11:35, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Nil, yes we know exactly who the user 90.xxx is IRL and it's terribly unfair that this user was allowed to come in and his bio now so defamatory. I'm truying to get this reverted to the last neutral version before he catches wind. He's writing an important paper on QM and I don't want him to be distracted from that so I am trying to take care of it - not working out so far. And yes that user is working in tandem with another that we know personally IRL. My husband is a troll magnet and he has several dedicated detractors, sadly. DrL (talk) 10:14, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

GW, I appreciate your honest efforts but, honestly, the page may even be even worse now and should be reverted to the last edit by user Johnnyyiu who put it back to the point just before the string of edits by IP user 90.xxx.xxx.xxx (who has a personal vendetta with my husband) started editing. I really do not have the time or interest in having this become a legal matter but I need to remind you to follow your own rules. Per WP:BPL - contentious and contested content must be removed from a BLP and only then is the material to be debated on the talk page. I respectfully request that you do that at your earliest convenience. Nice cat, btw! DrL (talk) 10:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. I'm not particularly interested in who one editor is. I'm wondering why there have suddenly be 3 or more different accounts who barely edit anything else. Your account, I understand since you've declared your connection, but not the other ones. And to be clear, when I say accounts, I do not mean IPs. Nil Einne (talk) 13:48, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

gladys berejiklian

This page and henceforth it's editors show a clear bios on the front of the controversy surrounding Berejiklian's link to the bushfires and endagerment of many native Australian species'. Although i believe it's wrong to sway it completely the other way as that's just as bad i do believe wikipedia should be presenting facts and removing any mention of said controversy and Berejiklian's proven ties to the Australian bushfires, being cuts to emergency services and national parks, lack of action on water being stolen from the murray-darling basin amongst heavy drought etc. emitting this from the page is censoring contentious issues and is presenting bias as fact as has been shown in this pages history time and time again by people with links to the liberal party editing tis page to show a false reality to present a bias representation to sway voters by censoring facts.

References

There are indeed many reliable sources discussing the role of Berejiklian with the Australian bushfire crisis, I think it is worthy to be discussed for biological and NPOV purposes. I do not see anyone removing constructive edits about it, it seems like no one has written a neutral statement here instead. You are certainly welcome to write a well sourced and neutral one. ☃ Unicodesnowman (talk) 06:02, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Judith Curry Edit war, re: WikiLinks for paragraph on HER publications

Sorry in advance for bringing what should be a trivial issue to resolve, but uninvolved opinions are needed because Talk was headed nowhere productive fast. Paragraph of interest (without wikilinks, bold of report title added):

Curry echoes and supports the perspective of Scott Pruitt, EPA administrator at the time, in her 2017 report "Climate Models for the Layman," notes journalist Julie Kelly of the National Review. This report critiques the role of climate models in policy-making. In an email exchange with Kelly, Dr. Curry endorses Pruitt's perspectives on the uncertainty in climate change.

• Note1: Linking to a PDF of Curry's actual report has been previously discussed at the talk page[43] and removed, without real consensus, but with Admin insistance.
• Note2: Although sources for the paragraph have been reduced to only one, there are numerous other secondary sources supporting the paragraph, as listed and discussed on the Talk page at length.
• Note3: If anything is overlinked in the article, it is the sea of blue in the Article's lead, not in this paragraph, IMO.
• Note4: Layman redirects to Laity.

The question here is: What Wikilinks are appropriate? Until recently, Scott Pruitt, Climate Models, Layman and National Review were linked, and that seems OK to me. I feel the ordering of relevant links, from most to least relevant, are: Climate Models, Layman, Scott Pruitt, and National Review. As the article now stands, only the two LEAST relevant links remain.

Background: The paragraph's wikilinks have been stable since my edit late January.[44] A few days ago, Jlevi removed Layman claiming "WP:Overlink" without discussion.[45] I restored it.[46] Jonathan A Jones removed it again.[47] I opened Talk discussion[48] and restored it again.[49] Jonathan A Jones removed it again, and additionally removed Climate Models, claiming "simply irrelevant wikilink"[50] and casting aspersions at the Talk: "being WP:POINTy.[51] This now leaves only the two LEAST relevant wikilinks. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:21, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

References

Very little discussion has yet occured on the talk page, and the back-and-forth hardly constitutes an edit war. I suggest waiting before posting to a noticeboard (and that this is probably the wrong noticeboard). Let's not take these folks' time before we need to. Please see my response on the discussion page. Jlevi (talk) 17:07, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Matt Carthy

Matt Carthy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There is a dispute at Talk:Matt Carthy#MEP regarding whether Matt Carthy is still an MEP at the present time. One editor says his election to Dáil Éireann disqualifies him as an MEP due to the European Parliament Elections (Amendment) Act 2004. The European Parliament's website disagrees, currently having him listed as a member, and he's not listed as an outgoing member yet. Any advice please? FDW777 (talk) 20:17, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Megan Gogerty

Megan Gogerty (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hello,

I am considering nominating this article for deletion. The reason I have not done so is because I am between decisions. The amount of plays and mentions can qualify for notability under WP:ENT. However, she has not done anything record breaking, gone on a national tour, or done a play to national acclaim. The article was made by single purpose accounts and I cannot even find a source for her birthday. She does get a lot of mentions in local news and books.

