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.

Sholam Weiss

Hello,

My name is Hershy Marton and I'm writing this message on behalf of my uncle, Sholam Weiss, who has a Wikipedia article at the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sholam_Weiss. A great deal of the information on the article is inaccurate and libelous, with much of its sourcing traced back to "anonymous officials" interviewed by long-retired journalists. Given that there is a history of individuals working to slander my uncle, I believe that some of them may be involved in this Wikipedia editing. Unfortunately, despite my efforts to remove false information, it has been repeatedly added back and at this point I feel it is out of my control. In addition, I do not believe my uncle is notable enough for his own page given that he is not significant for any reason other than his crime several decades ago. In fact, none of the others involved in the crime (which includes individuals with significantly more direct and sustained involvement than my uncle) have their own page. Instead, I believe that the information about my uncle contained on this page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Heritage_Life_Insurance_Company) is sufficient, although I do have more minor problems with its accuracy as well.

Therefore, I am petitioning for you to remove the article at the following link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sholam_Weiss. Thank you very much for reading my appeal and please do not hesitate to respond if you have any questions for me! I really appreciate your efforts to help monitor a website that has helped so many people learn about the world.

Sincerely, Hershy Marton — Preceding unsigned comment added by HershyMarton (talk • contribs) 15:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC) — HershyMarton (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

• Comment See this COI Noticeboard discussion. The article in question has been semiprotected for two months due to IP vandalism and content blanking, which evidently was coordinated and/or carried out by the above account.Coretheapple (talk) 16:48, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I'd just like to note that I don't see any justification for removing this article. The subject meets our requirements for notability several times over: from the scope of the crime he was convicted of, for the unprecedented severity of his sentence, and then again recently for the controversial pardon he received from President Trump. Of course the article can be edited and improved, but I don't think it can be deleted. -- MelanieN (talk) 20:34, 1 February 2021 (UTC) @

MelanieN I really don't know how this Wikipedia really works, if you believe this page cannot be scrapped, how can I make sure non biased editors are vandalizing my uncle's page? There are a number of edits done by some users that keep removing many facts, links to news articles etc. and keep adding opinions rather than facts for the sole purpose to defame my uncle Mr. Weiss. most of my chat room friends that have edited this page for many months with 100% true facts have been locked out of wiki. I believe this page should be scrapped and deleted. Information regarding the crime along with the co defendants are included in the National Heritage page and non of the co defendants have individual pages. that page also notes about the clemency. Communicating via wiki is hard on me, I don't really know how it works, I'd be happy to discuss each defamation/slanderous issue on the page via email or phone. Thank you for your response. HershyMarton (talk) 21:13, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• By way of background: Sholam Weiss was the central figure in the looting of National Heritage Life Insurance Company, helping to drain it of $450 million, for which he was indicted on multiple felony counts and put on trial in 1999. While the jury was deliberating, he fled overseas, and he was sentenced in absentia to 845 years in prison, the longest white collar sentence in U.S. history. After a year on the run, during which he lived in splendor utilizing hundreds of millions of dollars stolen from the company he looted, Weiss was extradited to the U.S. He has been the subject of a campaign to free him. On Jan. 19 he was one of the persons whose sentences were commuted by President Trump. The commutation was criticized by The Washington Post.

I think that's a fair summary. These details are taken from the article, which is sourced in large measure to The New York Times, the Best's Review insurance newsletter and to the Orlando Sentinel. If Mr. Marton or his uncle have a problem with those publications, the solution is to contact the publications, not to vandalize the Wikipedia article citing them, blanking content and POV pushing, as has best the article since it was created in 2006. It required a complete rewrite because it was a mess. Coretheapple (talk) 21:09, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Coretheapple, this is untrue, first the Washington post opinion is just an opinion and shouldn't be on this page. Second, If you read the best review in grave detail you will see that your statement is simply untrue. Mr. Weiss was never convicted for looting any money. he was convicted for laundering. Only his co defendants were convicted for looting, All the talk that relates to him as causing losses was because of the restitution imposed upon him before counting the mortgages he owned under the south star corp which was given to NHLC with a bond and only later sold and satisfied the restitution. This article is filled with defamation. HershyMarton (talk) 21:21, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

Also worth to note that the best review magazine is the best source to be used because it was a thorough article by an insurance journal from September 2000, also the satisfaction of restitution from 2016 only proves why my uncle has proclaimed his innocents against theft charges which he was after all never convicted for. HershyMarton (talk) 21:24, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• Again, your argument is with The New York Times. This is from one of the articles used to source Sholam Weiss:

The authorities said they believed that he had had access to as much as half the $450 million he helped steal and used some of it in flight.

