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.

Andy Ngo

The lead of this article contains the following disputed paragraph:

In August 2019, footage from May was published showing Ngo with armed Patriot Prayer members prior to an alleged attack on a bar frequented by antifa protesters. Ngo did not film the alleged planning of the attack, but did film parts of the attack itself. Ngo disputes that he was aware of the details of the plan. Following this incident, Ngo left Quillette.

The subject of the article is a journalist in Portland that covers protests. He is somewhat controversial for his criticism of "antifa" and has been called a "conservative journalist" by the New York Times. He was present at an event with a right-wing group called the "Proud Boys." A piece by The Daily Beast was critical of Ngo for this and drew a connection between Ngo and the "Proud Boys," a violent right-wing group, based on his presence at the event. Ngo denied the allegations and said he was covering the event. The Daily Beast article linked Ngo's leaving his job to the publication of this video of him at the event. Quillette, where had worked later "pushed back"[1] against this claim and said that he had been on leave for several months prior due to an injury from being assaulted at another protest.

The current article presents none of this context and repeats a dated, disputed claim (by both Ngo and the publication) that he was fired for his presence at a protest (with his video equipment). Editors have irresponsibly ignored these discrepancies and reinstated the text through edit-warring as it is presented above. This is clearly a BLP violation, both for the insinuations about Ngo being fired and for unduly emphasizing thinly sourced allegations in the lead (multiple other controversies are already addressed -- the lead is compliant with MOS:LEAD and anything but a whitewash). I'd appreciate some feedback here. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

There is already an RfC going about that very paragraph. This is clearly forumshopping because consensus in the RfC is so far trending strongly against you. Notably, none of what you said is the reason anyone has argued for leaving the paragraph in the lede, nor does the lede say he was fired for that incident. The reason for leaving the paragraph in the lede is because it's a notable controversy that involves the subject of the article: we source it to four RSes and there are clearly even more that have been linked on the talk page in the various discussions about this. This is all stuff I've said over at the RfC, for the record, so I know you're aware of it. Loki (talk) 00:59, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

I think there is a very legitimate reason to bring this up here (and/or NPOVN). There are several issues related to the material in the lead that are a problem. The first is a question of DUE with the assumption that the coverage of material in the lead is meant to be roughly proportional with the coverage in the body (that makes it a NPOV question).

Second is does the specific mention of this question follow any sort of summary style? Just look at the conclusions drawing from the appearance of Ngo in that video. The conclusions ranged from Ngo is too cozy with the right and ignores their sins while concentrating on the sins of the left to Ngo is actively collaborating with the far-right. For argument sake, assume Ngo is actively collaborating. Then the summary that should be in the lead is the view that "Ngo is collaborating with far-right groups". The supporting evidence is the video, statements by far-right members, examples of bias in his reporting etc.

Third, and this is the BLP issue, is the video is being used as evidence that Ngo is did "something wrong". Perhaps he did but we should never leave the reader making assumptions. We don't say "Mr Smith was found with the bloody knife" if the body then says "the significance of the Knife is disputed". In the body of the article it's clear that the significance/meaning of the video is disputed by Ngo (and others is also disputed). However, that dispute is being excluded from the lead. Thus the lead is implying Ngo is doing "something wrong" without presenting the counter evidence which is saved for the body. That is a BLP issue, an IMPARTIAL issue (wikipedia picking sides) and a NPOV issue (not presenting both sides at the same time).

Really, we should spend less time fighting over the lead and just get the body right. Once the body is done correctly it should be easy (or easier) to agree on a summary for a section then add that to the lead. The supporting facts/evidence shouldn't be in the lead (per WP:INTRO), rather it should be the high level summary of events and views. Yes, there is an issue here but honestly it's more about NPOV than BLP. Springee (talk) 01:22, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

If there is an RfC then it is unwise to split discussion by bringing it here in this way. It would be fine to leave a neutral notification about the RfC, but further discussion should be directed the RfC. This includes any description of alleged problems with the wording (e.g. what's in the opening comment here). It is confusing to everyone involved when discussion on the exact same paragraph is taking place in 2 different places and also not fair to existing participants of the RfC if editors go to it and start addressing points that were never raised in the RfC and so participants cannot respond to within the RfC. Nil Einne (talk) 03:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: Users have refused to address these factual inaccuracies and clear BLP problems with the content. A small number of editors have made comments openly disparaging the subject (he is politically controversial) and dismissed these concerns. There is a need for specialized attention on the BLP issues here that is not being given at the RfC. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 10:28, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: If an RfC comes to a conclusion, some random comments here are going to achieve zilch. As I said, if you feel participation from BLPN editors would be useful, it's fine to leave a neutral notification here to invitation people to participate. That actually has a chance of changing the outcome of the RfC. Splitting discussion here will not and just wastes everyone's time. Nil Einne (talk) 11:58, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: This concerns a pattern of editors repeatedly adding inaccurate and thinly sourced information into the lead of an article that predates the RfC, which is only about minor wording and placement changes. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:09, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Wikieditor19920: except that your opening comment was specifically about the exact same paragraph that is being discussions at the RFC rather than about any other problems with the lead. Also it's generally a bad idea to raised behavioural concerns at BLPN. Please take that to ANI or WP:ARE. Nil Einne (talk) 12:34, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: The RfC glosses over the inaccuracy of the content and asks about placement. This content obviously fails verification and is still being repeatedly reinserted into the article. The comments by editors are indicative of why the issue hasn't been addressed adequately at the talk page and why the input of BLPN is needed. I'm not singling out any user. I am raising a specific issue that is not currently addressed by the RfC and that's wholly within the scope of BLPN. Instead of bickering with me about the RfC, feel free to weigh in on the specific issue I raised re: the article, otherwise this is just wasting space. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:21, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, no, the subject is not a journalist, it's Andy Ngo, a right-wing provocateur. That's part of the problem: concerted efforts over many months to try to frame him as a legitimate and independent reporter, when he clearly is not. He's a reporter in the same way Michael Moore is a reporter. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:40, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG:, here we go, more ranting against about Andy Ngo, now by an admin. The New York Times called him a journalist[2] along with the majority of other sources (including Vox, the Washington Post), so I suggest brushing up on those. He has also been described as a "provocateur" and other negative labels. As I said, he is politically controversial. That is not the issue here.

The issue here is that the article is putting undue emphasis on factually inaccurate claims. An article suggested something—that Ngo was fired from Quillette—that was later repudiated by both Quillette and Ngo. They said he was on leave months before the made-up controversy ever broke out. It fails WP:V and therefore WP:BLP to present the former account as the text above does. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 11:44, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, no, not ranting, just a comment.

I wonder, is there something going on in the outside world that would account for this sudden massive increase in pressure to represent fringe right-wing figures and concepts as if they were part of legitimate civil discourse? I might go and check the news. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

If you have an interest in the WP:V and WP:BLP issue I raised, I would welcome your input. If you want to turn this into a political debate and make bad-faith accusations, maybe this isn't the place. Thanks. Whether or not he is a fringe or mainstream figure, claims in the article mainpage must meet WP:V and WP:BLP. That's a fundamental policy. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 12:39, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, There is an inaccuracy in the opening statement. The Daily Beast does not mention the Proud Boys in the article cited, they only mention Patriot Prayer, a regional group tied to the Pacific Northwest. The Proud Boys and Patriot Prayer are separate groups with individual leaders and distinct histories. Although there is crossover with members of Patriot Prayer also being affiliated with the Proud Boys, the same is not true in reverse. For a contentious article such as this one, accuracy is especially important. Please remember to use the strike-through function when editing corrections to your own comments after there have been replies. Thank you, Cedar777 (talk) 20:29, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Bill Wackermann

Bill Wackermann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, This is Bill Wackermann. I have no experience editing Wiki pages or my pages for that matter but there appears to be certain individuals whom I worked with at my position as former CEO of Wilhelmina models who are adding untrue, biased and misleading information on my wikipedia page, in attempts to damage my reputation and career. These citations are from either unsourced gossip pages (page 6, NY POST) and reflect opinion rather than relevant fact. I could use your help here.

For example:

"before being fired while on a morale-building Caribbean cruise for Condé Nast sales in November 2015."[5][6][7][8][9]

Additionally, These are a biased narrative that bears no relevance to contains untrue and career damaging misinformation. In mid-2019 five employees left the women's division of Wilhelmina for Supreme, an Elite Model Management company.[27] Wilhelmina sued the five women's division employees over non-compete clauses, which was dismissed by the judge.[28][29] After the "court drama" Wackermann's "number two", VP Taylor Hendrich, and four other employees left the men's division and joined The Society Management, also part of Elite, though this was initially denied by Wackermann.[30]

Linked to these departures, in October 2019 Bill Wackermann's employment contract was not renewed for its two-year term. He resigned as CEO in January 2020.[31][32][33][34][32]

Nor, am I married. Wackermann holds a B.A. in English from Villanova University in 1989[1][4] and has three children with his wife, Regina Toth Wackermann.[4] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.56.139.178 (talk) 00:15, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Some of this was easily solved as the sources were unreliable even if the content were true, that much has all been removed.

The other content you wish to remove is sourced adequately enough that it should likely stay unless it’s proved to be false. That you are no longer married for instance, would then be reflected. Glee^anon 02:31, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Gleeanon409 is incorrect, if I understand them correctly. The content about the "firing" is apparently lifted from the NYPost, but the article does not cite to this, because it is a tabloid, and cites to sources that actually do not support the contested description. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:23, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

@96.56.139.178: I've removed the content about the circumstances of the firing that the article mentioned. The reason I did so is because it was not supported by the provided citations. On Wikipedia, we don't use tabloids, so there is insufficient sourcing to support the material. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 22:26, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikieditor19920, I removed, or thought I did, everything sourced to NY Post/Page Six. Glee^anon 22:36, 19 October 2020 (UTC)

You did, but what's left to support it? I didn't see the remaining sources mentioning the details noted in the Post. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 01:23, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

I believe I had verified that it was true, but I probably overlooked ensuring we had the correct sourcing in place.

I added the sourcing when I restored that last round of content. Glee^anon 01:42, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Can other editors read reference [4]? It doesn't show me anything. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: The link doesn't work but I found an archived copy at https://web.archive.org/web/20200726225853/https://www1.villanova.edu/content/villanova/unicommunication/publications/magazine/jcr:content/pagecontent/download_16/file.res/VN_Spring2005.pdf. Seems to support the things it's used to reference. Neiltonks (talk) 12:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, very helpful. It does indeed support most of what it is used for, but it doesn't (and can't) support the statement that Regina Toth Wackermann is his current wife, which he (or at least the IP claiming to be him) denies above. So I will change this to "has three children with Regina Toth Wackermann.[4]" for now. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 13:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

@Jonathan A Jones: That's true, an article from 2005 can only attest that he was married at that point, it can't say anything about subsequent events. Neiltonks (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

96.56.139.178, we are frequently trolled by individuals who claim to be the subject of existing wikipedia articles, or mentioned in wikipedia articles, and then make requests for revisions. Gleeanon409 told you the material that concerned you that obviously problematic had been dealt with.

I think that is as far as we should go, until you confirm you are the actual real-life Bill Wasserman. We have a procedure for you to do this safely. We have a committee of individuals entrusted to confirm the real life identity of individuals like you. Please open a ticket in our confidential OTRS ticket system with an email to info-en@wikimedia.org

I suggest to my fellow contributors here that we ignore all requests from you until OTRS reports back that they have confirmed you are the actual real-life Bill Wasserman. Geo Swan (talk) 21:25, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Sukavich Rangsitpol

He is Education Reform.There are many false accusations in his biography but none of his achievements in Education Reform.He founded education institute for 4.53 Millions poor children in Thailand aged between 3-17 during his position as Minister of Education.

Minister for Education (1995–1997)

Rangsitpol was appointed Minister of Education. His challenge was for Thailand to achieving educational excellence by the year 2007. During his two -year tenure,Rangsitpol launched education reforms between 1995-1997 .

The goal of the education reform is to realize the potential of Thai people to develop themselves for a better quality of life and to develop the nation for a peaceful co-existence in the global community.

The Reform Program of 1996. A sense that major changes are needed in education is reflected in the recently introduced "reform program". It is built around four major improvements:

• improving the physical state of schools
• upgrading the quality of teachers
• reforming learning and teaching methods
• streamlining administration

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/605431468777588612/text/multi-page.txt

According to UNESCO, Thailand education reform 1996 has led to the following results:

1)Free12 years education for all children provided by the government. This program was added to the 1997 Constitution of Thailand and gave access to all citizens.

2)Since 1996, first grade students have been taught English as a second or foreign language and computer literacy.

3)The educational budget increased from 133 billion baht in 1996 to 163 billion baht in 1997 (22.5% increase)

4)Professional advancement from teacher level 6 to teacher level 7 without having to submit academic work for consideration was approved by the Thai government.

5) Thailand has implemented School-based management (SBM) policy in 1997 to overcoming a profound crisis in the education system.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Decentralisation-And-School-Based-Management-In-Gamage-Sooksomchitra/73d67d185318eaf95a227b8bfb297d2bd6b26750

Establish effective Provincial Education Councils with strong community membership. The purpose of decentralization is to ensure that local education needs are met, there should be a close relationship between community representatives and officials . Thus, decentralization will require a careful balance between the guidance of community selected representatives and government officials. To representing local needs and priorities.

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/605431468777588612/text/multi-page.txt

Proposed deletion of biographies of living people

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard?fbclid=IwAR24G4Dq68aeAHwjZxFS--1TOtxmFalxsghiz3tn2PjFE3Zk9oi6MHf0KZA#/editor/17 He brought Education to 4.53 Poor Thai Children his achievements is not in his negative article on political lies .

The editors are repeatedly adding defamatory or libelous material to articles about living people over an extended period.

1) He won the deformation case it should not be in his biography.

https://www.uzo.net/bnnj/meisai.php?id=4075&fbclid=IwAR12GVFvDrqTSJiEtiydRX5vvaaFjVSYHiC7X-0A0tRUYR7z3k_ije_xLgU

He sue the accusation (Mr.Archom). He was the only person that accused Rangsitpol during no-confidence vote 1997.

Thailand has implemented School-based management (SBM) policy in 1997 to overcoming a profound crisis in the education system.

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Decentralisation-And-School-Based-Management-In-Gamage-Sooksomchitra/73d67d185318eaf95a227b8bfb297d2bd6b26750

School based management system allow schools to buy their own supplies. Mr.Archom probably didn’t know about it and told a lie in the parliament. He was sued by Rangsitpol and lost .

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sukavich_Rangsitpol

2) LGBTS accusation and 100 million bath accusation base on one faked News from one English Newspaper.