Can anyone help me form a decision? I am not 100% sure on this article. I'll start the nomination if it seems AfD is the proper route. AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:23, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Which plays were notable? I am not seeing mentions outside some very minor niche sites. Being written by SPAs is suspicious. —DIYeditor (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: I agree. I'm probably nominating. AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:44, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Nominated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Megan Gogerty. AmericanAir88^(talk) 03:49, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Seamus Ryan

Seamus Ryan (photographer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

There's "no consensus" on this fellow's noteworthiness. I've already spent enough of my time on this article, and invite others to consider this latest series of edits and to act on it. (Or, if that sounds lazy of me: Having sent the article off to AfD, I might be accused of a prejudice against it.) -- Hoary (talk) 06:40, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

That's one awful-looking BLP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 07:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

You, Sir, are a master of understatement. -- Hoary (talk) 07:50, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I have cut back the cruft a bit further. Can one WP:BLPPROD and article that survived an WP:AFD? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 08:31, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

If it ever seemed the right thing to do, it would probably imply that something was very wrong about the AFD, so DELREV would seem the place to go. However, in this case, it would certainly be wrong, as even the AfD nominator (me) conceded that the man had a degree of notability, and that this was reliably sourced. But the autobiographer [just join the dots] seems intent on degrading the article further. -- Hoary (talk) 09:30, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

He has photographed Pythons, [52], I will look for some useful sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:58, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

He has certainly photographed Michael Palin, but not, I think, any other Pythons: see [53]. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 12:03, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Did you check my link? It takes a while to load. Anyway, there's some trouble at the article: [54] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:05, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Ok, this needs an admin, now. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:20, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Now at WP:AIV. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:45, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

I did look at your page, but didn't scroll down far enough; sorry. It's useful to do a "view source" on that webpage to get a list of names. Good call on AIV, but I suspect we will soon be requesting semi-protection. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 14:33, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Time will tell. I also nominated the image for deletion:[55] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 15:07, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Kapil Mishra biography

The Riots information given in this article is totally fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:201:6403:D7E2:A09C:4768:60C3:EE48 (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Then you are free to edit the article Kapil Mishra, of course citing independent, reliable, published sources. Or if you don't want to do that, then describe exactly what the problem is. -- Hoary (talk) 13:01, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

North East Delhi Riots

The information about riots on kapila misrha biography is totaly fake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A014:1E7B:DCDD:6D48:159D:368F (talk) 11:54, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Please see Kapil Mishra biography (immediately above). -- Hoary (talk) 13:04, 26 February 2020 (UTC)

Vektor (band)

There have been unsubstantiated allegations of domestic abuse made by the ex-girlfriend of this band's vocalist. The content that I removed and was put straight back has a lot of terms such as "allegations" "appearing" and "alleged" without any criminal convictions. Is this a BLP issue? Obscure Lobotomy (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Yes, that is a BLP violation. The relevant section is WP:BLPCRIME. We don't report unsubstantiated allegations, and especially ones that can only be traced to social media. The exception to that would be WP:WELLKNOWN, which only applies to big celebrities, where it is just being talked about in every newspaper and magazine that you see so there would be no point in trying to protect their right to be innocent until proven guilty, and judging by the sourcing these guys are no Metallica. I have removed the section and left an edit summary explaining why. Zaereth (talk) 18:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Thank you, I wasn't entirely sure myself, but it seemed a bit off. Obscure Lobotomy (talk) 18:09, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Unsourced claims about a living person being involved in a criminal conspiracy

At Talk:Julian Assange, SPECIFICO has twice referred to GRU agents as Assange's "accomplices" ([56] [57]). The word "accomplice" means "a person who helps another commit a crime." The clear implication that SPECIFICO is making is that GRU agents aided Assange in committing a crime. Just to remind editors: Assange has not been charged with anything relating to the 2016 US election / DNC emails / Podesta emails, and I do not know of any reliable sources that state that he criminally conspired with the GRU.

I asked about this apparent BLP violation at User_talk:Drmies#BLP violation at Julian Assange talk, but the admins who commented there did not feel that SPECIFICO's statements are a BLP issue. One admin who commented there, JzG, has made similarly troubling (and unsourced) statements at Talk:Julian Assange about "Assange cultists" and a "unholy and toxic mix of militant free-speechers, MRAs, far-right conspiracy theorists" who are supposedly promoting an appeal by 130 prominent German politicians and journalists on Assange's behalf (diff of RfC vote and subsequent comment). Drmies commented that SPECIFICO's claims about Assange engaging in a criminal conspiracy are essentially true ([58] [59]). Newyorkbrad commented that the comments about Assange are probably not legally actionable, because they could be construed as an editor's personal opinion, and that editors have more leeway on talk pages. My understanding of BLP is that a claim does not have to be legally actionable in order to violate policy. BLP is meant to urge caution when discussing living people, and the policy goes beyond the bare minimum legal requirements. WP:OR or WP:SYNTH claims about Assange criminally conspiring with GRU agents would seem to me to violate BLP, even if for legal purposes, they could be construed as editors' personal opinions.

I am concerned about the apparent anything goes attitude towards Assange. He is a living person, and these sorts of accusations about him - including on talk pages - should be well sourced, or else they should not be made at all.