Officials have begun extradition proceedings to return Mr. Weiss to the United States.

In a series of extremely complex mortgage and stock frauds, Mr. Weiss and several others looted the National Heritage Life Insurance Company in 1993 and 1994, leading to what the federal authorities called the largest insurance company failure caused by a criminal act in United States history. The company, which largely sold annuities to retirees, is chartered in Delaware, but the majority of its mostly elderly policy holders live in Florida.

-- Coretheapple (talk) 21:46, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Coretheapple There are many other news articles that you can source here, as I stated in this case the most reliable would be the Best Review because they cover insurance financial journalism. there are many facts in this case that this page is just misrepresenting. HershyMarton (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• I agree as well that there isn't much chance this article will be deleted. Now the article might get some attention and improvement as a consequence of the post here. But not deletion... Nomoskedasticity (talk) 21:36, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@Nomoskedasticity: FYI just before I became aware of the existence of both Weiss and this article, one very long week ago, this noticeboard was utilized for that precise purpose. See [1]. After BrxBrx decided that life was too short to babysit this article, I stumbled onto it and, again, sent up a warning flare on AN , COIN and here. Coretheapple (talk) 21:58, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Nomoskedasticity I would love to disagree especially because there are too many slanderous points but if that's the case, I'll be happy if we settle by not slandering my uncle with facts that are not true and not post useless stupid opinions, rather only facts. Also, many facts are simply written in a way to deceive and make him look worse for no reason. For example, The paid in full restitution was taken off numerous times by User:Coretheapple just to make my uncle look worse, that screams bias against my uncle. HershyMarton (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

That's not true. The article states that restitution was paid. I added that line. Please do not misrepresent the content of the article and other editors' behavior. Coretheapple (talk) 22:04, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@ Coretheapple I have seen your edits, you first took it off from everywhere, you took it off from the box ontop, It looks like you babysit this article to defame my uncle. You literally rewrote the entire article to make it look worse on my uncle. Im not trying to get into a fight with you here. If there is any way we can get on the phone or discuss this article over the phone, I am open to it.

I still think that according to wiki policies I read earlier, fits the criteria for the page to be scrapped. HershyMarton (talk) 22:38, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

I still think that if you intend to edit Wikipedia, you need to stop misrepresenting what has happened in your uncle's article and stop the relentless personal attacks. If you continue to waste people's time with attacks and nonsense, you risk being blocked. Coretheapple (talk) 22:52, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

@HershyMarton: You said I still think that according to wiki policies I read earlier, fits the criteria for the page to be scrapped. Unfortunately none of the editors above agree with you. I also do not think it should be deleted. Please take it easy on the personal attacks as well, as these are not acceptable. Possibly (talk) 23:41, 1 February 2021 (UTC)

• User:HershyMarton and User:Coretheapple, this kind of discussion - the relative value of sources, etc. - should be done at the article talk page, not at this board. Please take it there. Mr. Marton, some suggestions: take your points one at a time and create a discussion section for that one point. Discuss calmly without throwing around words like “defamation” and “slanderous” and “biased”, and focus on a fact that you dispute. For example, you say he was not convicted for looting any money; that can be proven or disproven. BTW I don’t think you will get very far with a claim that an article in Best’s Review [2] is more reliable than an article in The New York Times. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:35, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment I must say, I'm completely perplexed by the extent of these whitewashing editors for Sholam Weiss. This has been going on for years, and people are still interested in whitewashing him, against what every reliable source has reported on the subject? Absolutely incredible. At any rate, @HershyMarton:, if you have a problem with what you see as slander, you can try to place suggested edits on the talk page. Requests that are POV-pushing however, are not going to succeed. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 01:15, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Comment 2 A deletion is also unlikely to succeed, but you can try asking an uninvolved editor to place an afd tag on it, if you think it actually does fit under the deletion policy. BrxBrx(talk)^{(please reply with {{SUBST:re|BrxBrx}})} 01:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Your attempt to whitewash your uncles crimes is unlikely to succeed, given the quality of the sourcing. Hemiauchenia (talk) 00:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Chad Johnson (television personality)