While World Bank and UNESCO had the Achievements from Education Reform 1996. He who founded school for 4.53 millions Thai Children in Thailand On 18 June 1997 he found 50 Education Institutes.

https://en.m.wikisource.org/wiki/Translation:Announcement_of_the_Ministry_of_Education_dated_18_June_1997

I assumed he may not see the Newspaper accusations.He may sue them later on that is why only English literature use it as the reference.

Thai Wikipedia also use English Reference.It is the evidence that it is a political lies and do not exist in reality.2403:6200:89A7:7CAF:9D03:7FFF:F008:C1D (talk) 03:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

References

If something is covered in reliable sources, we cannot exclude it under the assumption the person doesn't speak English and so isn't aware of the claim and hasn't sued or complained to the reliable source. I had a look at the Worldbank thing and I don't see any relevant mention of Sukavich Rangsitpol. Another of you sources is just an announcement. If we are going to add achievements to the article on Sukavich Rangsitpol, we need sources which specifically tie those achievements to Sukavich Rangsitpol. It's been over 20 years since he was minister so if the the advances in the Thai education system are widely considered to have come in part from the reforms initiated by Sukavich Rangsitpol, this should be noted in sources, frankly both English and Thai ones. About the scandal, if there was a significant scandal that received a lot of attention, we will generally still cover it even if later investigations showed no wrong doing. We would also mention that the person was cleared. Nil Einne (talk) 12:57, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/605431468777588612/text/multi-page.txt

The 1996 Reforms use to be Sukavich Rangsitpol Reform but not today The document1.

The person who accused him in the parliament was sue by the subject of the article and was lost

https://www.uzo.net/bnnj/meisai.php?id=4075&fbclid=IwAR12GVFvDrqTSJiEtiydRX5vvaaFjVSYHiC7X-0A0tRUYR7z3k_ije_xLgU

He was minister between 1995-1997 ,the achievements in 1996 is his achievements.I do not know why someone recently changed the information.

Sukavich Rangsitpol, launched a series of education reforms in 1995 with the intention of the education reform is to realize the potential of Thai people to develop themselves for a better quality of life and to develop the nation for a peaceful co-existence in the global community.

https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jcrdaen/1/1/1_KJ00006742072/_pdf It was the Education Reform Thailand uses until Education Act 19992403:6200:89A7:7CAF:5979:5422:741A:E64B (talk) 00:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

2014

https://books.google.com/books/about/Citizenship_for_the_21st_Century.html?hl=th&id=8Gt9AwAAQBAJ

According to John Cogan (Professor of Education, University of Minnesota, USA) and Derricott, Ray (Director, Centre for Continuing Education, University of Liverpool) · 2014 in Citizenship for the 21st Century: An International Perspective on Education, His Excellency Mr.Sukavich Rangsitpol saw education as "the instrument for human development, creating peace for mankind and national security" 2403:6200:89A7:7CAF:5979:5422:741A:E64B (talk) 01:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Chris Hardwick

The article contains three large paragraphs about abuse allegations from his ex, almost half of the article's text is about that which is really WP:UNDUE especially for something that was alleged and unproven. Also WP:NOTNP. Not every single event or statement regarding this issue has to be detailed at length. I removed statements from his backers and detractors, made it so we just have the facts and the investigations from his employers as well as statements from Hardwick and Dykstra (his ex). However an editor reverted it. I think that this version is reasonable and uncontroversial. --2607:FEA8:1160:2236:5DAB:4BC1:DE43:3453 (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree that the detail is excessive, especially character commentary by people not involved in the allegations. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:34, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you. The current version is still a bit lengthy but at least it covers valid information without reading like an overdetailed news report. --2607:FEA8:1160:2236:9CBD:EEE9:C56C:F9C5 (talk) 06:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

This is an interesting case. Credible and serious accusations were made. Two different employers conducted investigations and both found no support for the claims. The accuser implies this is because she didn’t participate in the investigations. He has been returned to all of his prior roles and the “case” is closed and never involved a legal investigation. Given this, it seems that the title of the subheading should somehow indicate that the accusations were never confirmed or verified? This section is also quite long considering the outcome and lack of confirmation. Go4thProsper (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard#Great Barrington Declaration

In Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Great_Barrington_Declaration, there is a reference to a living person as a pet which violates WP:LBL that was added in revision 984620411. I tried to reverted twice but it was re-added again twice by two different users. I discussed the reason why it is considered WP:LBL with one of them on my talk page User_talk:Knowledge_Contributor0#Undo_at_Fringe_Theories, but the other user was not convinced. I believe it is libel and removed it based on the definition in WP:LBL "It is the responsibility of all contributors to ensure that the material posted on Wikipedia is not defamatory. It is a Wikipedia policy to delete libelous material when it has been identified.". The definition of Defamation is "Defamation (also known as calumny, vilification, libel, slander or traducement) is the oral or written communication of a false statement about another that unjustly harms their reputation and usually constitutes a tort or crime.". Now is it a false statement? Yes. Does it harm a human being to call him/her an animal? Yes because it is Dehumanization that does harm to the person's reputation. Is it just? No, because the living person didn't stand trial to defend against that description. Therefore it fits the definition of WP:LBL and should be removed immediately without discussion according to WP:BLPREMOVE.

The user argued that calling Richard I "Lionheart" is not defamatory and I argued back that calling Richard I "Lionheart" with the implication of courage doesn't "unjustly harms their reputation" as courage is good reputation. Unlike describing a person as a pet which implies that the person acts willingly like an animal with no mind or willingly accepting being treated that way. Now in law, "Defamation refers to harming another person’s reputation by making a false written or oral statement about that person to a third party. Defamation law is not about protecting pride; it is about protecting reputation and offering restitution to people whose reputations have been wrongly damaged." and "A publication is defamatory only if a defamatory sense is conveyed to an ordinary person.". Since describing Richard I "Lionheart" didn't damage his reputation and won't be conveyed by an ordinary person in defamatory, it cannot be considered libel. While calling a person a pet aims at doing harm to their reputation and can be conveyed to an ordinary person in defamatory sense.

Th other user raised the argument that this was the protected opinion of the editor, but I replied the causing harm to another person's reputation is not protected. In addition, editors should not write their own opinions about living persons without reliable sources which warrant applying WP:BLPREMOVE. Please let me know if my judgement here is wrong. Thank you. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 07:12, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

I am, in fact, the other user here. I have some thoughts, but am happy to hear what others think. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 07:23, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Knowledge Contributor0, that's a novel interpretation of BLP. To refer to someone as AEIR's "pet zoologist" (or "tame zoologist" or similar construction) is a normal rhetorical device that reinforces the fact that AEIR is not an honest broker and has gone out deliberately to find an expert that supports is pre-existing beliefs, rather than to formulate a policy based on the best evidence. This process, usually known as policy-based evidence-making, is one of the signature characteristics of think-tanks so the claim is not particularly controversial.

Removing the entire comment is unwarranted. Asking the user to choose a different phrase would be fine., Go do that instead. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:38, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@JzG: Saying that AEIR is not an honest broker and has gone out deliberately to find an expert is a personal opinion with no secondary RS to support it. And even if there was a RS that supports it in case of Sunetra Gupta, this won't explain the case for other signers/co-signers of the declaration which means that these scientists sought each other not being sought by AEIR, which makes this unfounded original research. Also, saying that AIER didn't sought policy based on best evidence implies that we know the best evidence but this will require the support of systematic review or again we will be doing original research. So, the claim itself violates WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:SYNC, and WP:NPOV. Now based on that claim that didn't have any WP:RS, some contentious description about a living person was published that is likely to be challenged (at least by the living person if not other Wikipedia editors like me) and potentially libelous. Since some people may not share the same belief in that claim, their view about the meaning will be different and will consider it defamation. Furthermore, even those who share the belief in the claim wouldn't hold the context as positive view instead it is a negative view that implies that that the living person is so naïve that she can be used by others or worse if she is aware and agreeing to this. In all cases it harms the living person's reputation and falls under the definition of false statement that causes harm to the person's reputation.

Now according to WP:BLP, an editor should be very firm and should remove it without waiting for discussion "We must get the article right. Be very firm about the use of high-quality sources. All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged must be supported by an inline citation to a reliable, published source. Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion.". And the Template:Infobox_person states "All content displayed in this template must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy if applicable. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately from the article and its infobox, especially if potentially libellous." Also according to WP:BLPREMOVE "Remove immediately any contentious material about a living person that:

1. is unsourced or poorly sourced;
2. is an original interpretation or analysis of a source, or a synthesis of sources (see No original research);
3. relies on self-published sources, unless written by the subject of the BLP (see #Using the subject as a self-published source); or
4. relies on sources that fail in some other way to meet verifiability standards.".

So, I acted according to policy given that the removed content didn't just satisfy one of the conditions but satisfied almost all of them. If all what is written in the policies doesn't indicate that these should be removed, then the policies should be changed to use lesser tone that allow the editors to express their opinions about living persons more freely and not call for immediate removal. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Knowledge Contributor0, that's a novel interpretation of BLP. To refer to someone as AEIR's "pet zoologist" (or "tame zoologist" or similar construction) is a normal rhetorical device that reinforces the fact that AEIR is not an honest broker and has gone out deliberately to find an expert that supports is pre-existing beliefs, rather than to formulate a policy based on the best evidence. This process, usually known as policy-based evidence-making, is one of the signature characteristics of think-tanks so the claim is not particularly controversial.

Removing the entire comment is unwarranted. Asking the user to choose a different phrase would be fine., Go do that instead Guy (help! - typo?) 07:05, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

@Knowledge Contributor0: Your judgement here is wrong. GPinkerton (talk) 07:34, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: Please elaborate. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

There are many flaws in your logic. 1.) Humans are in fact animals. 2.) The only reliable source for an editor's opinion is the editor themselves. 3.) A person's opinion is protected under free speech. 4.) And biggest of all, the definition of "pet" in this context is: "Something a person devotes unusual attention, kindness to, or consideration for, or that they feel strongly about; a darling." (ie: my pet project; pet peeve; pet theory; teacher's pet; etc...) This was the original meaning, coming from the sense of a "favorite child". The use of the word for a domesticated animal with no utilitarian use (other than being a favorite) comes much later, followed even later by the use of the term for "stroking or rubbing".

In this context the term is obviously being used with the older meaning in mind. Context is everything. And even if it were being used in the sense of an animal, it would still be a huge stretch to call that libel, but that is not the case here, so that argument is moot. Zaereth (talk) 08:22, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• @Zaereth: 1.) Biologically, there are different species Homo Sapiens, and legally animals has less rights and lack mental capacity. 2.) Not according to Template:Infobox_person which states "All content displayed in this template must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy if applicable. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material must be removed immediately from the article and its infobox, especially if potentially libellous.". So the editor's claim about what they meant is not enough as the most important part is how it was perceived. This is in line with the legal definition mentioned above "conveyed to an ordinary person in defamatory sense". 3.) Not according to WP:BLP, WP:OR, WP:STICKTOSOURCE WP:SYNC, and WP:NPOV. 4.) No, the context as mentioned above by Guy is implying that AIER used her which is defamatory claim as I explained in my reply above.

Now if the meaning is perceived in the sense of an animal, it is clearly libel as it accurately fits the definition of defamation explained above. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

• Knowledge Contributor0 is a WP:SPA who has now has started sections on the Great Barrington Declaration at two noticeboards (RS/N and here), is arguing at FT/N that this Declaration is not covered by WP:FRINGE and whose first edit was to add a problematic "Support" section[3] to the article itself before a WP:BLUELOCK was applied. All of this appear to be getting no traction, but is consuming a great deal of editors' time because of apparent WP:IDHT issues, while contributing zero knowledge to the Project. Alexbrn (talk) 12:17, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • I don't know if that's true or not. A look at their contributions do show mostly edits to various noticeboards, and a handful to this subject. I guess you could say this is their pet subject. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) But you could have said the same for me when I was new, because I picked one article to use as my learning experience, and stuck with it when it was the most controversial article at the time, before ever deciding to branch out into other areas. The difference I think is, it was a subject I was fairly knowledgeable about but didn't really care that much about, in a topic area that I truly despise (Politics! Eeew! Yuck! Gross! Ahhh, get it off! Get it off!) That's what I always suggest to newcomers, is pick something you're not very passionate about to begin with. It makes learning so much easier when you come as a student rather than a teacher. Zaereth (talk) 19:39, 21 October 2020 (UTC)
  • @Alexbrn: As User:Zaereth mentioned (thanks by the way), I made only one edit to Great Barrington Declaration and two minor edits right after and this was it. The fact that there was a section for Great Barrington Declaration in WP:FT/N is not something I added and questioning the lack of secondary sources is more interest in Wikipedia policies than interest in the article itself. The fact that this is my "pet" article as User:Zaereth mentioned is due to the fact that the amount violations (in my opinion) to Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines in this article is overwhelming. For example, after this discussion I will move to discuss calling living persons idiots in Talk:Great_Barrington_Declaration#Organizing_the_Reception_section. Actually the main reason I contributed to the article the first time was the note that on the page that it violated WP:DUE. So if I have a purpose, it is mainly enhancing Wikipedia's controversial articles by trying to reach consensus on the content in light of the policies and guidelines. It just happened that the discussions related to the first article almost took all my time.

Accusing me that I have "apparent WP:IDHT issues" is not true, as any person who looks at WP:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Clarification_about_applying_WP:IAR_for_interviews_done_by_Daily_Mail_on_Great_Barrington_Declaration_due_to_lack_of_media_coverage can clearly see that I took the time to discuss the argument of every person who took the time to respond and at the end went with the majority opinion even though this was not an official WP:RFC. But I seek consensus and collaboration not an edit war. Also accusing me that I contribute "zero knowledge to the Project" is not true. Actually I can claim that I contributed the most WP:RS to every section I edited even though they are noticeboards but I always try to express my view in the discussion based on WP:RS to avoid any bias. I can claim that always assumed good faith WP:GF and never attacked a person, and my discussions were always about contents and policies not the persons, despite being attacked as a person more than one time so the claim that I am wasting time is also not true. I applied Wikipedia's spirit of being bold WP:BB and I really don't see that discussing Wikipedia:Policies_and_guidelines is waste of time. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

GPinkerton, even a cursory glance at Oxford Department of Zoology research and staff, and Gupta's published works, shows that your characterization of her in the edit is widely inappropriate. If you wish to continue to question her qualifications or motivations you should do so with reliable sources and focused on article content decisions. fiveby(zero) 14:32, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

• • • Wise words. Alexbrn (talk) 19:45, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Fiveby -- your comment would be incisive and meaningful if GPinkerton had questioned anyone's qualifications or motivations. Because they did not, I declare it a bad take and you should feel bad for having posted it.Stricken because apparently my reading of GPinkerton's commentary was incorrect. Mea culpa. Cheers. Dumuzid (talk) 14:37, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@Fiveby: Well I glanced at it cursorily and I don't agree. I refer you to the comments of Rupert Beale, quoted and cited in the article, who describes Gupta as "someone who has a track record of saying stuff that is total rubbish, and then moving on to the next thing which is total rubbish, and she's not being held to account. That makes people pretty annoyed." and "That's everyone being polite … What everyone really thinks is, 'this is all fucking stupid'." In any case, Knowledge Contributor0 is only raising this here because of not getting their way with citing swathes of the article to the Daily Mail on the talk page, and then again in the various fora in which they have tried to air their grievance about this already. Knowledge Contributor0 is in any case a SPA, as noted above, and worse if you ask me. GPinkerton (talk) 14:53, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

@GPinkerton: The proposal I made was in WP:GF and was based on the advice of an admin. I don't see any problem if a proposal gets rejected, as the matter is about collaboration to make articles better not WP:WINNING. I don't think you can prove this unfair claim you made about me, and I hope you follow WP:AVOIDYOU and focus on the content we are discussing not on my person. Knowledge Contributor0 (talk) 06:51, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Dilip Ghosh (politician)

Removal/Reversal of this edit as per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:NOTDIARY and WP:UNDUE. Previously, in this discussion, admin Johnuniq also termed these edit typical gotcha nonsense and suggested to report the subject here. -- Manasbose ^{(talk | contribs)} 09:03, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Chen Quanguo

I'm concerned over recent editing by Pasdecomplot, who was TBanned from BLPs for three months back in June as an arbitration enforcement action by El C (see log here), at the article Chen Quanguo. Shortly after their TBan expired, Pasdecomplot arrived at this article and started making a series of edits, focussing on the subject's time as the top Chinese official in Tibet.