I would be interested to hear what others think of this issue. -Thucydides411 (talk) 19:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

That's a bit of a sticky wicket I'd say. Without digging too deep into this, in general I'd say that Assange has reached a level of celebrity status, albeit sort of a celebrity in the way Manson was in his day. As such, BLPCRIME doesn't come into play, but rather these things fall under WP:WELLKNOWN. That gives people much more freedom in reporting on unsubstantiated claims or allegations about them, and far more freedom for editors on talk pages to discuss or even opine on those things. (And aside from BLP, that's also the basic legal view in the US, that celebrities have far less freedom to control their own information.) That said, there still needs to be sources, and per WELLKNOWN there should be a multitude of them to choose from. Zaereth (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

You're seriously comparing Assange to Manson? -Thucydides411 (talk) 20:27, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

In celebrity status, yes. Zaereth (talk) 20:30, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• For making claims about a BLP, even personal opinion, they need to be sources. I always saw it as if you would not put it in the article it does not belong on the talk page. I would also like to hear more about Newyorkbrad's interpretation of BLP policy because, I will be honest, I have never heard any of that expressed in policy before. PackMecEng (talk) 20:40, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

In my experience it's not always that black and white. In many cases a lot rides on just exactly how something is phrased. You can't say, "so-and-so is a wife beater" but you could definitely ask, "I heard a rumor that so-and-so is a wife beater, does anyone know if this is true or not?" I could easily say on a talk page that "Joe Schmo is a jerk." No one could seriously infer from this that he truly is one, but the clear implication is that of a personal opinion, and WP:NOTCENSORED seems to cover that. Zaereth (talk) 20:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Not censored has a BLP exception, as it should. If you read over the rest of it you will also find most, if not all, is not applicable to what we are talking about. Also yeah Joe Schmo is a jerk is problematic and not appropriate even on a talk page in my opinion. PackMecEng (talk) 21:19, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

PackMecEng, the word "accomplice" is clearly an informal usage recognising the documented fact of his collaboration with GRU spies in the theft and publication of DNC emails. It would be inappropriate in mainspace, but this is a talk page discussion where the OP has been stonewalling for years. Guy (help!) 21:39, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

See my previous response about it not mattering if it is a talk page or not. Because it does not matter if it is a talk page or not. BLP applies to all pages, regardless of your personal conspiracy theories. PackMecEng (talk) 21:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• Forum shopping, eh? You already raised this on Drmies' user talk, and apparently didn't like the answer. I think you are headed towards a topic ban. Guy (help!) 21:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

JzG, I don't think the OP can be accused of forum shopping, as Drmies specifically told them, "it seems to me that if that is not enough for you, you should consider BLPN" on Drmies's talk page. [60]. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

• I don't think the term "accomplices" has only a legal meaning, as it can also refer to more general wrongdoing. Given WP:WELLKNOWN and the function of talk pages as a place to discuss issues, while repeatedly using "accomplices" seems unnecessarily antagonistic, I don't think it rises to the level of a BLP violation for a person like Assange, especially when my understanding is that he has been accused of being a criminal accomplice. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:44, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: Assange has not been accused of any crimes relating to the 2016 election. The charges against Assange all have to do with WikiLeaks' publications in 2010, which have nothing to do with the GRU. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I should have been clearer with my language. I meant accused by media outlets and major political figures, not indicted on criminal charges. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 23:49, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I was asked to opine on the legal question (it's well-known that IRL I'm a litigation attorney) and I did; I wasn't pretending to serve as the BLP judge and jury. Whether the reference to Assange on the article talkpage violates BLP is probably debatable although I know I personally would not refer to him in this manner. I would also note that for better or worse, the debate now on multiple talkpages about the disputed wording is focusing much more attention on the wording than it would otherwise have received.

@PackMecEng: There has to be a little bit more leeway for discussion on talkpages than in the articles themselves, because otherwise we couldn't have an open discussion about whether a disputed assertion can go in the article or not. Talkpage comments are written by individuals rather than in "Wikipedia's voice," and talkpages are also marked with the NOINDEX parameter that is supposed to keep them out of search engine results. Of course that does not mean that a talkpage is "anything goes" territory. A negative assertion is permissible there only if it's at least defensibly correct, and also if it's reasonably relevant to discussion of what belongs in the article, as opposed to "WP:NOTFORUM" territory.

@Zaereth: Putting "so-and-so says" doesn't automatically make a BLP violation less of one. If "John Smith kicks puppies" (with no reliable source and no reason to believe it's true) is a BLP violation, then "Newyorkbrad says John Smith kicks puppies" is no better. The tougher question, as I've written about before, is what to do when an allegation is unproved or even clearly incorrect, but the fact that the allegation has been made is independently newsworthy. A relatively recent example is Donald's Trump's implication that Rafael Cruz (Ted Cruz's father) may have been involved in the JFK assassination. "Rafael Cruz may have been involved in the JFK assassination" is a ridiculous lie and certainly could not be included in Wikipedia, but might "Donald Trump implied that Rafael Cruz may have been involved in the JFK assassination" be treated differently?

This issue arises all the time in newspaper reporting. The canonical example, discussed by Michael Kinsley in his article collection CURSE OF THE GIANT MUFFINS (excellent book, silly title), was the allegation in 1988 that presidential candidate Gary Hart was having an extramarital affair. The allegation was widely rumored, and printed in some periodicals, but reputable newspapers believed there wasn't enough evidence to support the allegation and/or that the allegation was not worth reporting. But then Hart's poll numbers started dropping, and it looked like it might affect the outcome of the election. There comes a point when even the most careful newspaper can no longer write "Hart's support percentage has dropped by 15% for a reason we won't tell you about." Analogous situations arise on Wikipedia and they can be among the most difficult BLP issues to resolve. For more examples, see my essay Wikipedia:BLP examples for discussion, all of which are drawn from actual situations. Newyorkbrad (talk) 21:53, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