Chad Johnson (television personality) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I'm bringing this here partly per WP:DOLT. At the time of the legal threat, the sourcing was particularly poor. This has been improved after it made it to ANI, still until I changed it a few minutes ago it still had 'screamed "I hope you fucking die"' in the lead. I just removed any mention of the arrest and later career (it's still in the article) but I'm not sure if this will stick. Nil Einne (talk) 12:32, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Sure enough, someone reverted me making the bizzare claim the subject was notable for those things, even though they happened in 2020 and the article has existed since 2017, and the criminal charge at least seems to be a clear case of WP:BLP1E Nil Einne (talk) 14:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Nil. I'm the one who restored that info to the article. I am aware of WP:DOLT but I don't think it applies here because the incidents are well-sourced - this is not an example of someone creating a smear article without reliable sources. Anyway, the account(s) that were constantly removing that sourced info, and recently threatened legal action, were blocked, which seems like WP:DOLT might apply in that sense, but since the information is all true and well-sourced, I think it's a moot point. I also didn't know you posted about it here until I looked at your contributions page; you didn't mention it in your edit summaries or when you posted on my talk page. That would have been helpful I think. Wes sideman (talk) 15:27, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the information probably does not belong in the lead. Calling it "sourced" is technically correct but Fox News and Daily Mirror aren't the greatest of sources for negative BLP information. I moved the references to the body section where there is already an extensive discussion of the allegations to preserve them but they really are not appropriate to the lead per WP:DUE. As the arrest has not been tested in court it is not worth making it one of the first things that people read here about this person. He was notable for his reality show career before the arrest so that is what the lead should discuss. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:52, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps I'm reading it wrong, but Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section says the lead in the article is "a summary of its most important contents." Over half of the contents of the body of the article relate to the arrest and porn career. Doing searches of reliable sources reveals the same thing - most of the coverage deals with the subject's arrest, less of it with his porn career, and the smallest amount is the stuff that actually talks about his appearances on reality shows. While it's true that his notability started with reality TV, it seems a big stretch to say that the arrests and the porn career are not significant parts of his notability now, given the evidence. Wes sideman (talk) 19:17, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

The issue is not MOS, but WP:BLPCRIME: A living person accused of a crime is presumed innocent until convicted by a court of law. Accusations, investigations and arrests do not amount to a conviction. This is policy that trumps the MOS. Johnson is a public figure so mention of this accusation is allowed but that does not mean that it belongs in the lead. The if/then above is also somewhat backwards. If half of the contents of the body (although that proportion is not, in actual fact, correct) are about accusations, then reducing the contents is the answer, not adding it to the lead. The most salacious parts of that section are not directly sourced and probably should be removed, for example. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:47, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

You can't just look at policy one bit at a time. I often tell people you have to look at it all at once, like one, giant equation. For information to be included, every factor in that equation must be satisfied in order to comply with BLP.

First is sourcing. Regardless of who is regurgitating the stories, the story about the alleged domestic abuse (notice I say "alleged" because nothing has been proven in court, and BLP rules apply to talk pages as well; even the sources are very careful in this respect), the alleged abuse was in reality reported by TMZ and Toofab. TMZ is definitely not a reliable source, and Toofab looks mighty questionable, and the reviews are not so good either. These other sources are just repeating what TMZ and Toofab said, and are very careful to state that, so that the reader will know how reliable the info is, and who to blame if it's wrong.

So, already we've failed RS. Then we have way too much space devoted to this per the rest of the article, which fails DUE. We're supposed to give a summary, not the whole, detailed story, and we need to weigh the sourcing (all originally sourced material in proportion to all original sources about this info), and put it into its proper percentage. Then, the lede is just a very quick summary of all the main points in the article, in their proper proportion. (I like to think of the lede as simple a scaled-down model of the article. For a good example of how a lede should summarize the body, see Honey).

Then you have WP:BLPCRIME to consider. I'm not sure this falls under the exemption to that, WP:WELLKNOWN because there just isn't a lot of independent coverage out there on this story, not like there would be for, say ... Charlie Sheen. To pass WELLKNOWN, there needs to be significant, independent coverage to the point that there is no longer any point in trying to protect their right to be innocent until proven guilty. (And before people cry "celebrity", as far as famous people named Chad Johnson go, a quick google search shows he's at the bottom of that list, below the football layer, soccer player, etc., and the lame sourcing in our very short article also seems to confirm that.)