• First series of edits
• Second series of edits
• Third series of edits
• Fourth and final series of edits

I'm concerned that the article, a WP:BLP, has essentially become a WP:COATRACK about the Chinese government's treatment of Tibet and its people.

• The section on his time in Tibet, by far the longest in the article, contains very little biographical content, and a great deal about protests (including self-immolation) against the regime.
• Amongst the sources that have been added are reliable news sources, but there are also various Tibetan campaigning groups; some of these are attributed in-line, but that has not been done rigorously.
• There are assertions which, while not entirely unrelated to the subject, aren't specific. For example, In Tibet, 156 monks, nuns, and ordinary people self-immolated between 2009 and 2019. I don't doubt that this is true, but Chen was in Tibet from 2011 to 2016 - there's nothing to say how many actually took place within his tenure, or even whether they were protesting specifically against Chen and his policies rather than the regime in general.
• There is rather POV language, such as self-immolation being widely seen (WP:WEASEL) as an offering by the self-immolators of their bodies to show the world how badly Tibet is suffering.
• There is language like During Chen's tenure, Tibet's ethnic majority has been swamped... - 'swamped' is a word that I associate with xenophobia and racism - it makes me uncomfortable seeing it used in Wikipedia's voice.

I have no interest in whitewashing the profile of a Chinese government official, and I am not necessarily questioning the veracity of the content that has been added; however, I am concerned that this article has effectively been hijacked, and is now a protest page, with more content about the regime in Tibet than there is biographical detail about its subject. I haven't edited it myself, and would like others' views on the best way to proceed. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:53, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a tricky one, while Quanguo’s actions in Xinjiang and Tibet have been objectively evil I think theres a fair question about how much to put on the person and how much to put on the larger political structures. This is the same issue we have with Nazi, Soviet, Khmer Rouge, etc officials and we should use our experience dealing with those figures to inform how we treat the CCP and the officials associated with their campaigns of ethnic cleansing, cultural genocide, and acts of genocide. Horse Eye's Back (talk) 16:10, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi. WP states a previous ban should not be used to basically create prejudice, which makes this topic's opening slightly problematic: ...who was TBanned from BLPs for three months back in June as an arbitration enforcement.... The BLP topic ban came not from edits on the actual pages, but for trying to build CON on talk, to add RS and info in the Killing of George Floyd (specifically the dragging sequence of his body by police). CON was not achieved, and I received the ban.

• That aside, what seems most concerning is that this topic was opened by an experienced editor, @Girth Summit, before they read the RS - on a BLP. Perhaps, if that has been done, the somewhat equivocating statements, such as I don't doubt that this is true and There are assertions which, while not entirely unrelated to the subject... and I have no interest in whitewashing the profile of a Chinese government official, and I am not necessarily questioning the veracity of the content that has been added; however... could not have been made.
• Perhaps, the most important point is that the bio subject, Chen Quanguo, is inseparable from his policies and from the Chinese government and from its regime. This might be what is confusing the editor, as in ...Chen and his policies rather than the regime in general especially since the editor states, I haven't edited it myself.... The subject is Chen's Career in Tibet. A biography includes the subject's work and policies as a reflection of the subject. Chen was the Chinese government's rep and the CPC leader in Tibet, during his tenure. As such, the contributions are focused on Chen's biography in Tibet, and are biographical details based around the info already in the section.

• To address the equivocating statements and other concerns, I began editing Chen Quanguo by providing 's in the Tibet section - locating, then adding the missing citations for other editors work (a good general practice).
• After re-reading the page & bio info, I later contributed by filling in notable biographical details - adding RS, text - to existing info on the page: #'s of police sought; details of 'convenience stations'; statement from Chen on his police focus in Tibet; additional RS on self -immolations; RS & balance to the economic report.
• Also, since the bio text mentions policing, RS and info on policing thru the notable 'double-household management system' was added.
• The text added is per RS, except for Chen's statement from HRW, noted inline. The ICT source is also noted inline, via RS Outside Magagine. Since ICT report is cited and analyzed (see quotation on page) by Outside, the ref to the report is added as a courtesy. Thus, the editor's concern with consistency isn't clear.
• The words 'offering their bodies' and 'swamped' are directly from RS - Outside and The Economist, respectively. Again, a previous review of the RS would have dispelled those specific concerns.
• Other RS and text not yet included in the page would be the highly notable events at Larung Gar and Tibetan political re-education camps, during Chen's tenure. (Background: Chen's recent press coverage is related to a leak on his camps, Xinjiang papers, therefore his earlier bio/work in Tibet is also getting press.)
• In regards to self-immolation during Chen's years: Multiple RS agrees they increased after he took office; still looking for an RS analysis (lots of others), but the ICT report includes the info on his tenure - the majority of the self-immolations. (Obviously, the concern about citing dates and total numbers of self-immolations is an issue that belongs on the subject's talk page.)
• The editor's statement 'swamped' is a word that I associate with xenophobia and racism is interesting and curious. The RS found for the economic section are published accounts by very reputable RS whereby racism is indicated as used by Chen/CPC as policy. As tough of a subject as it is, the RS speaks for itself and Wikipedia's voice goes where solid, carefully included RS leads per BLP guidelines, without censure.

• So, the concern seems to mistake Chen as separate from Chinese policy, and mistake biography as separate from career, via the statement ...this article has effectively been hijacked, and is now a protest page, with more content about the regime in Tibet than there is biographical detail about its subject. To rephrase the issues, Chen was the "Chinese government" "regime" and his biographical details illustrate the "regime", and himself.
• As a related issue, another editor misrepresented BLP issues earlier [4] then wrongly cited WP:COATTAIL (which doesn't exist), then COATRACK for ONLY the Dalai Lama RS and statement on self-immolation as "cultural genocide". That editor reverted, twice [5] [6]; the reverter was directed to stop reverting at related pages, including Self-immolation protests by Tibetans in China, Chen Quanguo, and Ngawa Tibetan and Qiang Autonomous Prefecture. Two days later, COATRACK is being cited by another editor that hasn't even edited the page...

It seems as if this entire topic could have been brought to talk on the BLP page, without argument, where an earlier attempt to talk was unanswered. I suggest the topic be closed on the Noticeboard, and redirected to talk on the page. Thank you for your time and attention. (Was 17:18+/- (UTC), Signed late, no autosign, I guess) Pasdecomplot (talk) 18:28, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot you forgot to sign your post. I'm not going to get into a point-to-point rebuttal of your lengthy post, because I want to allow others to give their views rather than have this turn into a discussion between the two of us - I genuinely want to know what others think. Briefly though, there are a few points I'd like to mention:

• I didn't bring up your recent TBan to stigmatise you, but I do think that it's relevant context given that it expired just a few days prior to your beginning to work on this article.
• I didn't start a discussion on the article talk page because, as an uninvolved administrator with concerns about this content, I wanted to get the eyes and opinions of people experienced in dealing with BLP issues, which is what this noticeboard is for. I did not want to become involved, in an administrative or editorial sense, on the article.
• Above, you say that I mistake Chen as separate from Chinese policy - I suspect that gets to the heart of the problem. It is necessary to separate Chen from Chinese policy; that's not to say that we do not mention criticism of Chinese policy anywhere in our article about him, but to turn an article about an individual person into an article about protests against the Chinese regime does our readers a disservice.
• Also above, you imply that there is something suspicious in my raising WP:COATRACK concerns after someone else you have been in conflict raised them (you even emphasise the point with an ellipsis at the end of your post as a rhetorical flourish). Have you considered whether, rather than being evidence of some malfeasance or collusion on our part, that might simply be because there are good faith concerns there, which two people quite independently share?

I'm going to end it there - I would appreciate third opinions on whether my concerns about the page are valid and, if so, what the best way to address them is. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:50, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

To reply to the additional points by @Girth Summit

• WP does not give levels of importance to the time lags of days or months after the end of a ban and the beginning of edits to modify policy on prejudice.
• The instructions on the noticeboard state to not bring topics if they can be resolved without argument; bringing them to talk would be the first step; admins use talk.
• Chen is a person, but the section deals with his Career while head of CPC in Tibet, which is inseparable from China's government. The opinion that the article has somehow strayed from a biography is curious, while the interpretation that its reputable RS which criticise Chen's CPC policies in Tibet turn the article about an individual person into an article about protests against the Chinese regime does our readers a disservice is not well founded. Readers decide for themselves; They are provided with a range of RS by The Economist, the Jamestown group, NYTimes, BBC, Tibetan Review, Outside, ICT, HWR, many others, which balance and expand the official sanctioned sources of facts about education, political positions and military career, family. The opinion effectually proposes what would necessitate a pre-approved or limited group of sources to create a biography with only certain facts that omit solid RS critical information about his career, which would constitue an authentic disservice. Information is not "protest".
• Don't know what an ellipsis is, but I responded to a note at user talk predating this notice which was full of all kinds of interesting accusactions, layered with good faith.

I look forward to the response. Thanks again. Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:55, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Briefly, my view is that we must separate Chen from the Chinese government in our article about him. That's not to say that we don't mention anything about this stuff, but we should do it succinctly, with links to relevant articles such as Self-immolation protests by Tibetans in China, Human rights in Tibet etc, in such a way as to avoid overwhelming the article about the individual person. Most of what is there now is not about the person, it is about protests against a government that the person was a part of - it's unbalanced. (An ellipsis is the three dots you used above - I interpreted it as an invitation for the reader to draw a conclusion that you don't yourself want to put into words.) GirthSummit _(blether) 09:52, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd just like to restate that as a Chinese government official, Chen's life is inseparable from the government. Except in rare moments, I would venture to say. The bio is either focused on those rare and unreported moments, or on his life. And, it's a mischaracterization that RS-based text are "protests", those edits which simply describe the details of his life/work as a politician and his policies.

As an illustration, the 2008 Tibetan unrest, or uprising, is a page about mass protests which began before Chen's tenure. (Chen's work included averting another uprising.) There, one can read a page on "protests". After comparing the pages, the opinion that Chen's bio is just another protest page appears far-fetched, as does the effort to redefine RS-based text on his work/policies as just protests against a government. And if that were somehow true, only RS-based text on his family life, for example, would meet the requested criteria of a bio "about the person", in this case. Pasdecomplot (talk) 19:23, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi folks, Girth Summit asked me if I could take a look at this discussion and weigh in (but I think I can be fairly neutral here). To be honest, I think both sides of the discussion have a point. The diffs GirthSummit linked do look like coatracking, but Pasdecomplot is also correct that Chen is intertwined with the government's policy. My preference would be to only mention policies/incidents which RS directly attribute to Chen, but I think an RfC may be in order here to get more outside eyes on this. GeneralNotability (talk) 15:39, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the look, but after being accused of WP:CANVAS at RSN, isn't asking a person to comment considered CANVAS, especially if the asker doesn't give notice here? Clarification would be good.

WP:COATRACK note: the intention basically is to keep the topic on subject without straying into another subject. Chen's bio states he was the CPC leader in Tibet, and in charge. Thus, all CPC policies during his tenure are on topic, whether or not Chen is noted in RS each time, since he is responsible.

Also, care needs to be taken not to apply Western concepts of separation between person and governmental positions to Chinese governmental employees.

There's Chen's line of command responsibility, from the police to Chen, and from the army to Chen since he was also made a military commander. As CPC leader, he would adhere to Han Chinese settlement directives and economic policies from Beijing. The recent 'severe religious freedom violations' in Tibet for which Chen is sanctioned as culpable escalated in 2008 during the uprising before his tenure, but they and the mass arrests at Kirti Gompa and at other monastic centers, mass forced evictions at Larung Gar, disappearances of monks and nuns arrested in 2008, re-education programs and camps and torture for monks and nuns continued, and intensified, during his tenure - as CPC policy for which Chen takes full responsibility in a quoted statement on the page. As the leader in Tibet, it's basically impossible to justify COATRACK when listing CPC policies per RS during his tenure. Pasdecomplot (talk) 21:21, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I have to agree with GirthSummit and GeneralNotability above; while there are clearly good reasons to include a summary of the situation in Tibet during Chen's tenure in this article, this seems like a lot of excess detail for what is supposed to be a biography of Chen. The content itself is mainly fine (with a few exceptions identified above, along with others such as using phrases like Orwellian social system in Wikipedia's voice without multiple sources, and some clearly irrelevant data on heights, country of origin, and spacing of guard stations). However, I would say most of it belongs in another article dedicated to the issues happening in Tibet. As it stands, fully 70% of the current revision is devoted to these five years of his life. I'd much prefer to convert this to summary style and reduce the detail here, but link to relevant articles elsewhere that go into more detail on the events themselves. I also agree it is important to continue to be accurate and provide proper context in our coverage of Chen, but that can be done without overwhelming the reader with specifics. CThomas³ (talk) 03:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• FWIW, I've removed a short paragraph Chen Quanguo's preferred method of repression is to divide up agitated regions with a grid system and pit them against each other in the name of counter-terrorism. There have been suspicious incidents in Tibet, pointing towards Quanguo's silencing methods like the blast at a government building in Tibet's Chamdo prefecture. ‘Free Tibet’ fliers were found at the scene. that had been inserted with no source in August, tagged for cn in August, and had a source added by PDC that seems to only support the fact fliers were found at the blast site, nothing about Chen's 'preferred method of suppression' or suspicious incidents pointing toward Chen. I just felt this probably shouldn't stay while we discuss, especially if we're going to have a full RfC, because unsourced it seems beyond the pale. —valereee (talk) 16:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

References

@Cthomas3 An explanation of what is thought as agreeable would be helpful: Details and COATRACK are very different issues. Girth and General were appearing to push the COATRACK opinion, while your comments seem to speak to the level of detail.