You certainly can have open discussions, you just need sources to back up your assertions. Which is what we ask for pretty much any discussion on an article talk page. Why would accusations towards a BLP be less? Also going back to defensibly correct, to meet that bar sources are required as well I would imagine. There are no exceptions for it being a talk page, in fact just the opposite. The policies apply just as much to user and article talk pages as they do article space. PackMecEng (talk) 22:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Just to be clear, I agree with you Brad. "So-and-so says..." would be problematic, which is why I didn't phrase it like that. For the most part, I think people are just splitting hairs here. We have to be able to discuss things on talk pages, or else the OP would be in violation for simply bringing this here. In such instances you can't define a word by the word alone, you have to look at the entire context in which the word is used ... which I don't have time to dig through and find, hence the generalizations. Zaereth (talk) 22:08, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Guy, what the Mueller investigation has claimed (as I understand it) is that the GRU used fake identities to pass emails to WikiLeaks. Assuming this to be true (though it hasn't been established in court), that's very different from Assange conspiring with the GRU, and it also doesn't appear to involve any criminal activity of Assange's part. The idea that Assange has "accomplices" in the GRU is WP:SYNTH. It's an explosive accusation, and one that editors should only be making if they can point to rock-solid sourcing. Can you point to such sourcing? If not, I think it's obvious that we have a BLP issue on our hands. -Thucydides411 (talk) 23:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Who has used the word "conspire", other than you?

The loose meaning of "accomplice" does not require that Assange knew they were GRU agents, and he does not have to be formally charged with a crime to actually have been involved in the commission of crimes, crimes that GRU agents have been convicted of committing.

The Trump/Cohen/Stormy Daniels situation is partially analogous. Trump has not been formally charged but Cohen is in jail for the crimes they committed together, and in this case, Trump knew he was committing a crime. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

BTW, WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies here. Even the worst, unproven and false allegations must should be documented here when they are alleged in multiple RS. If there are not multiple RS, we don't document it. Otherwise we should generally do it. -- BullRangifer (talk) 00:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC) (slightly revised, per my comments below)

Uh, what? That's absolutely not what PUBLICFIGURE says, at least the "must" part. It does mean if public figures come under accusations that are documented through multiple RSes, that's a minimum requirement before anything about those accusations can be posted. But at the same time, consensus of editors can choose to omit or wait to see what happens, per RECENTISM, NOT#NEWS. Case in point Neil deGrasse Tyson#Sexual misconduct allegations could easily have been 5-6 paragaphs long if we include all the specific claims that were well documented by various sources per PUBLICFIGURE, but instead we waited, and when he was cleared of the allegations, left it to that; still DUE enough to include since it affected parts of his career. Reading PUBLICFIGURE to "must" include all such claims is absolutely wrong and is unfortunately consistent with the present attitude across WP among a large number of editors to made mainspace articles on certain detestable public figures as "scarlet letters" to them. --Masem (t) 01:14, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh my! No, Masem, I did not mean it that radically. (If I had, I would have highlighted must. I have now modified it somewhat.)

I certainly accept that there are exceptions (but whitewashing must never be suspected) and that RECENTISM, NOT#NEWS, etc. apply. I'm referring to those well-known situations where multiple RS have covered allegations, and we then have the opportunity to shed more light on the situation, especially when we can present the well-known allegations, per PUBLICFIGURE, and then debunk the charges. We serve an important service here, because, as we know, allegations often get trumpeted in the news, but the debunking gets whispered.

WP:PUBLICFIGURE has a clause (added by me) about including denials. Maybe we should add that details about the debunking of charges should also be included as a requirement of PUBLICFIGURE. Does that sound reasonable? -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Gotcha, and to me, all I would add is that editors should allow the news cycle to run a few times before rushing to add something something reported by multiple RSes, and that when 20/20 hindsight can be used to revise what was initially reported, that should be done too. --Masem (t) 03:17, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Also, of course, without references there can be no SYNTH. So OP might consider reading up on synth. SPECIFICO talk 01:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, s/claimed/found/g - your persistent attempts to frame this as anything other than fact are tendentious and disruptive. Guy (help!) 10:20, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Just going to keep throwing stuff at the wall and hoping something sticks? PackMecEng (talk) 15:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

You're a bit vague. What part(s) of Guy's statements are you contesting? Or are you contesting that the Russians interfered in the election, or that Assange and the GRU were closely involved in the dissemination of stolen documents? -- BullRangifer (talk) 16:02, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The constant calls from JzG to sanction people they disagree with. Heck this is the second time in this thread. It gets old when you see the same pattern. PackMecEng (talk) 17:15, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarificaiton. I see it as a legitimate objection to denials that the sky is blue. These facts are so firmly established by myriad RS we use in multiple articles here that denialism amounts to forbidden [[WP:Advocacy|advocacy of fringe POV based on unreliable sources]. That is forbidden as (1) editing in articles and when it appears as (2) repetitious aspects of discussions on talk pages. We sometimes forgive newbies and driveby editors and commentators for showing their ignorance, but repetition is tendentious and worrying. We also often just delete such comments made by IPs as violations of forum and tendentious advocacy.