Oh, and on top of that, naming the alleged victim is also not cool, especially when that person is not notable enough to have an article of their own. So, all in all, unless some better sourcing comes along besides TMZ and Toofab, and a lot of it, I would opt to just leave it out of the article entirely. Zaereth (talk) 20:04, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

• I think Wes sideman is missing one VERY important part of writing Wikipedia articles. Information which has a reference is available to be put into Wikipedia articles, however it is not required to be in Wikipedia articles. Which is to say, that before you put anything in an article, you must source it, but, and I cannot stress this enough, merely because something is mentioned in a reliable source, this does not mean that the article MUST have it. In order to decide if a particular reliably sourced fact should or should not be mentioned in an article, and if it should, where and with how much prominence and in what phrasing and all sorts of other decisions still need to be made by Wikipedia editors making editorial decisions and when they disagree, to use consensus building to solve the disagreement. In this case, no one is objecting to the information because it lacks sources; your assertion that it has sources is at once both true and mostly irrelevant to the reason people want to remove it. Instead, things like WP:UNDUE, WP:BLPCRIME, and a variety of other editorial concerns have been raised that you have failed to address. Build consensus that it is relevant enough to his biography to include in the article first before re-adding it. --Jayron32 20:16, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with everything you said, except that I do think it lacks reliable sources. The reliability of a sources depends greatly on the info it's giving, and when they all say, "according to TMZ", then I have to question the reliability regardless of whether it's Fox News, People Magazine, or The NY Times. If they don't want to own it, then we shouldn't either. But I think BLPCRIME is the dominant issue here. Zaereth (talk) 21:01, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Given the consensus of experienced editors here I have reduced the arrest section to the essentials that I feel are barely supportable. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:37, 2 February 2021 (UTC)

Wes sideman, I have once again reverted your attempts to add these allegations. You have already been informed that TMZ is not an acceptable WP:RS for salacious allegations of criminal activity. Your "I didn't hear that" attempt to re-add this is verging on tendentious editing. Please do not attempt to add anything to this section again. Thank you in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:28, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Eggishorn Is cheatsheet.com a reliable source? Wes sideman (talk) 18:30, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

NO. How do I make this clear? You have demonstrated that you are determined to insert information that multiple experienced editors, including an administrator, have told you is not allowed by policy. You should not be trying to find an acceptable source for this information to justify its inclusion. You should be leaving the article alone for the time being. Pursuing this course of action is likely to end in frustration or worse. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Eggishorn I'm just asking the question. I don't intend to add anything else to the article without permission. If cheatsheet.com is not a reliable source, why is used as a reference on the pages of over 100 articles, including many biographies? (Robert Downey Jr., Kid Cudi, Jimmie Johnson are just a few examples) I don't know why you're yelling in all caps; this does not seem like it merits the level of anger I'm perceiving from you. Wes sideman (talk) 18:57, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF and please do not mistake a single-letter typo for shouting. If you are perceiving anger, it was not intended to be implied. I have a sticky shift key I sometimes miss correcting. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:02, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Okay, no problem. However, I should also explain, and should've explained in the beginning, that what I added in the first place was because I noticed in the article history that the info about the arrest and porn career were there at some point, and was removed without explanation. I pretty much restored it and found what I thought was better sourcing. Then this guy started making a dozen sock accounts and threatening me on my talk page and making legal threats. He's still doing at this very minute. Wes sideman (talk) 19:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Socks placed back in drawer. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:33, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

I think others have explained things well enough so I won't comment on most of it. I'll just say that while I understand how wrong it is that you're being inappropriately targeted over your work in the article, and it very frustrating when someone with a likely COI edits inappropriately, the proper outcome is always that we ensure the article is as it would be if we paid proper attention to it and put aside the inappropriate editing. Also about "alleged", please remember that this is not over general actions but over specific allegations of criminality. For example, if there's a video of a woman shooting her boyfriend in the chest, does this mean there's no doubt she's a murderer? Well no, maybe he asked her to since they were shooting a Youtube video trying to demonstrate using an encyclopaedia to stop a bullet and she's only guilty of manslaughter. Likewise, even if you find someone holding a gun standing over a dead body with a bullet wound in it, this doesn't mean the person is going to be convicted of murder. Nil Einne (talk) 07:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Michael Lissack

We have a SPA IP account inserting critical material onto the above article. It looks like a BLP violation to me but Lissack is known to me so would someone else please take a look at it - thanks -----Snowded ^TALK 20:37, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Well sourced information removed on BLP grounds

Volunteer Marek removed this text from the Bogdan Musiał article[3]

Historian Andrzej Żbikowski compares Musial to Marek Jan Chodakiewicz, considering that both have "equally strongly polonocentric and apologetic stances".