It seems @Horse Eye's Back solid comments also address details plus - will look at related Nazi, Soviet, etc Bio pages for guidance.

And, if detail is the concern, there doesn't appear to be a need for an RfC - on detail. But, this is my first experience with the BLPN process.

No recent response from @Girth Summit - have the editor's concerns been alleviated, or the issues resolved?

Is deleting text (from another editor btw) while the discussion is here... often done? Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:45, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Quick note @Horse Eye's Back about Bio's on Stalin and Goebbels: Both are full of RS's from academics who've specialized in the subjects posthumously.

BLP's on Bolsonaro and Putin aren't too dissimilar in levels of detail, and Putin does include text such as, 'During his administration', or, 'During Putin's admin', together with specific, 'he did', 'he said', info. Their page structure is much better in that definitive topics are grouped - not as in 'Career', but sections, via CON, that could better describe him (and might be entitled as 'Economic policies' and 'Educational reforms' and 'Cultural Cleansing' (with subsections 'Religious persecution' and 'Re-education camps' and 'Arrests and disappearances') and 'Immigration and Sinicization' and 'Employment policies', etc, as examples). While there are Beijing directives, Chen was selected for his demonstrated capabilities. Another option would be to add a 'Controversy' section, but it would be quite lengthy already with Tibet and Xinjiang. And, as of Jun2020 and more recently, the UN is increasingly gravely concerned with what is Chen's work products. Pasdecomplot (talk) 00:39, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

To work within the existing structure, recommended changes would be:

• Replace 'Career' with 4 sections: 'Henan', 'Hebei', 'Tibet', 'Xinjiang'. (Could be a 'Henan & Hebei' section.)
• Fold subsections under Tibet and Xinjiang sections, those named 'Counterterrorism and detention camps' and 'Economic development'
• Subsection 'Counterterrorism' should be retitled (it's a minority/fringe description for current events in Tibet and Xinjiang), and subsections multiplied as needed, ie 'Religious persecution' and 'Deaths, disappearances and arrests' and 'Immigration'
• Avoid too many details as mentioned, but include notable information. Pasdecomplot (talk) 10:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Pasdecomplot, you asked Is deleting text (from another editor btw) while the discussion is here... often done? about the edit I mentioned above. Deleting unsourced controversial BLP assertions can be done by anyone at any time. That information was added unsourced back in August, before you started editing the article. After you started editing, you added a source for the flyers bit, but the source didn't support the controversial assertions. I looked at it for a while, not wanting to remove while this discussion was live, but when a full RfC was floated I decided it should go. Any other editor is free to revert, but I'd recommend you find a very impartial source for assertions like Quanguo's preferred method of repression is to divide up agitated regions with a grid system and pit them against each other in the name of counter-terrorism and There have been suspicious incidents in Tibet, pointing towards Quanguo's silencing methods. Sourcing to advocacy groups isn't likely to be good enough. —valereee (talk) 12:30, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

While returning to the discussion, here are a couple of RS supporting Subsection 'Counterterrorism' should be retitled (it's a minority/fringe description for current events in Tibet and Xinjiang), from the UN this month. For perspective on Chen's career in Tibet and Xinjiang. European Parliament at UN, its record on Tibet and Xinjiang. Also, European Parliament's Tibet Interest Group's letter, which was reestablished in JAN2020 fyi.

In regards to the deleted text, I believe the ref from AFP - not an advocacy group - met the criteria of the comment attached to . Also, the text's point seemed to be false flag ops by Chen, and the ref indicated access to a monastery was blocked - which may or may not have been the objective of the op. The ref was difficult to locate, but was added since no other editors had deleted the text. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:45, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

References

Pasdecomplot, the AFP source was fine for the flyers; I couldn't get to it, but I didn't see anything in your note supporting Quanguo's preferred method of repression is to divide up agitated regions with a grid system and pit them against each other in the name of counter-terrorism or There have been suspicious incidents in Tibet, pointing towards Quanguo's silencing methods, which was why I removed the para the source seemed to be supporting. —valereee (talk) 22:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Just so everyone understands, and as an aside to the discussion, the edit wasn't mine. Girth didn't specifically address the edit. I only provided missing refs in passing, months after another's edits. I edited afterwards, then RS and notable on-topic text about a wave of self-immolations during Chen's tenure that cited "cultural genocide" was reverted, then this topic resulted : detail vs COATRACK. It appears we might have moved beyond the COATRACK opinion. But, the ref, which is another topic, since the text belongs to another editor.

The ref answering the cn was to a specific statement, and not for the paragraph/statement above, as in There have been suspicious incidents in Tibet, pointing towards Quanguo's silencing methods like the blast at a government building in Tibet's Chamdo prefecture. ‘Free Tibet’ fliers were found at the scene. [the added ref] Tenzin Wangchuk, Agence France-Presse, (27 Octobre 2011),"The Tibetan news portal www.TibetExpress.net also reported the news, saying "Tibet's independence" had been daubed in red on the damaged walls of the office building and "Free Tibet" fliers had been found at the scene. "No one is accused or arrested in this connection so far but the entire road access leading to and from Chamdo had been completely cut off including closure of Karma monastery"[end of added ref][cn comment]:!-- the previous reference does not support the above statements: https://www.iol.co.za/news/world/state-building-bombed-in-tibet-1166469 Quango’s silencing methods)

It might seem confusing, but the tq text is all that the ref was addressing. Since more experienced editors didn't delete that statement, I simply tried to be helpful with the ref, while the cn appeared to be addressing the bomb, flyers, "suspicious incidents" and "silencing methods", understood as false flag ops. Maybe we can redirect our efforts to the topic:

• I'd like to propose we agree to modify the Chen Quanguo 'Career' section into separate, more easily accessible sections as mentioned above.
• I'm not sure if going through each edit and RS for comments is expected here, or necessary after the responses -please advise. If not, and since it seems as if returning to the page's talk with those stated concerns on detail and on voice would work, I'd also like to propose reediting from there with those ideas. Any thoughts and/or comments on these proposals? Pasdecomplot (talk) 02:43, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

  Pasdecomplot, I don't necessarily have a problem with what you're proposing, provided the information in each section focusses more on Chen himself, and that excessive details about the regime in general be reserved for the relevant articles. We want an article that covers Chen and his direct involvement with this stuff, using sources that mention him by name. As CThomas suggested, using summary style to avoid overwhelming the article would be preferable - there's no problem having well-sourced information elsewhere and linking to it. I do have issues with some of the specific wording - as I said previously, 'swamped' is not a word I am comfortable with using in the context of ethnicities and immigrations - it must be possible to find better wording than that (or indeed to let the figures do the talking). GirthSummit _(blether) 12:13, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Glad we agree @Girth Summit with the idea of making more sections for the information.
• Regarding the economic section, Chen is credited with creating economic profits in Tibet. But, at the loss of Tibetans and countries downstream on the rivers' banks : the cited figures don't include upfront costs (reported confiscated land, reported forced labor camps) and later subsequent costs (reported dispossession, reported ecological damage). "Swamped" is a word from RS, used by other RS as well. Thus, it's a multiple RS word now, and the suggestion to reinterpret multiple RS isn't clear, since RS also indicate Mao began immigration policies that turn local majorities into minorities, and, as RS uses the term, into "2nd class citizens". What is indicated by RS, but stated with more words as in edits, is that ethnicity and immigration are used to create class hierarchies and are used as tools for cultural cleansing in Tibet (and elsewhere). I understand voice issues, but voice comes from RS. Flooded, saturated, other possibilities abound.
• There's a sticking point with the request for all editing to be based on RS which specifically refers to Chen in the article - it does not follow BLP norms found on other pages, as previously noted. And, to require such would institute an unequal approach to Chen, which would effectively silence information from RS. So, it's a concern.
• For additional shared familiarity with the subject, Chen's 2013 statement and his use of "we" makes the edits on-topic. Chen does not refer to Beijing, nor to a "regime" : "We have followed the law in striking out and relentlessly pounding at illegal organizations and key figures, and resolutely followed the law in striking at the illegal organizations and key figures who follow the 14th Dalai Lama clique in carrying out separatist, infiltration, and sabotage activities, knocking out the hidden dangers and soil for undermining Tibet’s stability, and effectively safeguarding the state’s utmost interests [and] society’s overall interests."[17] He himself takes the credit for "relentlessly pounding" and "striking" - via arbitrary arrests, disappearances, re-education programs and camps mentioned by RS. But, RS indicate Tibetan monks, nuns and laypeople which revere the Dalai Lama as a spiritual leader aren't illegal organizations, etc, but are treated as such and are relentlessly targeted for being monastics and/or protecting monastic institutions and their profound cultural heritage. So, the RS/text addresses Chen's statement, and the contributions really cannot be justifiably lumped into the category of "protests", especially when RS also use the Dalai Lama's statement on "cultural genocide", which RS indicates is a connecting, underlying and unavoidable topic in Chen's bio on Tibet. Furthermore, RS shows the UN, EU, US, and a majority of people either agree that it's cultural genocide, or condemn or express grave concern about China's persecution of buddhists and their spiritual leaders, and its human rights violations in Tibet, for which Chen is attributed in RS. All of which means the RS/text is on-topic and not about a regime.
• No mention was made of excessive details about the regime in general. Details about the police stations are mentioned, in response to edits of Chen's focus on "policing" and mention of the "convenience police stations": I agree that noting their height and materials is detailed, but together the information describes what sounds like 150+ battle bunkers spread throughout the capital city, attributed directly to Chen. This is the reason for inclusion, leaving the interpretation to our readers; likewise for the mention of the distance of 15 meters/45 feet between two separate police stations in Lhasa. These stations are also a component of Chen's (attributed) grid policing surveillance system, which needs RS.
• RS states the self-immolations are a very touchy topic for China. There are 156 self-immolations per RS's citing ICT, which counted 2009-02Dec2019. For use here only: of those, 140 occurred during Chen's tenure, but I haven't found RS which states that specific number and can't include the fact since it would be OR (you can count the ICT Fact Sheet yourself to verify). But, it's only shared here (OR allowed on talk and I'm assuming on BLPN) so as to further understand the BLP subject. Pasdecomplot (talk) 22:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Since there are no further comments, it appears that this topic is at a standstill, and that the points made just previously are not disputed. Thus, unless pinged otherwise, the agreed edits will adhere to BLP standards found on other pages; the career section will be expanded as agreed; and RS's addressing Tibet during Chen's tenure are usable, with a lead such as "During Chen's tenure..." when necessary. Other in-line citations might also be necessary for RS statements that cause voice concerns. Thanks to all. Pasdecomplot (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Should we be naming suspects in Terrorism in the United States

In fact they aren't all called suspects, in the Boogaloo killings they are named as the killers. Doug Weller talk 14:40, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

The entire article needs to be reviewed and changed to comply with WP:BLPCRIME. First of all, any living person not convicted should be referred to with the words "alleged" if they're subject to active prosecution. This is necessary to comply with the presumption of innocence and I'm going to try to edit the article to put that in. Second of all, I believe a good ground rule for complying with the privacy requirements would be to remove all names of living people if there's no Wikipedia article about the event and the person hasn't been convicted of the offences characterized as terrorism. If there's not enough coverage for an article the person likely is "relatively unknown". Thirdly, I believe we should remove everything where the people involved weren't prosecuted for the offences characterized as terrorism. The Barack Obama assassination plot comes to mind, where three people were never actually prosecuted for the act they were accused of planning. They were convicted of minor weapons charges and I don't think it's appropriate to imply they're terrorists who tried to kill Obama when the government never prosecuted them for attempting to kill Obama. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 21:25, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh, and I forgot to mention this before, I don't think it's appropriate to include any event on this list without a source, especially ones without a Wikipedia article. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 21:27, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth A. Walker

I have just become aware that someone, and I do not know who that is, created a biographical page for me that includes many errors and omissions. How do I correct these errors, and is it possible to know who created it? I find this very puzzling to have been done without contacting me first. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.19.177.245 (talk) 17:59, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

I recommend that you bring it up on the talk page, Talk:Elizabeth A. Walker. There, you can identify any specific errors and omissions. The article's editors can be found here. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 22 October 2020 (UTC)

david Johan Mejia Crawford

I am David Mejia's Father. The picture you are showing with the wikipedia info on him is the wrong person. How do I send you a correct person of my son David Johan Mejia Crawford, who plays for Atlanta United 2 soccer team?

Thank you.

Johan Mejia PeruvianAccent@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C2:C101:9C70:94F9:A575:87:C97D (talk) 03:24, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

There is no picture on the Wikipedia page at David Mejia (soccer). The picture you are asking about is probably one provided by Google, over which Wikipedia has no control. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

If you own the copyright to an image of the person, such as one you have taken yourself, you can upload it to Commons, and it could then be inserted into our article. That often leads to Google using the photograph, but we can't guarantee that - the images their algorithms decide to use are entirely unrelated to anything we put on our articles. GirthSummit _(blether) 09:55, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Fiona Graham

No one can any new content to this page at all. Certain person delete anything new on both the English and Japanese page.

Last content by stone3000 was all deleted though it was valid, and all referenced properly. Please help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2400:4050:B1A0:2D00:8CAA:A47C:4800:A65A (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

There have been no edits to Fiona Graham since July. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 07:49, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

They appear to be referring to the Japanese version of the article, which is of course not a matter for us here. FDW777 (talk) 07:56, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The en-WP article is WP:BLUELOCKed, for good reason it seems. Anyone interested can make WP:Edit requests on the talkpage, citing WP:BLP-good sources. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 10:45, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Joanna Jordan (talent agent)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_Jordan_(talent_agent)

The page on Joanna Jordan (talent agent) is incorrect and must be removed ASAP.

The sources used in the page on Joanna Jordan are unreliable, often irrelevant and evidently incorrect.

A key example of the sources being unsuitable for the article is that Joanna's age being incorrect.

Fundamentally, information on Joanna's career is grossly wrong and damaging to hers and her companies reputation. No sources are cited when discussing her career, the page is beyond the point of being edited - it needs to be deleted immediately.

Joanna's personal life is wrongly described also, again with no or unreliable/irrelevant sources being cited. Joanna did not grow up near Battersea Bridge and she is not married.