We still need to get a response from you and Thucydides411 if you are actually denying the "sky is blue" narrative of RS. -- BullRangifer (talk) 17:26, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Maybe you need to take your obsession down a notch. Perhaps a AP2 topic ban to get your mind off purity tests for editors. PackMecEng (talk) 17:57, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

There's a certain amount of leeway we give on talk pages of BLPs on accusations, and in a case like this, I dont see the use of the term "accomplices" being violations of the principles of BLPTALK as long as no one is pushing for that inclusion on the actual mainspace pages, but it is something editors should be aware that can be used in the future against them at places like Arbcom if they are reviewing that editor's views in certain topic areas and whether they should be editing there. It would be completely wrong to make a completely baseless accusation that has zero foundation against a BLP in a serious manner (eg "Bernie Sanders is the devil!") and stick to one's guns.in discussions (separating that from sarcasm), and a user that continues to make baseless BLP violations like that should have adminstrative actions on them. But given how many people have spoke ill of Trump and his allies on numerous talk pages (eg statements that would violate BLP if on the main space but we know fall into the sarcasm area on talk), this specific point is not the case to make an example out of. --Masem (t) 00:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It isn't necessary. Where the editor writes "So you withdraw your objection to the text that mentions the indictment of his accomplices?" they could just as easily write "So you withdraw your objection to the text that mentions what I perceive as the indictment of his accomplices?" or some such language. Has the editor been asked if they wouldn't mind making an adjustment of that sort? Bus stop (talk) 00:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

"Accomplice" doesn't have a clear enough meaning as "criminal associate" to violate BLP here. Accomplice can be used in the sense SPECIFICO did without implying a crime. Mueller reports that the source of the DNC emails WikiLeaks leaked was GRU agents. So to say on a talk page that they were his accomplices in leaking the information does not seem problematic. BLP should not be a bludgeon to attack editors for inconsequential disagreements over what certain wordings on a talk page might insinuate. I find this to be bordering on vexatious litigation over such a trivial matter. If editors are to be prohibited from allowing any hint of a POV to tint their choice of words (for example that leaking the emails was wrongdoing) we would be at ANI nonstop over it these days. —DIYeditor (talk) 01:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. In the loose sense of the term, it can include any and all individuals involved in the commission of a crime. They do not have to know each other, or even know they are involved in committing a crime, yet they are helping each other, ergo "accomplices".

For example, Trump may not have known (ha!) he was colluding with the Russian election interference, yet he was certainly inviting, welcoming, aiding and abetting, and co-operating because he knew he'd benefit from it. That makes him an "accomplice" in the loose sense, but not enough to be charged with "conspiracy" (but only because Mueller wasn't able to collect enough evidence to charge him, and even then, Mueller wouldn't have done it because the DOJ rules precluded it. Therefore he left open the possibility to charge Trump with obstruction, and also provided a pile of evidence of collusion.) -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:56, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

@DIYeditor: SPECIFICO talked explicitly about "the indictment of his accomplices," so it's clear that SPECIFICO meant "accomplice" in a legal sense. If you just look at what BullRangifer writes below, you can see that there are editors arguing that Assange really is criminally culpable in some way. At least BR is trying to provide sourcing for that claim, but you'll also notice that the sources do not exactly back up BR's claims - BR is engaging in SYNTH to make extremely serious accusations against a living person.

I agree with Masem that the types of things being written about Assange on talk pages (and here, I might add) paint a picture of editors' views about him. Whatever one's personal political views are, it is wildly inappropriate to air those views so openly and unnecessarily on talk pages. It gives a strong impression of biased, politically motivated editing. That this has been allowed to go on for so long reflects badly on the admins patrolling AP2 topics. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

It has already been explained to you by nearly everyone here and at User_talk:Drmies#BLP violation at Julian Assange talk that the word "accomplices" is being used here in a loose and common sense of the word, not a strict or legal sense. That you are repeating your accusations, rather than absorbing and accepting all these explanations, is not convincing or encouraging. As I will explain below, you are using a straw man of your own creation as a cudgel in your accusations against User:SPECIFICO. You also need to be careful when describing talk page discussions as "politically motivated editing." -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

(moved from below, where it was in the wrong section):

@BullRangifer: Can you cite passages in which reliable sources state that Assange criminally conspired with GRU agents? It looks to me like you're engaging in WP:SYNTH. -Thucydides411 (talk) 04:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Thucydides411, after all the explanations, your continued use of the word "conspired" is puzzling. Above, I asked you: "Who has used the word "conspire", other than you?" You have not replied. I checked both diffs you posted, and I don't find that SPECIFICO used (or even implied) that word. Unless I'm missing something, you seem to be using a straw man of your own creation in your accusations against User:SPECIFICO.

You also ask if I can cite "reliable sources state that Assange criminally conspired with GRU agents." I don't know if they exist with those exact words of yours (not ours), and it's a moot point since neither I nor SPECIFICO make such claims.

That Assange was involved with GRU agents in receiving and disseminating stolen documents, which is a crime, is a proven fact. (As I describe above, "In the loose sense of the term [accomplice], it can include any and all individuals involved in the commission of a crime. They do not have to know each other, or even know they are involved in committing a crime, yet they are helping each other, ergo 'accomplices'." It is theoretically possible that Assange was involved in the commission of a crime without knowing he was committing a crime.)

Are you really openly doubting that fact which we document in several of our articles, with RS backing? Such a denial may well an AP2 violating matter as it could be viewed as making war with the narrative described by RS.

Your opening statement above does seem to show that it is you, not SPECIFICO or myself, who have introduced the word and thought of "conspire". No one else is seeing that, but you insist on asserting it as a seemingly false accusation against other editors. Please be more careful:

"At Talk:Julian Assange, SPECIFICO has twice referred to GRU agents as Assange's "accomplices" ([61] [62]). The word "accomplice" means "a person who helps another commit a crime." The clear implication that SPECIFICO is making is that GRU agents aided Assange in committing a crime. Just to remind editors: Assange has not been charged with anything relating to the 2016 US election / DNC emails / Podesta emails, and I do not know of any reliable sources that state that he criminally conspired with the GRU."