He is claiming that it violates BLP, but giving no explanation in light of the fact that it's sourced to a scholarly source. Is this concern valid? My understanding is that BLP does not give us a license to remove well-sourced negative information or whitewash article subjects. (t · c) buidhe 21:44, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

References

• Given the claim being made, the sourcing needs to be very good, especially if someone else has challenged the content. The actual source seems to make a single reference to Musiał, comparing one of his books to Chodakiewicz: "However, in an article in English in a post-conference report from Ludwigsburg he [Marek Wierzbicki] was far more cautious in generalizing about the extent of such collaboration in Jewish communities. More cautious, in any event than Bogdan Musiał—the author of Rozstrzełać elementy kontrewolucyjne! This book could easily have appeared in the Fronda Library alongside Chodakiewicz's work for its equally strongly polonocentric and apologetic stances." The wording you present above does not seem accurate, and I'm not sure that type of single mention is particularly useful to make any contentious claims in a BLP. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:58, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Ran Avni

the metadata photo when you share this article on an iphone has a photo that is not Ran Avni — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bfinston (talk • contribs) 01:26, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Sorry to give you the run around, but this is not our fault. Our article doesn't have a picture. We get these complaints a lot, because certain providers (such as google is notorious for this) they try to anticipate what you want based on past search history, and just inserts whatever pic it can find that even remotely fits what it "thinks" you want. You have to talk to whoever provides your sharing services, because it didn't come from us. Zaereth (talk) 03:39, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Tyler Mitchel

Photographer Roger Erickson photographed the cover of Vogue(Mexico), with Lily Aldridge, published March of 2003. He is also African American. In order to avoid misleading the public, please clarify which country the Vogue cover was shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:82E0:C2D0:A1D4:8227:238E:71F2 (talk) 04:52, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Vicky Ford

Vicky Ford (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi there

A single user (AugustB1914) is making repeated edits to this page which are not objective, convey no new useful information and appear politically motivated.

Rather than repeated corrections or deletions it would be much preferable to ask them to stop

Many thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrFixed (talk • contribs) 13:19, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

@MrFixed:, you should let another editor like AugustB1914 know when you mention them on a noticeboard such as this. This is as easy as using a template to "ping" them when you post like this: {{u|AugustB1914}}. I hope that helps. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Josh Grelle

Josh Grelle (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

FixerOfAllThings (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is repeatedly changing the pronouns used for Grelle to he/him ([4][5][6][7]) in violation of MOS:GENDERID, as Grelle's most recent self-designated pronouns are they/them. (Their pronouns used to be stated in their Twitter bio, as can be seen next to this archived tweet, but they removed the pronouns from their Twitter bio at some point in January (current bio). However, in the absence of any further updates or statements from Grelle, they/them pronouns are Grelle's most recent self-designated pronouns.) I've informed FixerOfAllThings that Grelle uses they/them pronouns (I also added the appropriate banner to the talk page) and warned them about edit warring, but this does not seem to have deterred them. As I've already reverted them three times, I'm reporting them here instead of continuing to revert them as recommended by WP:3RRBLP. GreenComputer (talk) 05:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

If that's the best source for "they/them" (which doesn't strike me as a gender pronoun at all, it's just a plural pronoun) then I wouldn't call that definitive. All I see in that archived Twitter page is a one-line header that doesn't even make sense if they/them was changed to "he" or "she". Sorry, I don't see anything giving a definite context that Grelle self-refers as a plural pronoun. It isn't even clear that Grelle has ever made any point at all about gender identity.

Furthermore, MOS:GENDERID explicitly refers to the guideline WP:SURPRISE, which recommends against surprising the reader with an unexpected and grammatically incorrect pronoun in the lead paragraph.

I don't see that pronouns are necessary in such a short article that consists of just a handful of sentences. I removed the pronouns. They aren't needed. If Grelle no longer self-refers with any pronouns at all, then perhaps neither should we. ~Anachronist (talk) 06:23, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Mohsen Fakhrizadeh

Mohsen Fakhrizadeh (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi. A user is adding that Israel is behind this guys killing. At this moment, this is alleged and Israel has not admitted responsibility. When I asked the user to provide a source he provided a youtube video from PM Netanyahu's YT account discussing this guy a few years back. I explained onmy talk page that this source, while reliable is not independnet. Can soemone revert as I do not want to accidentally go over three reverts? Thanks Idan (username is Zvikorn) (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

@Zvikorn:, the repeated addition of "without evidence" is not in compliance with MOS:LEAD and WP:CCPOL. Its use in the lead is editorializing and Pro translator was correct in removing it. That Iran has accused Israel is very well-sourced in the article body and there is no source presented in the body that claims that Iran has no basis for making the accusation. Please do not continue edit warring to add this. Thank you in advance. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