Thank you for your assistance in deleting this page. Joanna Jordan does not approve of this Wikipedia page about her and considers it factual incorrect, damaging to her personal and professional life, and is confused as to how it was approved considering the lack of sources referenced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelyFox (talk • contribs) 14:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

JoelyFox, I'm a bit confused as to why you are saying it is lacking sources. I just checked the specific things you mention;

• When I look at the her age, which you say is incorrect, I see a citation to an article in the Independent, published in 2002, which describes her as a 35-year-old - so, the date of birth given in the article seems reasonable.
• The assertion that she grew up in Battersea Bridge seems to come from an interview in the Guardian, in which she says "I was a normal English girl. I lived over Battersea Bridge".
• The stuff about her husband comes from the Independent again: "There is just time to ask about her husband. "He's French. Works for Credit Suisse First Boston...""

I'm not sure what else you think is inaccurate there, but I can't see any grounds to nominate it for deletion, or indeed to trim any of that content. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:22, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply!

Though the preferred option is to delete this article due to the outdated information (no sources later than 2005), if it is possible to rewrite an updated version that would be ok. How do I go ahead with this? Making small edits is not ideal and the content is just incorrect (the sources are misguided - Joanna was in her 20s when she lived in Battersea and is divorced).

Is it possible to know who the author of this article was because I find the content confusing.

Thanks for any help you can offer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoelyFox (talk • contribs) 15:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

JoelyFox, I'm going to give you some advice on your user page about this. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, actually, that article in the Independent had an incorrect date on it -- it's a 2014 article, not 2002, so she must have been born ~1980. I've corrected. JoelyFox, I can certainly understand why anyone would feel it was damaging to be described as being 12 years older than you are! I've made an edit to the personal life section to mention that she mentioned a husband in interviews in 2002 and in 2014, does that correct the situation for Ms. Jordan? —valereee (talk) 16:37, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hold on...I'm on her linkedin, and it looks like she lists attending school from 1980-1983, which would indicate the original year of birth was correct. Hm. —valereee (talk) 17:09, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, this is just weird. Googling the full article name vs. what comes up. —valereee (talk) 17:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Hi Valereee, thanks for digging a bit deeper than I did, it does look like that Indy source had the wrong date. If she was 35 in 2014, that would mean she was born in (thinks for a bit...) 1979ish? That school (according to this unreliable UGC site) is apparently for girls from "six weeks to eighteen years", so those dates could be correct - she might have gone to nursery there? Anyway, if there is a serious question about the date of birth, I think we should cut it entirely - calculating date of birth from the year of a source is kind of OR anyway, so I'll cut the dates entirely. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:29, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Oh - I see you've cut it already - good move. GirthSummit _(blether) 17:30, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

The article in the Independent is from 2002. I don't know why they would have changed the date on it, but perhaps they updated something. Mo Billings (talk) 17:43, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Mo Billings, that does look more like the article that I looked like when I first looked into this - it ties with the Guardian article, which came out at about the same time and is also about her work with David Letterman. Still, I don't know if the article really needs a date of birth, especially if we have to figure it out by looking at the date of the article and the age they say she is in it - probably fine to leave it out. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:03, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Both the Guardian and Independent state she had a job finding guests for The Word (TV series). Since that ceased transmission in 1995, that means any birthdate of 1979 onwards is bogus. The Guardian say she left school at 16 with dismal O-levels and enrolled at the Lucy Clayton secretarial school. The Independent say she worked as an au pair, then a junior secretary to a stockbroker, then a secretary on Today newspaper, then a children's TV presenter, then finally the aforementioned job at The Word (which obviously has to be before 1995). Since the school leaving age is 16 in the UK (and the Guardian say she left school at 16), a 1979 onwards birth date is mathematically impossible. FDW777 (talk) 18:12, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I feel that birth dates (or ages) are a fairly innocuous piece of information that can help readers form some context for a person's activities. It seems like a fairly standard detail in most biographies. Mo Billings (talk) 18:20, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

There's {{Age as of date}} for situations just like this, so {{Age as of date|35|2002|5|13}} displays 57–58. FDW777 (talk) 18:26, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

On including birthdate, see WP:DOB. Like anything WP:BLP, when in doubt, exclude. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:07, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Absolutely, and if there was any doubt I would agree. There was some unnecessary confusion over a date of publication, that's all. Mo Billings (talk) 22:18, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Terry Keith Ashwin

A person claiming to be the subject of the article is asking that it be deleted because it is contributing to real world harm. See Talk:Terry Keith Ashwin. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 18:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Tom Brier

Not sure why this keeps coming up as an issue. The article was put up for AfD once before and voted as a delete. Some how it has reappeared as an article again. Not sure how to return it to a #redirect or nominate for a speedy deletion. Thoughts? Maineartists (talk) 21:36, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

[7] Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 21:46, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

I made that edit. It was an initial edit just to put as a placeholder because I was in the process of writing a full article. Thomasgilbertie (talk) 22:44, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

You need sources for anything you write about a living person, even things like birth dates and such. I would suggest writing your article as a draft and, when you're ready, submit it to WP:Articles for creation to be reviewed. Keep in mind that even in your sandbox, info about living people needs to be sourced to reliable sources, and all BLP rules apply there as well. Zaereth (talk) 22:53, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Gretchen Whitmer

Editors are probably aware of the kidnapping plot against this Michigan governor. I ran across an article on the Covid Pandemic in Michigan and was surprised to see a list of lawsuits, mainly unresolved, against her at COVID-19 pandemic in Michigan#Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot. Although Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot is listed at the main article, that article doesn't mention these. Am I alone in seeing a problem here? Doug Weller talk 16:33, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller: The lawsuit section isn't under the kidnapping plot section. It's under the "critical responses" section. The lawsuits don't have anything to do with the kidnapping plot. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 18:14, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Additionally, many of those suits are related to the MI gov't as a whole's reaction to COVID, and not to Whitmer directly as a person. The pandemic article is linked from Whitmer's page, so those related lawsuit are listed appropriately on the COVID page as part of the gov't issue, not Whitmer as a person. --Masem (t) 18:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

{{ping|Chess}} sorry, I don't know how I got confused about this. I'm still dubious about including lawsuits that have had no outcome, as many of them are inevitably political, eg one by Michigan United for Liberty. It's a good tactic, get lots of publicity through multiple lawsuits. Maseem it looks to me as though most of them at least include Whitmer. We don't normally include lawsuits that haven't been settled in court and shouldn't allow ourselves to be used as a political vehicle. Doug Weller talk 18:53, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Ongoing civil lawsuits directed at persons for personal reasons should not be included unless they have been widely covered in the news. Civil lawsuits against gov't officials or other types of entities like businesses are generally included if they have been covered by third-party sources. That said, not necessarily all those cases are necessarily going to have relevancy at the end of the day and if they were dismissed early, they should be removed or simply summarized. --Masem (t) 18:58, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

The dodgiest part of describing the kidnapping plot in COVID-19 pandemic in Michigan is seen most clearly in the TOC: the section "Governor Whitmer kipnapping plot" is a subsection of "Protests", which is in turn a subsection of "Critical responses". That's like legitimizing or normalizing it. "If you are feeling critical of your governor, there are several ways of protesting; for example, you could kidnap them." I'm sure that wasn't what TomCat4680 meant to say when he added the kidnapping plot section, but, people, please be aware of an article's structure. I think the text in question should be removed. FGS, the kidnapping plot was neither a critical response ("critical"! seriously!) nor a protest. Bishonen | tålk 20:08, 24 October 2020 (UTC).

I changed it from a subsection to a section after I saw this thread. I wasn't trying to legitimize their actions. My mistake. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:23, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

No, of course you weren't, TomCat4680, I never meant to suggest it. It's still right now a subsection of "Critical responses", though; you have merely moved it out from being also a sub-sub-section under "Protests". Did you mean to make it its own section, with just the two equals signs? Honestly, though, I can't see that that would work either. The fewer equals signs it has, the less business does it have in an article entitled "COVID-19 pandemic in Michigan". It just doesn't belong there. Or possibly as a "See also: Gretchen Whitmer kidnapping plot". In my opinion. Bishonen | tålk 20:44, 24 October 2020 (UTC).

Well the mastermind of the plot listed her response to the pandemic as a motive in a YouTube video [8] so it's a direct response to her actions. Highly illegal of course but at least worth a mention. TomCat4680 (talk) 20:51, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with Bishonen. To see the following listing in the contents...

7. Critical responses

7.1 Protests

7.2 Governor Whitmer kidnapping plot

7.3 Lawsuits

...is just bizarre. Oh, so it's just another critical response? I don’t think we can remove all mention of the plot from the article, but we could at least keep it from being a section heading. It’s only two sentences; how about just making it the last paragraph of the “Protests” section? With an in-text wikilink rather than a “main article” tag? I'm inclined go ahead and do that right now, but I'll wait for at least a little feedback. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:51, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Doug Weller, Chess, Masem, TomCat4680, and Bishonen: Thoughts? -- MelanieN (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I just went ahead and did it myself. TomCat4680 (talk) 21:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! -- MelanieN (talk) 21:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks from me also. Doug Weller talk 18:45, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the lawsuits: for non-U.S./non-Law Mutant people, some U.S. states require certain types of legislative challenges and other broad-ranging lawsuits (which I'm pointing out as being the opposite pole of "personal" lawsuits in which Jules Doe slipped and fell in the grocery store owned by Random Roe), to be brought "against" the governor. I haven't looked at Michigan law in this regard, but the way these cases are captioned, it appears that Michigan does this, and a lawsuit "against Gretchen Whitmer" is the effective equivalent of "against Governor Jules Doe", whomever that person is at the time of filing. One of the beautiful annoyances of American federalism is that there are over 50 different ways to do this (because Puerto Rico, Guam, etc.). My point is that the notion that Gov. Whitmer is a named defendant is not necessarily anything more than a statutorily mandated, non-notable placeholder reflecting that somebody sued the state during her gubernatorial administration: i.e., not Wiki-notable vis-a-vis Gov. Whitmer herself. It should go into an article about Michigan history or lawsuits against the state, not about Gov. Whitmer generally. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 19:04, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Birth date at Pia Bajpiee

There are ongoing issues with the birth date of Pia Bajpiee, see the article history, User_talk:Mike_Peel#Pia_Bajpiee and commons:User_talk:Mike_Peel#Hi, with a dispute between 6 Jan and 22 December. In the latest round, a reference for the latter has (finally!) been provided, [9], but I don't know whether this is an acceptable reference here. Either way, more eyes on this issue would be useful please. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 19:25, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Allison Pearson

• Allison Pearson (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

I will start by saying that I know little about this person, but I stumbled upon this article through looking at the contributions of a new user, who had added content to a Conservative MP that did guilt-by-association with The Daily Stormer and Anders Behring Breivik (I won't link to the diff, but the user is User:Sqatorsquare). I noticed the user also made edits to Pearson's page, which had a huge controversies section.

The controversies section is disproportionately long, even after an IP removed two examples a month ago [10]. I removed several more which were primary sources from Tweets, WP:SYNTHESIS of primary sources when Pearson has said contradictory things in columns, or from unreliable/polemic sources. And even with secondary sources, we have to remember that every time a columnist from Newspaper A says one thing, Newspaper B will call it controversial and that's just WP:NOTNEWS.

There seems to be a lengthy campaign on this page to list every polemic tweet by Pearson, as some of them predate Sqatorsquare even though they are formatted the same way (fully formed "cite Tweet" reference).

The page looks like, and seems to only exist, as a dossier of "bad stuff" she's said. What to do? Protect the page, integrate the "controversies" into the main section, or do away with the section completely? Unknown Temptation (talk) 23:24, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Rebel News and See Also

As explained at the talk page of Rebel News (which isn't a BLP, but obviously is about living people) I believe that a "See also" section should not use any contentious terms (e.g. "Islamophobia", etc...) to suggest that people are connected to those terms. The problem with "See also" is it's just a bare list of links, no context, no explanation, no citations. It implies, without stating, a connection. This should never be done in a BLP (or BLP-related article). If we say somebody is Islamophobic, or whatever, we should provide attribution in the text, and provide a citation. In mentioning such terms, we should say how/why they relate, while closely following what the reliable sources say. Of course, once an article discusses and links to the term in the body, then there's a style guideline that suggests a "see also" link is redundant. I am not disputing any content outside of "see also", or debating if the terms should be used somewhere, in an appropriate manner. --Rob (talk) 00:41, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

See also sections can reasonably include any link not already in the prose that would be in the article if written at a Featured article level. Glee^anon 00:44, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:BLP trumps that guidance for inherently contentious terms. --Rob (talk) 00:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Rebel News is not a living person nor a Biography page. The links in the See also do not exist in the body of the article yet the connections are apparent. (ArctcBanana (talk) 01:08, 25 October 2020 (UTC))

Byt as you can see at WP:BLP, the policy applies anyway. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 08:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

So, it seems you've discovered two giant loopholes to BLP! First, if people set up an organization, they lose all BLP protection, because they are no longer living people, but just an organization (in this case a small one). Second, if you want to label somebody in a certain way, without a citation, you can throw it in the "see also" as a bare internal link, with no citation requirements. This actually has huge implications in many articles. Also, as a note, the original version had "neo-fascist" in the mix. Throwing around these type of words without proper explanation and citations is very problematic. "See also" was never meant to be a kind of categorization. It shows related topics. An organization that is dedicated to fighting islamophobia, or a victim of it, is as "related" to islamophobia as one that allegedly promotes it. If you want to say an organization is Islamophobic, than say that (with attribution and citation in the body). It is well established BLP policy that a contentious statement must be cited, and you can't avoid that responsibility by saying it's well known, or covered elsewhere. It has to be cited where it's used. So, unless you intend to add citations to words in the "see also" section, it needs to go. --Rob (talk) 15:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