It is not just an "implication", but a legal fact, that GRU agents did aid Assange in committing a crime. Why Assange hasn't been formally charged, unlike the GRU agents, is a question you'll have to ask Trump and Rohrabacher, who actually made a quid pro quo offer of a pardon, rather than a justified criminal indictment, to Assange, in exchange for a cover-up and denial that it was the Russians who hacked and leaked the emails. The sources are below, without any synth violation. That's what RS document. There is your answer as to why Assange is not criminally indicted for a crime that did happen:

"On February 19, 2020, numerous sources revealed that lawyers for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told Westminster Magistrates' Court that Trump had Dana Rohrabacher visit Assange at the Ecuadoran Embassy in London on Aug. 16, 2017. There, he made a quid pro quo offer of a presidential pardon to Assange, in exchange for Assange covering up Russian involvement by declaring that "Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks": "[Lawyer] Edward Fitzgerald...said he had evidence that a quid pro quo was put to Assange by Rohrabacher, who was known as Putin's favorite congressman."

Whether he "conspired" with GRU agents to do this is beyond my paygrade, and makes no real difference. The more important fact is that the crime(s) did happen. An analogous situation is the dossier accusation that there was a "conspiracy" of "co-operation" (between the Trump campaign and the Russian leadership). Note those two words. The unproven first charge is focused on, while the proven second allegation is ignored. Strange. Well, Mueller could not prove "conspiracy" (likely because of Trump's obstruction of evidence), but Mueller did provide a boatload of evidence of the "co-operation"/collusion, and the "co-operation" is the important part, because that is what's proven to have happened. The Russians did interfere in the election, and the Trump campaign did invite, welcome, facilitate, and co-operate in it because they expected to benefit from it, and they lied about all of it.

Are you also going to dispute that this happened, as documented in several of our articles, with plenty of RS backing? Such a denial may well be another AP2 violating matter as it could be viewed as making war with the narrative described by RS.

Maybe you have a completely different explanation for all this, in which case I will happily retract anything I've gotten wrong. -- BullRangifer (talk) 07:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand. Why, on a Talk page, must we debate language? Anything can be said in myriad ways. Why would anyone care what language was used? If there is debate, the language can be altered. This isn't article space. It is always possible to say the same thing using alternative language. I perceive this as debate for the sake of debate. SPECIFICO—wouldn't you say the same thing another way? Or are you committed to that particular means of expression? If someone asked me to say something differently on a Talk page I would welcome the opportunity to do so—or I would explain why a particular locution was inordinately important. Bus stop (talk) 19:08, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Sourcing for claims

FYI, here is some of what we have at the Steele dossier article on this subject: -- BullRangifer (talk) 03:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Kremlin's "Romanian" hackers and use of WikiLeaks, and Trump campaign reaction

Source(s) allege that "Romanian hackers" controlled by Putin hacked the DNC servers and that the Trump campaign co-operated with Russia.

It was later proven that Russian hackers used the Guccifer 2.0 persona and claimed to be Romanian, like the Romanian hacker who originally used that identity.

The Mueller Report confirmed that the dossier was correct that the Kremlin was behind the appearance of the DNC emails on WikiLeaks, noting that the Trump campaign "showed interest in WikiLeaks's releases of documents and welcomed their potential to damage candidate Clinton."

Thirteen Russian nationals and three companies have been charged for their efforts to undermine the election and support Trump. They started their campaign to help Trump in 2014, long before the official start of his campaign.

According to CNN, "former top Trump campaign officials have corroborated special counsel Robert Mueller's finding that the Trump campaign planned some of its strategy around the Russian hacks, and had multiple contacts with Kremlin-linked individuals in 2016."

On February 19, 2020, numerous sources revealed that lawyers for WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange told Westminster Magistrates' Court that Trump had Dana Rohrabacher visit Assange at the Ecuadoran Embassy in London on Aug. 16, 2017. There, he made a quid pro quo offer of a presidential pardon to Assange, in exchange for Assange covering up Russian involvement by declaring that "Russia had nothing to do with the DNC leaks": "[Lawyer] Edward Fitzgerald...said he had evidence that a quid pro quo was put to Assange by Rohrabacher, who was known as Putin's favorite congressman."

Timing of release of hacked emails

Source(s) allege that Carter Page "conceived and promoted" the idea of [the Russians] leaking the stolen DNC emails to WikiLeaks during the 2016 Democratic National Convention for the purpose of swinging supporters of Bernie Sanders "away from Hillary CLINTON and across to TRUMP". (Reports 95, 102)

In July 2016, in an "error-ridden message", WikiLeaks urged Russian intelligence to act swiftly to reach this timeline goal: "If you have anything hillary related we want it in the next tweo days prefable because the DNC is approaching, and she will solidify bernie supporters behind her after."

The leaks started the day before the DNC national convention, a timing that was seen as suspicious by David Shedd, a former Director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, who said: "The release of emails just as the Democratic National Convention is getting underway this week has the hallmarks of a Russian active measures campaign."

Sources

Rodney Reed

Should Reed's prior crimes be mentioned in his article if they have been covered in reliable secondary sources and served as the basis for his death penalty conviction? It is being argued he's not a public figure and thus should be shielded when to the contrary he has gained a lot of media attention willingly and has appeared on Doctor Phil's show and hung out with celebrities like Kim Kardashian in an attempt to promote his case. CaptainPrimo (talk) 22:28, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

The question to ask yourself is two-fold: Was he convicted of those crimes, and were those convictions discussed in reliable sources. If you can answer yes to both those questions, then you have your answer.