GameStop short squeeze / Janet Yellen

GameStop short squeeze (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

A user has inserted some content at GameStop short squeeze that has BLP implications for Janet Yellen. I have removed the content on the grounds on BLP and other grounds, specifically that (1) it is not directly supported by the cited sources; (2) some of the sourcing proposed is subpar or speculative; and (3) the content is off-topic and undue weight in the article. Some users have been pushing to re-insert the challenged content. It would be helpful to get some additional eyeballs on this. See Talk:GameStop_short_squeeze#Yellen. Neutrality^talk 17:41, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that it's speculative material about a BLP which doesn't belong in the article. Not sure if it's quite a BLP violation, more that it's irrelevant. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Agree that the "reporters raising concern" text was, at best, poorly worded. The subject may be worth including, possibly. Coretheapple (talk) 18:46, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, I am one of the editors involved in the dispute, along with AllegedlyHuman and a few other. In summary, there has been widespread media coverage suggesting that (my wording:) Janet Yellen may be in a position of conflict of interest with respect to Citadel LLC (see below for the sources). It has even made its way to the White House press briefing (at 18:25). The language that I have suggested to summarize the issue is this. But I don't really care for that particular phrasing. The issue is that—in opposition to the near-unanimous talk page consensus—Neutrality refuses to let any of us add anything at all that would summarize in any way, shape or form, the current coverage of Janet Yellen's links with Citadel. I have asked Neutrality if he could suggest a phrasing that would suit his interpretation of the policies, but he refuses to do so. This is a critical problem for an ITN article with 20'000+ page views per day.

Sources:

• Main Reuters article
• Second Reuters article
• Washington Post
• Fox News
• Slate
• Bloomberg
• Yahoo!News
• The Federalist

--JBchrch (talk) 21:14, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Let's be real clear here:

• Main Reuters article - sole mention of "conflict of interest" is the following statement: "Richard Painter, a former top ethics lawyer to President George W. Bush, said many Treasury secretaries had a great deal more entanglements that would raise conflict of interest concerns than Yellen."
• Second Reuters article - Does not say "conflict of interest" anywhere.
• Washington Post - Does not say "conflict of interest" anywhere.
• Fox News - Does not say "conflict of interest" anywhere. Fox News is also a yellow-flagged source for political matters.
• Slate - Commentary piece. Does not say that Yellen has a conflict of interest. References "conflict of interest" in the context of a vague statement that "no one can know for sure what's in a decision-maker's heart as they make decisions."
• Bloomberg - Does not say "conflict of interest" anywhere.
• Yahoo!News - actually a Reuters article. Does not say "conflict of interest" anywhere.
• The Federalist - not a reliable source; right-wing commentary piece

No RS suggests that Yellen has taken any step relating to GameStop and Citadel specifically. We do not put speculative BLP-implicating innuendo into an encyclopedia article, especially not when it is undue weight, not supported by the sources, or off-topic. Neutrality^talk 21:29, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Skimmed a couple of those sources, concur with the above assessment. This looks like source misrepresentation / WP:REFBOMBING. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:54, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

So I am going to ask you once again : what is the edit that you suggest? I am not insisting on the word "conflict of interest", as I have stated in my first comment here. ProcrastinatingReader, please note that Neutrality opposes all additions RE Yellen/Citadel, not just the ones mentioning "conflict of interest". I am forced to engage in borderline copyright infringement here, but let's go ahead and read what the sources say :

Reuters 1: A sticking point for her to clear, though, may be $700,000 in speaking fees she accepted from Citadel, as recently as last fall. Yellen has pledged not to involve herself in an official capacity in matters involving the firm without first seeking a written waiver from Treasury ethics officials.

[...]

Yellen filed an ethics agreement here with the Office of Government Ethics in December saying she would "seek written authorization to participate personally and substantially in any particular matter" related to any companies that paid her speaking fees prior to joining President Joe Biden's administration - for a year after her last speech to each firm.

Reuters 2: Yellen sought and received permission from ethics lawyers before calling the meeting, according to a document seen by Reuters, along with clearance to engage on wide-ranging issues in the financial services industry.

Yellen's decision to seek the waiver followed a report here by Reuters that because of speaking fees she was paid by a key player in the GameStop saga, hedge fund Citadel LLC, she may need permission to deal with matters involving the firm.

[...]

Yellen earned more than $700,000 in speaking fees from Citadel, as recently as last fall. In an ethics agreement here, she pledged not to involve herself in specific matters involving the firm - as well as major banks including Citigroup, Barclays and Goldman Sachs - without first seeking authorization.

Washington Post: White House spokeswoman Jen Psaki dismissed questions over whether Yellen should recuse herself from the matter over speaking fees she received from Citadel. The hedge fund’s owner has another company, Citadel Securities, which has a financial relationship with Robinhood, a retail broker which was criticized after it recently restricted trading in the shares of GameStock and other companies that were promoted by the Reddit message board.