This seems to be a classic case of missing the forest from the trees. If a link to islamophobia isn't supported by the article body, then the 2 islamophobia cats are a problem. I don't see a reason to make a big deal over the sea also as long as the islamophobia cats are considered justified. Note I make no comment on whether they are, simply that there is reason to treat the see also as some sort of special problem. Nil Einne (talk) 17:05, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Probably right. A link to Islamophobia isn't supported by the article body, which merely has reference to Rebel News's incorrect story about the Quebec City mosque shooting and an employee's connection to the English Defence League. But, although WP:BLPGROUP arguably applies, the problem is broader (I regard WP:RS and WP:NPOV as being more relevant). The talk page discussion exists for anyone who wants to look at ArctcBanana's recent edits. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 19:10, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: categories and "see also" are totally different. I expect eventually, somebody may add appropriate content and sources to Rebel News to justify all the categories that are there now. There's lots of discussion needed about what content+sources are needed to justify certain categories. I'm not looking to get involved in that debate. "See also" is really simple. Contentious statements about a BLP are never justifiable in "see also" because the moment the content of the article supports the mention of a term, their use in "see also" is redundant, and should be removed. "See also" is a list of related links, that haven't yet been discussed in the article. Hence, I don't even have to read the body of the article to know that such contentious-BLP-related links should be removed. The editors arguing for inclusion are missing the point, as I'm fine with inclusion of the terms (with citations) in the article. I just don't want them in "see also". --Rob (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(I have put this reply above Gleeanon409's although it's out of chronological order since it seemed the best way to avoid confusion from the outdent, as I had not read further parts of the thread when writing this and it was solely a reply to Thivierr's 00:16 post.) @Thivierr: actually on the contrary, WP:BLPCAT requires that the case for each content category must be made clear by the article text and its reliable sources. There is no allowance for the categories to be supported by future article contents. For any article, if the categories aren't supported by the current article, they need to be supported now, not 1 day from now. Even outside BLPs, Wikipedia:Categorisation#Articles says that Categorization of articles must be verifiable. It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. While there is a template mentioned there {{Uncited category}} to add for uncited categories so there is some allowance for keeping the category there while waiting someone adding content and sources, just like {{fact}} may be used for keeping info in an article while awaiting sources, at the same time someone removing unsupported categories they come across even in a non-BLP isn't likely to get in trouble. (Maybe mass removing them from a lot of articles may be contentious.) Anyway I'll go back to the BLP point since that's how you approached this. If the categories are not supported by the article body then they need to be removed now when BLP applies. No ifs, no buts. If the categories are there and BLP applies, I can only assume they are supported by the article body and sources. If they are, then I see zero reason to make a big deal over a see also which is also supported by the article body and sources. It would be better to simply mention the explicit word in the article body and so remove the see also since it's evidently supported but that's more of a formatting issue than a BLP ones. Nil Einne (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

If the See also links could easily be added with citations then they are perfectly acceptable as links until that happens. See also is a part of the article. Glee^anon 00:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

But, WP:BLP requires such contentious claims to be cited *now* (or not be added). You can't just add contentious uncited claims about living people, with a plan to cite them later on. We wouldn't allow that anywhere else in the article, why would it be allowed in "see also". It would be a huge step backwards for Wikipedia, if we start allowing uncited contentious BLP claims to be added to articles, because we think somebody will add some sources sometime in the future. Anybody can say that there are sources out there. Unless/until a source is provided in the article (as in a citation) for a claim, the claim is deemed unsourced. And, BLP clearly says "...contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion." --Rob (talk) 02:37, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Oy vey. Simply adding a link does not equate to making a contentious claim. It could, if actually on a BLP, potentially be interpreted that way, but I’m not seeing that issue here. Glee^anon 03:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Thivierr: your latest reply is even more perplexing. As I said in my followup above posted at the same time as this, if you feel that the categories aren't a problem then you agree that the article body and sources support the islamophobia categories since that's an explicitly requirement per WP:BLPCAT. Therefore the sources and article content is already in the article. They aren't stuff which will be added in the future by your own agreement. You can't in the first instance say the sources and article content is there, and then turn around and say it isn't for the exact same thing. Either the sources and content is already in the article body to support a connection to islamophobia (and hence the categories) or they aren't. You need to make up your mind which and not vacillate between the two in different posts or different parts of the article on the exact same thing. (In case it's unclear, I agree that in BLP cases, "see also"s also need to be already supported by the article body not supported sometime in the future, but again this is no different from categories. Whether BLP should apply to this article, I'm not so sure. The interaction between when accusing an organisation or group of something crosses the BLP line is complex per WP:BLPGROUP, but I'm not convinced an organisation which I assume has at least multiple tens of employees would generally come under BLP although care does need to be taken if it's likely the statements would primarily apply to e.g. the CEO or editor/s.) Nil Einne (talk) 03:51, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Nil Einne: I don't have to make up my mind between those two mutually exclusive possibilities. I'm saying either way, the "see also" contentious terms must go. If the term IS covered in the article, then WP:SEEALSO requires the removal from "see also". If the term is NOT covered in the article WP:BLP requires removal of the term from "see also". There's two mutually exclusive possibilities, and in *both* cases, the contentious terms must be removed from "see also". There's no circumstance where contentious terms about a living person can appear in a "see also". That's totally different from categories, where it's necessary to review the overall content of the article and sources. As for BLP's relevance, it's quite simple. This is a small outlet. Rebel News article lists exactly one current notable contributor (the owner, Levant himself). There's less then a dozen "journalists" listed on the web site and it's not clear who's part time and full time. So, this article is basically an extension of the Ezra Levant BLP. This ain't Fox News. --Rob (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I was easily able to find reliable sources connecting Rebel News to both islamaphobia, and counter-jihad. That suggests they could easily be added to the article and are appropriate in the See also section until then. Inflated claims that BLP is being violated don’t have merit here. Glee^anon 04:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Gleeanon409:If it's so easy, than add it already. --Rob (talk) 04:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Thivierr: This is a BLP board. When I'm talking here, I don't really give a fuck about formatting issues which aren't BLP issues. If islamophobia is supported by the article content and sources, then there is no BLP issues period. Take that problem to some other board, like WP:MOS/N which doesn't exist since manual of style issues are dumb issues to require a noticeboard discussion. Please demonstrate why there is a BLP problem if you want to continue discussion over that specific article on this board. If there is no BLP problem, then I'll be blunt. Fuck off to somewhere else. This board should focus on BLP problems no othernot MOS problems. Nil Einne (talk) 04:26, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Sorry forgot to sign when I posted, also corrected a minor error in my post. Nil Einne (talk) 05:11, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

(EC) In case it's unclear, the reason why these categories came up is when you come across something that you question, logically the first thing you do is to check if it's actually an issue. It's hardly uncommon for there to be a "see also" when the article body already mentions the word with a wikilink. Sometimes it mentions the word without a wikilink. And sometimes it can be extreme like there is a whole section which deals with the issue with a main article or see also in that section then an see also at the bottom!

So first check for a contentious "see also" is check if it's in the article, which I did with a simple search. If I'd found the article mentions islamophobia, I would have removed the see also for being unnecessary and wikilink it with the article if necessary. (I've done this before in several cases mostly non BLP.) And then I'd come here to comment I removed it as an unnecessary but it clearly wasn't a BLP issue since the article already mentioned islamophobia.

Instead I searched and found the article body did not explicitly mention islamophobia. But there were 2 categories for islamophobia. That means as I've explained either those 2 categories are supported by the article body and content and so logically the see also is not a BLP problem since the article supports such a connection even though it doesn't use the actual word.

Or they aren't supported and we have a much clearer example of a problem. For BLPs, there's no question that categories need to be supported by the article body and sources. I don't think there's a real question for "see also" either, but categories are simpler since we already explicitly deal with them as a problem in BLPCAT and indeed regularly deal with them on this board. Personally I feel categories are also a more significant problem since it means the article will be listed in such categories so the problem goes beyond the article although I appreciate use of categories probably isn't very high and people are probably more likely to notice a see also then they are a category.

Nil Einne (talk) 04:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

As a probably final comment, I admit I neglected to check what BLP actually says about "see also" until now although now that I have I don't think it's very helpful here "See also" links, whether placed in their own section or in a note within the text, should not be used to imply any contentious labeling, association, or claim regarding a living person, and must adhere to Wikipedia's policy of no original research.. So let's turn this around into a more useful general discussion about whether our policy needs to change.

A proposal that BLPs should never have "see also" since they need to be supported by the article content and sources and so the best way to deal with them is to ensure they are properly integrated, is IMO likely to fail, and at this time I'd oppose it. Having List of IBM CEOs as a see also in Louis V. Gerstner Jr. is clearly not a BLP problem regardless whether it's a bad "see also". You can probably come up with better examples where the "see also" is useful and justified awaiting article expansion but not contentious and indeed supported by the article body and sources; yet difficult to integrate without a fair amount of work. Partly why I'm unconvinced a general BLP prohibition on "see also"s gain support. Also since per WP:5P5 & WP:NOTBURO etc people tend to oppose further expansion without good reason and this is likely to be doubly so for BLP given it's importance and strength.

A complete and clearer prohibition on contentious "see also"s, that I may be willing to agree with under the assumption if they are contentious then they need to be supported by the article content and sources and it shouldn't require much work to integrate the specific "see also" and so integrating the "see also" is the simplest way to resolve disputes. Actually I've already practiced this before IIRC even examples with a tenuous or no connection to BLP. I've removed a "see also" because I felt it was questionable and said either on the edit summary or article talk page "integrate it into the article if you want to keep it".

Yet while it may be a good rule of thumb, I can easily see myself as changing my mind if people can come up with examples similar to before where the "see also" is difficult to integrate into the article body yet despite being contentious it's clearly already supported by the article content and sources. (This example comes to mind but frankly I feel that if islamphobia is justified by the article body and sources which it must be to justify the cats if BLP applies, it can't be that hard to simply include the word.)

And in any case, precisely for that reason such a discussion would need to focus on the generalities instead of getting distracted by the specifics of this one article. And yet it would also need to recognise that even if such a policy makes sense, it doesn't mean all contentious "see also"s are a problem.

Clearly a "see also" when the specific word is already used, or heck there is a whole section on the "see also" topic is not a BLP problem. (Well unless the word or section is a BLP problem itself which is a separate issue.) It's just that we've decided the best way to deal with the issue is to remove them so that we don't have to worry about such disputes.

Such a recognition is IMO imperative since even as a BLP-hawk, I'm turned off by any instance that there is a BLP problem when there clearly isn't. I strongly suspect most other editors are likely to be even more turned off and therefore any such proposal will fail if it tries to insist on such untruths.

Also I think editors will need to consider carefully how they propose defining the contentious "see also" that must be removed, considering similar sections like BLPcat etc. If you simply say "contentious" I suspect you'd get objection since people will feel it could easily be used to remove anything, or would just make things worse due to disputes over what's "contentious"

Nil Einne (talk) 05:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Wow, I can't believe I missed WP:BLPSEEALSO. Thanks for pointing to it, as it makes the point much better than I did, and essentially settles things. --Rob (talk) 02:11, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Thivierr: Several editors have told you that they do not think the article is not a BLP and that the "see also" entries are appropriate for this article. I think the matter is settled, but you seem unwilling to accept the consensus. Mo Billings (talk) 02:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

• Yes BLP applies to the article in question. Yes those are contentious claims that are not clearly sourced in the article. If they are important to the article find sources that tie them to the subject of the article and integrate it in the body. The see also section is not there to bypass normal sourcing requirements. PackMecEng (talk) 03:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course WP:BLP applies here (as everywhere), but the article is not a biography. To say that the topic of Islamophobia is related to Rebel News (as discussed and supported by sources already in the article) is not saying that any individual person is Islamophobic. Mo Billings (talk) 21:38, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The labels apply to the writers and people in the company. The article itself does not need to be a BLP overall to have BLP implications. PackMecEng (talk) 21:42, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Conservative Party (UK) has Antisemitism in the UK Conservative Party and Islamophobia in the UK Conservative Party (2016–present) in its "see also" section. Does that mean that all members of the Conservative Party (UK) are antisemitic and Islamophobic? Mo Billings (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

That is a tricky one, one difference is the article are specifically about the UK Conservative party. Though I do not see much support in the main article for them being in the see also. I paired it down a little but not sure they should be there either if they are not important enough to be mentioned in the main article. PackMecEng (talk) 22:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

An example would be Labour Party (UK)#Opposition and internal conflict (2010–present) where Antisemitism in the UK Labour Party is linked in the header and supported by text in the article. PackMecEng (talk) 22:47, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I thought we were discussing "see also" links? Mo Billings (talk) 03:24, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Yup, both pages have links to other articles. The Conservative Party (UK) has it in see also with no context and Labour Party (UK) has the link as a further reading in a related subsection. Which is preferable in my mind. PackMecEng (talk) 03:28, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

George Forsyth

Just a quick heads-up that ALCALDE GEORGE FORSYTH (talk · contribs) claims to be George Forsyth (footballer). I have reverted. GiantSnowman 08:01, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

John Cummings - yes, an unelected candidate, but he measures up to GNG

I just read an article about Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez -- AOC, and her Republican opponent. Hers is the most expensive Congressional campaign, even though she is so popular she is a shoe-in. She is so popular she has received $30 million - way more than most candidates receive.

Her opponent, John Cummings, a 60-year-old retired teacher, and retired NYPD Police Officer, has received almost $10 million, which I gather is quite a lot for a Congressional campaign.

I went to read what the wikipedia had to say about him - and found that the wikipedia didn't have an article about him. Nor could I find an AFD that closed as delete about him.

Of course as an unelected candidate an article about him would be sure to trigger assertions he did not measure up to WP:POLITICIAN.

And the counter to that would be that the AOC's intense popularity, and the scrutiny on her, has reflected enough interest on him that he too measures up to GNG.

• He has raised more money than all but a handful of Republicans. He raised almost $6 million in the last three months, more than all but a handful or Republican incumbents. [11]
• When he appeared on Fox and Friends, in July 2019, they reported only one other Republican challenger had put their name forward. [12]
• His campaign has triggered International coverage, practically no unelected candidates excite International coverage. [13]

I anticipate challengers who will aggressively assert he is barred by WP:POLITICIAN, who won't acknowledge he measures up to WP:GNG. So I thought I would request other's opinions, here, over the GNG argument. Geo Swan (talk) 18:14, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:POLOUTCOMES discusses this issue and says Candidates who are running or unsuccessfully ran for a national legislature or other national office are not viewed as having inherent notability and are often deleted or merged into lists of campaign hopefuls, such as Ontario New Democratic Party candidates in the 1995 Ontario provincial election, or into articles detailing the specific race in question, such as 2010 United States Senate election in Nevada. Note that such articles are still subject to the same content policies as any other article, and may not contain any unsourced biographical information that would not be acceptable in a separate article.

However, he could still have notability for other reasons. WP:POLITICIAN is a set of sufficient requirements for notability, not necessary ones. He doesn't meet them, but that doesn't bar him from being notable. The base criteria for a person to meet notability guidelines is WP:BASIC. Obviously the amount raised on its own isn't sufficient, but I do see an NYTimes article and a NewsWeek article that are both significant coverage, so that should meet the basic notability guidelines.