When thinking about celebrity status in the context of WP:WELLKNOWN, you have to look at just how much coverage those crimes got. If they were only covered by a few, local newspapers, perhaps even picked up by a few national news outlets, then no. If they are being reported in every newspaper and magazine across the nation, perhaps even getting worldwide coverage, then yes. A person doesn't have to be a movie star to be a celebrity, some are known only for crimes they committed, but simply appearing on Dr. Phil or the Kardashians, for that matter, isn't going to cut it. Zaereth (talk) 23:00, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I think the question may be more complicated than that. Reed was convicted of a rape and murder. The question of his guilt or innocence has become the subject of public debate. Reed had been accused of multiple prior rapes, one of which led to his suspicion in the case for which he was convicted. The question is whether the article should include discussion of the accusations for which he was not convicted.

The issue is well-outlined on the article talk page. Fundamentally, there is a clear consensus that the previous accusations against Reed should be included. Further, Reed is a public figure as a result of the case for which he was convicted alone, if not for the many other reasons cited. Lastly, even if he were not a public figure, that would mean only that "editors must seriously consider" whether such information should be mentioned or not.

Omission of these other incidents would deprive readers of available information that they may, or may not, consider significant in weighing his guilt or innocence in the case in which he was convicted. WP should err on the side of giving its readers available information, and let them find the truth for themselves. Concealing information in the interest of persuading readers should never be condoned. John2510 (talk) 00:00, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is. Going only on the information that I've been provided with here, what you're saying is that he was convicted of a crime, and it has received very widespread coverage in reliable sources, correct? We can report that, no problem. You also seem to be saying that this widespread coverage includes information of past crimes, of which he was only accused, but used as evidence against him. We can report that too. The key factor is that "a" is a subset of "b", and that multiple sources have covered it in that manner. To what detail depends upon the coverage in sources, but we're not gonna cut out a part of the story if it's necessary. Do we report that he was accused of crimes which were used in evidence against him, but not say what those crimes were, or do we go into vivid, gory detail about all of them, or somewhere in between? That depends upon many factors, including just how necessary is it for the reader's understanding, but more importantly it's coverage in RSs.

If you want a more specific response, I'[l need to see diffs, but that won't like happen today. Zaereth (talk) 00:59, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

By the way, I forgot to mention, while I get what you're trying to say, we shouldn't be worried about the truth of the story, nor in whether the reader will judging this person. This is an encyclopedia article and not a court room. All the reader really needs is a summary of the entire story --the gist of it-- and we should leave all boring details to the lawyers. You can't be objective worrying about guilt or innocence. Zaereth (talk) 01:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The basic issue is that Reed was convicted of rape/murder of Stacey Stites and sentenced to death. This received widespread national coverage, which unquestionably warranted Reed getting his own Wikipedia page. The full story of his case has received less coverage (although still reported in a number of reliable secondary sources). The full story is that: (1) the reason he was charged in the first place was that he was currently under investigation for *another* sexual assault charge (for which he was visually IDed), and (2) the reason he was sentenced to death was that the prosecution introduced evidence (during sentencing in the Stites case) that he was responsible for raping a 12-year-old girl (for which he was a DNA match, and I think possibly also a bite mark match?) The prosecution did not pursue these additional charges in court, because he was sentenced to death in the Stites case. One editor on the Rodney Reed page has repeatedly removed all mention of these additional crimes, despite a growing consensus that this information should be included. His argument is that Reed is not a "public figure", even though Reed clearly made himself a "public figure" (as defined for BLPCRIME purposes) when he attempted to become famous (to avoid the death penalty) and succeeded.

There is currently a social movement to exonerate Reed, which is based in large part of the public's ignorance of the other crimes for which he was accused and linked to by visual ID, DNA, etc. It is impossible to accurately tell Reed's story without including the information about the additional crimes for which he was charged. By omitting this information, it makes it more likely that someone would believe that some kind of injustice had occurred. To tell this story without bias, we need to describe why Reed was charged and why he was sentenced to death. Because he was not convicted of these crimes, we need to say "alleged". But this information has to be included in any fair treatment of the material... The reasons why he was charged and sentenced to death are crucial to the story and clearly central to his notability. Bueller 007 (talk) 02:49, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Just a hint, in case it hasn't gotten across, you'd all do much better if you provided links with these posts. Even a link to the article would be wonderful, so a person doesn't have to copy/paste his name and scroll to the top, and... What I'm seeing here resembles a bit of a real-world drama being played out on Wikipedia. Questions of why are always questions of opinion, it askes for a motive and that requires reasoning on the part of the person being asked. There is nothing factual about why, and as such those answers need to be attributed to someone (and that includes variations of why, like "what for" or "how come").

In looking at the article (very briefly) I would say this has received enough coverage to warrant inclusion. Look, when you're convicted of a crime you've lost your right to privacy on the issue. Everything associated with that crime becomes fair game. Now we can't go looking for other crimes he may have been accused of, just for the sake of doing our own invwestigation, but if this is all part of the trial, and has all been reported in RSs, then we can cover it too. But it's a mistake to look at in terms of explaining the "why" and "our readers need to know the truth". That's emotions talking. Be Spock. Forget all the "why"s and "need to"s. Just summarize the info we're given.