Bloomberg: Yellen has requested an ethics waiver to hold the meeting, a Treasury spokeswoman said, confirming a Reuters report. Yellen received more than $700,000 in speaking fees from Citadel, the financial empire run by billionaire Ken Griffin. Griffin runs a hedge fund and controls Citadel Securities, a giant market making firm that executes trades for Robinhood’s customers.

--JBchrch (talk) 23:02, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

The ethics concern/issue can be mentioned due to those sources as they are WP:DUE. You should call for an WP:RfC on the article talk page in terms of a proposed phrasing. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:19, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for this suggestion.--JBchrch (talk) 00:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

For all purposes, this should be read in the context of BLPCRIME and in the context of NOT#NEWS: the implication of the connection between Yellen and Citadel appears to assigning potentially criminal liability on Yellen from these sources, which we cannot do absent an actual conviction or arrest for that conviction. It may be important as lawyers untangle if there is any liability here, and if it is found that the Yellen/Citadel connection has legal ramifications, then and only then can it be added. Everything else is wide speculation. --Masem (t) 23:20, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Janet Yellen, U.S. Secretary of Treasury, is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:22, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

And even with public figures, we don't attempt to state they committed any crime unless there are serious allegations towards that in play (eg speaking towards Trump's second impeachment ahead of anything would be reasonable since lawmakers were moving to take action). Here, this is analysts speculation on what might come down. --Masem (t) 02:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

No one's arguing that this is a crime. The sources established she received over 800,000 in speaking fees from Capital Citadel and she had to get an ethics waiver to even meet about the Gamestop situation.[8] Those two things should be mentioned. Morbidthoughts (talk) 05:32, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Jay Mathews

I am the subject of the article. I don't know who posted it 14 years ago but I am grateful. I just posted on the talk section of the article a request for specific updating and small corrections. I tried to create an account but could not figure out how to do that.--jay mathews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.229.53.206 (talk) 20:08, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, on behalf of whoever created it, you're welcome. Thank you very much for asking here and on the talk page rather than trying to edit the article yourself, per our WP:Conflict of interest policy. As someone who works in journalism, I'm sure you understand the need for reliable sources, and that's what we need at Wikipedia as well before we can make any changes or updates. We only summarize what has already been written. As the subject of the article, I'm sure you are probably the most familiar with what has been written about you, so here's what I suggest: read our WP:Reliable source policy and then gather up as many sources as you can and post them at the talk page of the article. Using only the info found in those sources, make another list of things you'd like changed or added. (It's unlikely sourced info will be deleted without good reason, but we can always change "he does this..." to "he did this, now does that..." or some such thing.) Just keep in mind that this is an encyclopedia article and not a facebook page. It's a lot like journalism only a lot more formal. Zaereth (talk) 03:29, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Proud Boys and political protest type articles in general

The discussion stems around whether to include the names of individual arrestee roster in the article Proud Boys simply because they appeared in a list of so and so were arrested/charged at so and so protest/incident prior to conviction. I argued against it, but an editor in favor of inclusion argues "seriously consider not including" does not mean do not include". The only thing credible is the fact arrests of those individuals were made, but as far as I know, including those names prior to conviction is discouraged and not included without compelling reason to include them regardless of which political group these arrests are attributed to. Graywalls (talk) 02:20, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

WP:BLPCRIME and WP:BLPNAME are the policies to consider here. Is there any loss of context if the members are not individually named? Morbidthoughts (talk) 06:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I don't believe not naming them really affects the context. As far as I see it, there's no hurry to rattle off names. That can wait until there's a conviction or it could be talked about in more general terms. Graywalls (talk) 08:31, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Per WP:ONUS, those wishing to include should gain consensus to do so. See also WP:BLPRESTORE. Morbidthoughts (talk) 08:37, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps as a non-involved editor to this point, you could have a look at the discussion Talk:Proud_Boys#arrestee_rosters Graywalls (talk) 08:52, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