However, the exclusionary criteria mentioned in WP:BASIC - specifically WP:BLP1E - are more interesting. Aside from his electoral race, Cummings seems to be low profile and is likely to remain so. Given that, and the guideline of WP:POLOUTCOMES, we should probably create a redirect for his name (perhaps John Cummings (candidate)?) that redirects to the election page. Gbear605 (talk) 20:03, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I'm concurring with GBear here. The international coverage you point to is covering his campaign, which goes well with covering him on the elections page. We don't tend to lean toward amount of money involved making things notable, and the fact he didn't have a lot of challengers for the Republican nomination is not a particular pointer to his notability, as it doesn't seem likely he scared them away; it seems much more likely that that reflects it as a sure Democrat seat. So yeah, cover him within the campaign article. If he wins, that becomes a different matter. --Nat Gertler (talk) 21:55, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• NatGertler, WRT the $10 million he raised, and your comment "We don't tend to lean toward amount of money involved making things notable". I don't think you phrased this the right way. It is not our job to decide whether the amount of funds a candidate raised is or is not notable. It is not our job because we are not RS. When multiple highly respected RS think the amount of funds he raised is worthy of considerable coverage then his fund raising efforts are worthy of considerable coverage. Geo Swan (talk) 01:27, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Even the Times article you cite is indicating the the money raised is more a reflection on AOC than on Cummings, but none of that takes it outside the idea that the coverage is about this one campaign, and should land in the election article. --Nat Gertler (talk) 02:21, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Nat Gertler, et. al. Until he is known for something other than running against AOC, this is a BLP1E case. Chetsford (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

• BLP1E is not an absolute bar to covering an individual known for a single event. BLP1E explicitly states that individuals who are central to the event may merit coverage in a standalone article, after all.

Most failed candidates, or first time not yet elected candidates, who don't merit a standalone article, have nothing to distinguish them. Generally their platforms are predictable and undistinguished. But if they are the first gay candidate, or the first muslim candidate, or the first disabled candidate -- and they receive a bunch of RS coverage profiling them for that -- then they may very well merit coverage in a standalone article, after all. Cummings isn't the first gay, the first muslim, but he did raise an enormous amount of money, and he did receive a prodigious amount of RS coverage, because of that. IMO enough for him to be one of the un-elected candidates who measures up to GNG. Geo Swan (talk) 02:18, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

He is not central to the event. The event would take place regardless of his participation. If you feel he passes the notability bar, nothing is stopping you from attempting to write an article, just expect it to be nominated for deletion, and deleted like all the others. Only in death does duty end (talk) 02:33, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Geo Swan, gaaaah! You had me up until "shoe-in". It's shoo-in. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Caster Semenya

A new editor is repeatedly trying to introduce an unsourced description of intersex athlete Caster Semenya's genitals and gender assignment, seems unwilling to engage with WP:BRD. ─ ReconditeRodent « talk · contribs » 13:28, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this here. I have already reported that user (User:Benc0lins) to AIV for vandalism as their edits seem intentionally disingenuous (misrepresenting sources, marking a major edit as minor, etc) and clearly here to pursue a defamatory grudge against Semenya and generally not here to help. They are now over the 3RR but I'm not sure whether I am justified in reverting them again, as that would put me over the 3RR, although probably allowed by WP:3RRNO #4 and/or #7. If anybody can take a look this it would be very helpful. I think we need an indef on Benc0lins and it might even be worth considering revdelling some or all of their edits and edit summaries to this article.--DanielRigal (talk) 17:06, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Here are some diffs of what I am talking about:

• The worst version (Note the defamatory use of the term "hermaphrodite" and the disgustingly intrusive speculation about the subject's sexual organs.)
• The most recent version (This is only very slightly less egregious.)

Please also note that three different people, one of them an administrator, have reverted these edits and that Benc0lins has received multiple warnings and explanations.

I also note that some other users, seemingly in good faith, have been discussing claims about the subject's sexual organs on the talk page[14]. While I don't think that there was any malicious intent there, I do wonder whether that should also be removed?

--DanielRigal (talk) 17:22, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I was advised to take my issue from AIV to ANI. That is here: Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Grudge_editing_by_Benc0lins_on_Caster_Semenya --DanielRigal (talk) 17:50, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Note that I've reverted one edit yesterday for egregious WP:BLP vio. I've now sysop-protected for 24 hours, and have left a message on the talk page to get editors to the table to discuss. I've also rev-del'd some of the more egregious violations related to the subject's genitalia. That kind of unsourced, deeply personal commentary is never okay. Leaving any 3RR sanctions to another admin - Alison ^❤ 18:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Alison, I think this is beyond 3RR and into NOTHERE - the user has also inserted a link to a fundamentalist evangelical statement against social justice. I have blocked for now. Guy (help! - typo?) 19:02, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Ok - your call. I just went through their edits and saw the evangelical link. I think I'd AGF on that one myself, but ok. They can request unblock if needs be, and a third-party admin can decide - Alison ^❤ 23:05, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Tnuza Jamal Hassan

Tnuza Jamal Hassan, a former student at St Catherine University, who had become radicalized, and identified with jihadist groups, set a series of fires on the University's campus, in January 2018. She pled guilty to Federal terrorism charges in August 2020.

At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tnuza Jamal Hassan several contributors, including @ValarianB, Premeditated Chaos, EEng, and Calton:, voiced the opinion that Ms Hassan's attempts to burn down the campus of St Catherine University were little more than a campus prank. I think that these contributors are ignoring her intention - as deadly as that of Nidal Hasan, who killed 13 when he shot up Fort Bragg. The reason why her attack didn't have a more serious effect was due to incompetence.

Ms Hassan spent considerable time undergoing a psychological examination. When she was determined to be fit for trial, she was charged with Federal terrorism crimes. She pled guilty in August. @K.e.coffman:'s delete opinion was based in part on her not yet being convicted. Well, she is convicted now.

@Lankiveil, Premeditated Chaos, and EEng: voiced BLP1E. I think the BLP1E assertion was questionable, because (1) she first fell under FBI scrutiny a year earlier. She had drafted a letter urging others to travel jihadi territory and enlist in a jihadi cause. Her room-mates gave the letter to campus security, who forwarded it to the FBI. (2) She fell under FBI scrutiny a second time when she tried to travel to Afghanistan, to find a jihadist to marry. She made it as far as the UAE, and was deported back to the USA. I think those were separate events.

Even a stopped clock is correct twice a day. A vandal who has since been indefinitely blocked suggested "appears to me to be having some form of breakdown". Spending a year in mental health institutions prior to having her court appointed psychologist certify she was then fit to stand trial would seem to confirm that.

Should her mental health issues, if she has any, matter in determining whether and how she should be covered?

I am going to ping individuals who voiced keep decisions too @BabbaQ and Pharaoh of the Wizards: Geo Swan (talk) 16:04, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

@Geo Swan:, this post is itself a BLP violation and I suggest you would like to remove it yourself before some-one requests revdel. Mental health allegations and radicalization allegations require supported from impeccable RS. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:43, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

• Some substantiating references hidden in a box immediatel below. Geo Swan (talk) 20:35, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

references to substantiate TJH's mental health determinations, and radicalization

• Sarah Horner (2019-06-17). "Competency questions delay trial for Minneapolis woman accused of setting St. Catherine University fires". Twin Cities Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2020-08-06. Retrieved 2019-12-22.
• Sarah Horner (2019-12-17). "Psychologist: St. Catherine University arson suspect is now competent to stand trial". Twin Cities Pioneer Press. Archived from the original on 2020-04-08. Retrieved 2019-12-22. The finding, which was detailed in a report filed in court, comes about six months after Hassan was found not competent to proceed with her case by the same psychologist.
• Andy Mannix (2019-12-20). "Psychologist: Suspect in St. Kate's terror case now competent to face charges". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2020-05-29. Retrieved 2019-12-22. Correa told the court she updated Hassan's diagnosis from schizophrenia to a "mood disorder with a psychotic component" after Hassan's symptoms disappeared under her medical observation despite Hassan declining medication. Correa said she believes Hassan is now mentally competent.
• "Competency hearing held for former St. Kate's student accused of setting fires". KSTP-TV. 2019-06-17. Archived from the original on 2020-09-09. Retrieved 2019-02-04. In court Monday, lawyers for the government and for Hassan acknowledged a second report on Hassan's competency was complete. However, because it involves medical information, that report is sealed. Hassan herself was not physically present for the hearing, but did appear via video from the federal facility she's being held at in Fort Worth, Texas.
• "Competency Hearing Held for Woman Charged With Arson, Terrorism". KSTP-TV. 2018-11-02. Archived from the original on 2020-09-03. Retrieved 2018-11-03. Hassan faces three federal counts, including one count of attempting to support a terrorist organization and one count of arson. She's also charged with arson in state court.
• Laura Yuen (2018-11-02). "Judge weighs competency of ex-St. Kate's student facing terror charges". Minnesota Public Radio. Archived from the original on 2020-06-13. Retrieved 2018-11-03. The psychologist said that during the five hours she spent with Hassan in August and September, the former St. Kate's student appeared to be open and honest in her answers. She also testified that Hassan was experiencing "symptoms" from April to June, but did not specify what those symptoms were.
• Chao Xiong (2018-11-02). "Former St. Catherine University student capable of understanding terrorism charges, doctor testifies". Star Tribune. Archived from the original on 2019-02-04. Retrieved 2018-11-03. Hassan's attorneys filed a motion to have her competency evaluated after the former St. Catherine University student allegedly set several fires on the school's campus in mid-January and was arrested and charged in both state and federal court. Friday's hearing was held in the federal case.
• Amy Forlili (2018-02-17). "Minn. terror case shows challenge of predicting attacks". The Ledger. Minneapolis. Retrieved 2018-05-02. After Tnuza Jamal Hassan was stopped from flying to Afghanistan last September, she allegedly told FBI agents that she wanted to join al-Qaida and marry a fighter, and that she might even wear a suicide belt.{{cite news}}: CS1 maint: url-status (link)
• "Child Porn to Pyromania: New Terror Cases in the US". Clarion Project. 2018-01-21. Archived from the original on 2020-09-09. Retrieved 2018-01-22. While attending the college Hassan reportedly wrote a letter to her roommates espousing "radical ideas about supporting Muslims and bringing back the caliphate." Frightened by the letter, her roommates turned it over to campus security.
• Ted Vezner (2018-01-19). "'You guys are lucky I don't know how to build a bomb,' Minn. arson suspect allegedly said". Grand Forks Herald. Archived from the original on 2018-01-24. Retrieved 2018-01-22. A spokesman for the Federal Bureau of Investigations' Minneapolis office said he could not comment on whether federal authorities also were investigating the incident. A call to the United States District of Attorney's Minnesota Office to inquire about whether Hassan might face federal charges was not returned.

From news articles I've read, it seems that she was found competent to face trial in the federal case and pleaded guilty to attempting to aid al'Qaida [15][16]. She also faced state charges for arson, but the judge in that case found her incompetent to stand for trial [17][18]. The guilty plea means that the federal case against her is basically over; there's going to be a sentencing hearing but it's incredibly unlikely that she'll face any other federal charges. I don't know much about what would happen in the state case now, but I would think it's very unlikely to go anywhere at this point, since she's been determined incompetent and she's also probably going to federal prison. I don't think there would be any BLP issues in discussing this in on a talk page, the cases have been discussed in reliable sources. Plus she herself pleaded guilty to attempting to assist al'Qaida, admitted to setting the fires in the arson case, and has been determined by a court to be mentally incompetent to face trial. Red Rock Canyon (talk) 22:13, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a standalone article on her is appropriate here. Not enough coverage of her in particular. You should consider creating an article at St. Catherine's University Arson Attack as was suggested in the AfD and cover the event in detail there, perhaps with a section on the perpetrator. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 02:34, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Chess, how many references do you think are required? Geo Swan (talk) 02:42, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

@Geo Swan: It's not possible to give a firm number on how many sources are required. WP:GNG is qualitative and not quantitative and sources that cover a subject in detail or secondary sources are obviously weighted more heavily than ones that aren't either of the two. Chess (talk) (please use {{ping|Chess}} on reply) 03:07, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Okay, so, what is your assertion that there is "not enough coverage of her in particular", based on? @Chess: Geo Swan (talk) 03:49, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
• Chess, I placed a google news alert of Ms Hassan back in early 2018. Since then the google news alert engine sent me 27 emails with links to articles updating her story. None of the articles google news advised me mentions her in passing. They were all about her, specifically.

I draw your attention to this snopes piece, debunking a misleading social media meme about Ms Hassan A Muslim student set fire to a Christian school in protest of U.S. President Donald Trump. The false meme circulating about Ms Hassan showed her face next to a large four-storeyed mansard-roofed building, firmly ablaze, and said her arson was to "protest Trump".

Facebook, twitter, and other social media giants face considerable criticism over the power they give to Russian puppetmasters and kooks to harness memes and false narratives. One of the solutions offered has been for Facebook, Twitter, et al, to counter the misinformation with reliable information from more reliable sites. Yes, snopes is one of the reliable sites mentioned. But the first site suggested as the neutral reliable source to counter hysterical falsehoods has always been the wikipedia.

Except, in this particular case, the wikipedia was no help at countering the false narrative, because we chose to delete the article about Ms Hassan.

Chess, it is not my intention to shame you over this. In recent years I have become aware of something I find extremely alarming. Even the most experienced wikipedia contributors here often prove completely incapable of competently performing a WP:BEFORE review. So, if your web search fell short you are in good company. I am working on an essay on this concern When complying with BEFORE is not straighforward

Now here, you have asserted there was "Not enough coverage of her...", when it seems to me there is lots of coverage of her. I think that leaves two possibilities:

1. You found all the same RS I did, but you have a valid policy-based reason to discount all those RS that never occurred to me. If that is the case I really need you to share that valid policy-based reason to discount with me. If you have a valid policy-based reason to discount the RS I found, I need you to share that with me, so I don't assemble the same kind of RS on other topics, if your analysis shows they aren't valid, after all.
2. Maybe you didn't do as thorough a job in your web search on Ms Hassan as you thought, and you didn't find the RS I found.

So, I am still very interested in your answer to my question about the basis of your assertion there is "Not enough coverage of her..." Geo Swan (talk) 16:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

On politicians

--> move to WP:JIMBOTALK

JzG, was this meant for Jimmys talkpage? Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 19:31, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Gråbergs Gråa Sång, arse. Yes. Too many windows open at once :-( Guy (help! - typo?) 20:01, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Is being right-wing a BLP vio?

See discussion at Talk:Amendment_to_the_Act_on_the_Institute_of_National_Remembrance#How_on_earth_can_it_be_a_BLP_vio_to_be_left_or_right_wing? Another user is arguing that calling a historian right-wing based on a reliable source, is a BLP vio. (t · c) buidhe 05:23, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

No but i'm not sure it's needed there either. The OKO.press source does camp call him right-wing, but the source itself seems to have a strong political slant. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:38, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

I replied there (I am the "another user" who objected to this description) but I will also reply here, because I think it is an important issue overall that goes beyond this particular diff/subject.

First, I am not sure how reliable is OKO.press. At the very least, it is pretty niche (a new Polish news portal launched in 2016). It seems to be about as reliable as the PiS-associated (and right-wing-ish) media like NaTemat and so on that it is in clear opposition too. Given that the portal is rather anti-right wing and as such not very neutral, I wouldn't use it for adjectives like right-wing, just like I wouldn't treat NaTemat and like as reliable or neutral if they'd describe someone as left-wing etc. (I will note that the author, pl:Adam Leszczyński, is reliable, but I don't see why is he more reliable than Piotr Gontarczyk. One professor described another as right wing, this at the very least should be clearly attributed. And what if Gontarczyk describes Leszczyński as 'left-wing'? :) ).