But nothing beats seeing the actual text in question, and I don't have time to hunt for it today in the history or scour through the talk page. Links or quotes of the text is worth a thousand posts. Zaereth (talk) 03:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

A reversion of the text in question: [63] The offending text (all of which is referenced to a reliable secondary source) is exactly what I described, and includes: "Local law enforcement already had Reed's DNA on file from a separate ongoing sexual assault investigation in which Reed had been visually and genetically identified as the perpetrator," "Reed had also [claimed that he was in a clandestine sexual relationship with a rape victim] in a previous sexual assault case for which he had been tried and acquitted", "[During sentencing, prosecutors pushed for the death penalty by arguing that Reed was likely to pose a danger in the future based on a history of similar previous cases] in which Reed's DNA matched the perpetrator's, including the rape of a 12-year-old girl," and "Although charged, Reed was never tried in these cases because he had already been convicted of capital murder." The references include: [64][65][66] (although more could be found [67][68]), which have been used elsewhere in the article with no complaints as to their reliability. Bueller 007 (talk) 12:38, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Marcello Ferrada de Noli

Is anyone able and willing to whip this rather extreme article into acceptable shape? I made a few edits but need support here. Many of the sources are primary and/or completely unacceptable, there is editorial overload and commentary in the reference notes, the writing is fluffy and in places resembles a CV in paragraph format--there is a lot. Thank you in advance. Drmies (talk) 22:41, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Bert Richardson (judge)

I would like to dispute the addition of a picture added by CharlesShirley on 03:40, 19 November 2019. (See View History). He replaced the official picture from my campaign website electjudgerichardson.com to the wikipedia page "Bert Richardson (judge)" with a picture that is clearly edited/photoshopped to be unflattering. This was done during very contentious election campaigns between myself and my opponent. I have taken the picture down several times only to have CharlesShirley replace it shortly after. I have since replaced the edited photo submitted by CharlesShirley by the official photo from the campaign website. CharlesShirley is clearly not one of my fans (as made apparent in his comments regarding one of my prior judgements on 03:44, 19 November 2019‎ and 17:14, 8 October 2019‎) which is completely fine. Nevertheless, the posting of and the site's use of unflattering photos for candidates running for election/reelection amidst their campaigns renders any such page to be non-neutral. It's also a mean thing to do. It is my understanding that Wikipedia's policy and mission is to remain an unbiased source of information and knowledge. I believe that these kinds of things violates Wikipedia's ideals and purpose.

Respectfully, Bert Richardson — Preceding unsigned comment added by BertRichardson (talk • contribs) 01:16, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• That photo will not be restored if I can help it, but the one you uploaded has a copyright problem. For now I agree with this edit by Schazjmd. Drmies (talk) 03:21, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Laurie Patton (Australian executive)

Problematic edits by BLP subject

This BLP appears to have been created and maintained by the subject. (Diff admitting this here.) Few of the sources listed are good enough for BLP purposes, and many of them do not support the wording claimed. Not surprisingly, a good deal of the subject's preferred text seems to be puffery.

Where RS are used, the actual stories are either straight media releases by the BLP subject, or relying heavily on same. When the subject issues a press release, has it printed verbatim in a dubiously reliable source, and then uses that to support the text in our BLP, I have difficulty swallowing the accuracy or authenticity of the material.

I don't think there's a problem with notability. The subject seems to have had a role in some niche organisations which are covered in WP, but there are few independent sources to back up the claims made.

There has been some discussion on the talk page, but the subject seems to have ignored all advice on sourcing.

I've removed all inadequately sourced, or BLP non-compliant material, but subject restores it. Rather than get into a slow-motion edit war I'd be grateful for some additional eyes on this piece. --Pete (talk) 09:27, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

• As per some off-wiki evidence, a freelancer (possibly user Mbark22 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)) was hired by Laurie Patton to remove the maintenance tags from his article in May 2019, and I believe there is a case of meatpuppetry. GSS ^💬 11:09, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

B. Wongar

The life and work of this great Australian writer is libelously cathegorised as cultural appropriation and literary forgeries. These cathegorisations are based on the labelling and accusations coming from a few white Australians, based on their politically correct views, which were rejected by Australians, writers and literary critics as well as publishers. The same labelling and accusations never were accepted ouside Australia nor by Australan Aborigines. The best proof of that rejection are numerous literary awards and honors given to him, worldwide and in Australia.

These labeling and accusations were dutifully mentioned earlier and there was no need for any additional text about the same in this biography.

Therefore, in order to comply to WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE we have to remove two last cathegories (appropriation, forgery) and the text supported by references [14]-[17].

Here we have a serious problem with two editors, Joel B. Lewis and David Eppstein. These two were regularly removing valuable improvements of the biography content, name calling anonymous editors (socks), adding a defamatory content to the biography, taking turns in order to force anonymous users into 3RR violations. --212.95.5.173 (talk) 19:05, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

B.Wongar's page has come up before. The sources that question the legitimacy of his writings are high quality RSes , and thus it is inapproprate to remove these as their are DUE coverage for the person. --Masem (t) 19:13, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Scholarly rejected RSs have no quality at all. Those RSs have a zero acceptance internationally. --212.95.5.173 (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

The Guardian and the Age are globally accepted RSes on WP, and you'd need equivalent RSes to show that they are not RSes for this situation. Just arguing "but he's won awards, these sources don't consider those!" is not sufficient. --Masem (t) 19:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

WP acceptance has no merits here. You have to learn that the literary critcism is not a politically correct thinking. Nobel prize winners (Handke, Boll) who wrote forewords to Wongar books are bigger guns as to the literature than the Guardian or Age authors. Australia Senior writer fellowship award is the highest literary award given to any Australian writer, given to Wongar certainly not for forgeries or appropriations. Australian Aborigines are the only owners of their culture, not some Guardian or Age authors. The Aborigines hailed Wongar as one of them. Cleae enough? In addition, here is a long list essays and papers about Wongar’s literature not mentioning appropriations nor forgeries--212.95.5.173 (talk) 19:45, 29 February 2020 (UTC)