Second, this is cherry-picking - given that the subject's article doesn't describe him as a right-wing, I don't think he is described as such. Some people certainly are cleary right or left wing, and we can say so if the majority of the sources usually mention this when discussing the subject. In this case, I do not see this - a few sources do describe him as such, but this seems to be not a very common description of him; in other words, he is not universally seen as a 'right-winger'. It is not his defining quality and should not be used in a passing attribution or mention of him.

Third, terms like right or left wing can be seen as pejorative in some contexts and yes, per BLP we have to be careful with such descriptors. See for example Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view/Noticeboard/Archive_82#NPOV_in_possibly_contentious_labels,_X_vs_far-X_etc, and I'll quote User:Blueboar, who's closing comment said: "In a BLP, it is fine to note who says what about the subject... we can say that “X considers Y to be a LABEL” (assuming X is noteworthy enough for their opinion to be included in the first place). What we should NOT do is present the label as fact, in WP’s voice (as in “Y is a LABEL”). ALL labels should be attributed (in text) to those that use them". I think this is best practice. In the article about the subject we could add an attributed source saying that "such and such in an oko.press article described him as right-wing". But here it is an undue, non-neutral and pejorative adjective that can prejudice some readers against the subject. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

• Diffs would have been extremely helpful here. I looked at Talk:Amendment_to_the_Act_on_the_Institute_of_National_Remembrance#How_on_earth_can_it_be_a_BLP_vio_to_be_left_or_right_wing?... I don't see any diffs there either.

When I started working on the wikipedia, 15 years ago, there was an excellent guideline that used Adolf Hitler as an example, when explaining the importance of proper attribution in maintaining the neutral point of view. I am going to paraphrase my memory of that excellent advise, and probably not do it justice.

The advice recommended that, even with a guy as notorious for evil as Hitler, our articles shouldn't baldly state, in the wikipedia's voice, "Hitler was evil". Rather it recommended something like (again paraphrasing from memory) "According to Hannah Arendt, author of The banality of evil, Hitler was evil, because..."

So, in this particular case, even if everyone working on that article thinks the Institute is "right wing", the article should only describe the Institute as "right wing" when attributing that opinion to one or more RS.

I repeat my request that, in discussions like this, please use diff, so the third parties you ask for advice don't have to examine the article's revision history for themselves to figure out what the argument is really about. Geo Swan (talk) 17:03, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Alfred-Maurice de Zayas

Alfred-Maurice de Zayas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) This long article is in a pretty poor state and I would appreciate editors with experience of BLPs having a look at it. It has been flagged for multiple issues for several years. I try and make a stab at it every now and again, but my edits are usually reverted by the editor responsible for a large share of the content. BobFromBrockley (talk) 09:54, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Rezo (crosspost)

There is a BLP discussion at Talk:Rezo#Redux which could use more input from editors. Please voice your opinions there. Primefac (talk) 12:22, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

2 pages needs experts in Nigerian to monitor for COI-editor edit requests, Abiola Dosunmu and Erelu Kuti

Bauba011 (talk · contribs) recently disclosed at Talk:Abiola Dosunmu#On Abiola Dosumu (permalink) and his user page (permalink) that he has a personal or professional relationship with the subject of the article, HRH Erelu Abiola Dosumu. This was after making several changes to Abiola Dosunmu and Erelu Kuti, some of which were reverted by me due to Wikipedia's practice of saying what reliable sources say about someone, not so much about what they say about themselves. In particular, he is attempting to change the name to something other than what the existing sources use.

Bauba011 seems to be trying to edit in good faith. We need to make sure that no information that harms someone's reputation or hurts them in other ways remains unless it is backed by a reliable source and, probably more importantly in this case, that the sources reflect current usage. A source from years ago that spells a name one way can be set aside in favor of an equally reliable source that uses it another way. Likewise, transliterations can be a matter of judgement if current sources translate the same person's name multiple ways.

I'm asking for interested editors, particularly those with knowledge of the subject or Nigerian culture in general to monitor this page, assist with any {{requested edit}} requests, and, as is the case with all paid editors and all editors in general, to help this editor understand that Wikipedia is here to be an encyclopedia for the world, not to serve the needs of him or people he knows.

See also: Talk:Abiola Dosunmu#Possible accuracy issue raised by a COI editor in section above and Talk:Erelu Kuti#Possible accuracy issue raised by a COI editor. davidwr/(talk)/(contribs) 00:00, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Bobby Seale

The article on Bobby Seale alleges that Seale wrote an approving message regarding the murder of fellow Black Panther Fred Bennett. The source cited contains no link, but the text mentions an article titled "One Less Oppressor". Even if Seale held a personal grudge against Bennett, it would be odd form for one Panther to officially denounce another as an 'oppressor' in that fashion, especially post-mortem, so I tried to find confirmation that this actually happened.

As it turns out, the claim on Wikipedia is incorrect. A staff study on the Black Panthers by the Committee on Internal Security in the U.S. House of Representatives identifies the "Bennett" in question as Bernard Bennett, a patrol officer.

As it stands, the article on Wikipedia could easily be considered libelous. It also places Seale's writing into a much different context than that in which it was originally written, and distorts the historical record. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Mliz11) 03:30, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The piece where Seale wrote those words was published in The Black Panther Leaders Speak by G. Louis Heath (1976, Scarecrow Press) which I don't have a copy of and Google Books doesn't allow preview, so I can't verify which Bennett the original text referred to. You are correct that a House of Representatives Subcomittee staff said it was a different Bennett, but there is at least one scholarly work that says it was Fred to whom the article referred (Balleck, Barry J, Modern American Extremism and Domestic Terrorism: An Encyclopedia of Extremists and Extremist Groups, 2018, ABC-CLIO). Either way, Seale wrote approvingly of some Bennet's murder and it is well-documented that Seale was implicated in Fred's murder so there isn't a real argument for defamation. I think there isn't a BLP grounds for removal, either, since the claim is documented, just not in a source that we can put our digital hands on right this minute. If some-one with access to Heath can tell us which Bennett "One Less Oppressor" actually applies to, then WP:V might apply. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:24, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

The Congressional report, p. 13, says:

An article by Bobby Seales entitled "One Less Oppressor" applauds the murder of patrolman Bernard Bennett who was shot and killed at 10:30 p.m. on May 9th at 35th St., and 4th Ave., in Sacramento, Calif.

The article stated: "The people have now come to realize that the only way to deal with the oppressor is to deal on our own terms and that was done. Around 10:30 that evening 4 or 5 shots rang out to find their marks lodged in the brain of a pig: color him dead!!!" (The Black Panther, May 31, 1970:2)[19]

Unfortunately, CUNY, which has a collection of Panther's magazines, does not have this issue.[20]

The other sources I saw only quoted the first sentence. If the quote is accurate, then it could only refer to the patrolman's murder. It is more likely too that Seale would be writing about a patrolman who had allegedly been killed by a Black Panther a few weeks before, than about the Black Panther whose body had been found a year before. Also, it would be unclear why Seale considered Fred Bennett, an official in the Black Panthers, to be an oppressor, while any police officer would be by definition an oppressor.

If we had the primary source we could probably determine which interpretation is correct. But without that, it's best to leave it out.

TFD (talk) 20:40, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Balleck, published in 2018, isn't necessarily dispositive because it could simply reflect the state of our article at the time.[21] Balleck references G. Louis Heath's The Black Panther Leaders Speak (Scarecrow Press, 1976) which is not, unfortunately, available online. That might be dispositive, but until we have better sourcing, concur with TFD, it's best to leave it out. - Ryk72 ^talk 21:59, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Michelangelo Canale

An IP complained at WP:RFPP that content was being removed; later, a new user added this content, regarding assault allegations from 2017. The police subsequently dropped the charges, though they said "This in no [sic] ways implies that Mr. Canale's conduct is not of concern." [22]. There is coverage from reliable sources, though not a lot; seems borderline to me. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:11, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Greg Simon article. The BLP subject has an issue with the article.

Greg Simon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Minutes ago, when using WP:Huggle, I saw significant unsoured changes to the Greg Simon article and reverted. The person I reverted claims to be Greg Simon.

Eyes are needed on this matter. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 22:25, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, I tend to try to give people the benefit of the doubt when they come claiming to be the subject. Of course, they may not be, so I don't take them at their word for it, but in many cases they do come here with valid concerns, regardless of who they really are.

In this case, I do think the editor in question may have some. Of course, their way of going about fixing it was all wrong, and replacing everything with a quick resume didn't help matters, but what I quickly noticed is just how many sources do not even mention his name even once. In fact, the entire second-half of the article, sources 10--21 do not even mention his name, save source 11, which (I don't know why that's there) is a primary source that only mentions his name and position in the company.

The first half doesn't look too bad, for a newly created article, but that second half of the Career section smacks of synthesis (even if unintentional synth). I don't know that any of those sources, or the info they support, are relevant to this subject, and what he said in his edit summary may just be correct. I would highly recommend removing all of that stuff as unverifiable and possibly irrelevant ... at least, until sources can be found that actually name him and somehow demonstrate how he's tied to these events. Zaereth (talk) 02:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Zoie Palmer

Concerns have been made, purportedly by the article subject at en-help, that the personal information regarding Palmer's sexuality is incorrect. As the sources used in the article to support the inclusion of such information were subpar (i.e. Gay Star News and "The Geekiary"), Snowycats (and subsequently myself) removed the material. Pyxis Solitary, who is the primary editor of the article, has reverted the attempted removal of the disputed content and has also restored unsupported personal information and related categories to the article. I've brought the concerns regarding the inclusion of the sexual identification here to allow for a more thorough review of the sourcing and to discuss to what extent, if any, it should be included in the article.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 22:33, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

According to User:Ponyo, "Inclusion of sexual orientation in a BLP requires explicit self-identification by the subject, especially if disputed as it is in this case. " There is no requirement in WP:BLP that sexual orientation must be self-identified by the subject, and the only persons who are disputing the information about the individual and have embarked on deleting content supported with sources are editors Snowycats and Ponyo. Editor Ponyo failed to include Hello! magazine as the third source used regarding the subject's public coming out.
These editors have teamed-up to remove Personal life content 01:45, 02:01, 21:54, 22:02, 22:03, 22:17.
Previous to their edits, two requests were made on the article's Talk page to change the subject's status to single: 23 August 2020 and 28 October 2020. Both requests were denied due to failure to provide reliable sources to support the change.
As the individual is an actress (but not an A-list actress) whose work history has been predominantly in Canadian television, the sources that provide information about her are limited, and the preponderance of media coverage is Canadian and niche. Those who are familiar with Zoie Palmer's career know that she came out in 2014 on television when she accepted the CSA Fan Choice Award for Favourite Canadian Screen Star and thanked her partner, Alex (Alexandra) Lalonde: "my incredible partner, Alex" - AfteEllen, "Zoie Palmer Thanks Female Partner at Canadian Film Awards" - Pride, YouTube @ 2:45. In my opinion, the deletion of Personal life content and the sources supporting it is disruptive editing. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 23:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Ponyo may have been referencing Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality#Sexuality. Mo Billings (talk) 03:57, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

I was indeed referencing WP:BLPCAT and WP:EGRS, which both require self-identification, and which I also noted here. In addition, BLP policy itself is that such articles must be written conservatively and with regard for the subject's privacy. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid: it is not Wikipedia's job to be sensationalist, or to be the primary vehicle for the spread of titillating claims about people's lives; the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. I believe we were failing the subject in that regard with both the content and the categories included in the article as written.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 16:12, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

And that, of course, is why you also deleted her birth place, which was sourced by the 2011 interview with Palmer by Canadian film publicist and writer Jim Lavoie. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 20:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Palmer came on help chat, identified herself conclusively via posts to her official social media profile, and stated that a) she is not partners with Lalonde, and b) 'thanking her partner' is not the same as 'coming out.' Coming out of the closet refers to the **self-disclosure** of a sexual or gender identity - not the mere thanking of a partner. It is unfair to draw the same assumptions that the media did.

DragonflySixtyseven was a witness to this. Snowycats (talk) 04:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

To be more specific, she stated that she is not at this time partners with Lalonde, and declined to provide further details. DS (talk) 04:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

"declined to provide further details".
I don't know if the person who "identified herself conclusively via posts to her official social media profile" was actually Palmer, but what I do know now is that User:Snowycats added her spin to what transpired. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 20:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't edit so much in raw biographies, but even if sourced, I think I tend to prefer omission of sexuality labels unless the person is largely known for their sexual orientation, and/or has committed to discussing their orientation in detail. Because if sexuality is fluid, a person might feel like A in one decade, then experiment with B another decade, and then find in their third decade of life that they're something in the range of C. That's not something to be ashamed of, but we also shouldn't stigmatise someone with a Wikipedia-imposed B-label just because they made a statement in their B years, and there might have been a lack of press coverage along their journey from B to C. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 04:29, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

As a homosexual, I've found that modern theories about "sexual fluidity" encourage the erasure of the very concept of sexual orientation. At its core, to say that sexuality is fluid is saying that sexual orientation is a choice -- which goes against everything that the lesbian and gay community struggled against until we were recognized for the non-hetero members of society that we are. To say that someone is "fluid" means that they can choose to be heterosexual today, bisexual tomorrow, homosexual later, and go back to heterosexuality.
As far as Palmer is concerned, it's evident from the statement by User:DragonflySixtyseven (DS) that she has not denied having been partners with Alex Lalonde. Palmer and Lalonde were not business partners, and those who are educated and sophisticated recognize the coded language used by many lesbians and gays. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 20:04, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Pyxis Solitary, at the very least Palmer could be bisexual. She would thus not be a lesbian (unless she identified as a lesbian, which we don't have an RS for). Gbear605 (talk) 20:10, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

• Thank you for not deleting your comment, Cyphoidbomb. I think it's well put, and I very much agree. I don't think a person's sexuality is necessarily "fluid", at least not for everybody, but I do recognize that it's not always that clear-cut and black and white. Life is a journey, not a destination, and the biggest part of that journey is discovering who we are, ourselves. And discovering our own sexuality is a huge part of that. I understand that there are a lot of people out there who have discovered themselves --who have essentially reached their destination in life-- and it makes them feel good to say, 'look, this person is just like me' (with some well-deserved pride I might add), but that's really being selfish. For many, it's still a big part of the journey of discovery, and for most I think it's still a very personal and private thing that they need to discover for themselves. I don't think it needs to be included just because we can, but really only in cases where we really should; cases in which the person's sexuality is a big part of their notability. Zaereth (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2020 (UTC)