I have concerns about including the names of those arrested for crimes related to a major event simply because they are associated with a particular organization. I think that WP:BLPCRIME means we have to consider individuals on a case-by-case basis when it comes to allegations of a crime, especially for non-public figures who have not yet been convicted. I also left a comment on the article's talk page with my perspective. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 09:44, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Many of these Proud Boys members who were arrested are limited interest public figures, defined in U.S. law as "a person who voluntarily and prominently participates in a public controversy for the purpose of influencing its outcome". They include former candidates for public office and other people considered celebrities on the far right who are frequently interviewed by the media and have podcasts and online shows devoted to discussing controversies for the public. Joe Biggs is just one example. I see no reason to exclude the names of public figures who have been arrested for serious offenses. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 21:46, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Here are other examples of Proud Boys arrested at the Capitol who are public figures: Nicholas Ochs was a 2020 candidate for the Hawaii State Legislature, backed by Roger Stone. Gabriel Garcia was a 2020 candidate for the Florida House of Representatives. Nicholas DeCarlo runs a group called Murder the Media and has a YouTube channel called Thunderdome TV. Ethan Nordean AKA Rufio Panman was interviewed at length in 2018 by Alex Jones on Infowars and runs a political podcast called Rebel Talk with Rufio. I support mentioning these public figures in our coverage of the arrests of Proud Boys in the aftermath of the storming of the Capitol. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 22:12, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, I think discussing specific names with specific information is the best way. From a legal perspective, one or two interviews is generally not sufficient to establish someone as a limited public figure, but I'm not sure how much we need to go by U.S. law. However, I think each individual does need to be evaluated a case-by-case basis with the factors at WP:LOWPROFILE unless they are clearly a public figure, as well as consideration of why particular names are important to the article. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:01, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, the people I mentioned above are all the subject of significant coverage in many reliable sources, including coverage before January 6 in all cases. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 00:09, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, if you could provide links to that type of information, I think that would be very helpful, as I am not able to find significant coverage before January 6 using Google searches. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wallyfromdilbert, I am beginning an article about Ethan Nordean AKA Rufuo Panman, which is located at User:Cullen328/sandbox/Nordean. At the time of this writing, the draft consists of twelve references, three of which go back to 2018.

If you add keywords related to the 2020 state legislature elections to a Google News search for Ochs and Garcia, you will find plenty of coverage from 2020 that describes how their campaigns were backed by powerful men close to Trump. As for Joe Biggs, there are at least six references in his biography that predate the events of January 6, and the article was created last October. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 01:44, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Just because you can find sources, doesn't necessarily mean they make for an appropriate article, considering all three of NOT, BLP, and NPOV, as well as SIGCOV of WPN:. Spot checking the refs in Nordean, the ones prior to Jan 6 2021 aren't really good signs for notability: MediaMatter would be considered a name drop and not sufficient for notability. The others all seem to be similar name drops. That would make him very much not a public figure that we should not be highlighting despite the coverage post Jan 6. --Masem (t) 01:58, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Cullen328, I share Masem's concerns with sources such as MediaMatters or SPLC being used to show someone as a public figure, which is sometimes a higher bar than notability, and I am not sure Nordean satisfies either. The SPLC articles discuss Nordean punching someone and posting in private Facebook groups, but it does not seem that he has actively sought out media attention or had a prominent role in the January 6 riot or as a leader of the Proud Boys. I don't think a single appearance on Infowars is enough to establish someone as a public figure. Joe Biggs seems to be notable and was also called the "a leader of the Proud Boys" by the NYT, and so I do not see an issue with mentioning him in the article. I don't think simply listing any members of the Proud Boys who have been arrested is appropriate unless they are clearly a member of the Proud Boys and had some type of more significant or prominent role in the controversy beyond being a participant. Depending on how its worded, including former candidates for state offices may be appropriate and along with mentioning why their participation was relevant and important. It may be helpful for all the non-notable people being included to also have it mentioned in the article why they are relevant to be included. If someone else is objecting to their inclusion, then I think we need to be able to provide links to the sources to support our claims. I don't think it is too much to ask for sources before including the names of non-notable people in an article for being arrested for a serious crime. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 02:50, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I am not arguing that Ethan Nordean's coverage before January 6 made him notable by Wikipedia's standards on the 5th, but rather that his documented activities before January 6 made him a public figure according to U.S. law and common sense, and that anyone who reads those twelve sources carefully will understand that he is just as much of a top tier leader of the Proud Boys nationally as is Joe Biggs. And the Wall Street Journal coverage makes it clear that Biggs and Nordean were, effectively, the two leaders of a coordinated mob of roughly 100 Proud Boys on January 6. The coverage of Nordean in reliable sources since January 6 has been massive, and includes extensive original reporting. Much of that coverage describes events before January 6 in addition to extensive content about his participation in that major historical event at the Capitol. I believe that the quality and depth of this coverage overcomes any WP:BLP1E concerns. If anyone disagrees, they are free to make an AfD nomination after I finish the article and move it to main space. I will, of course, oppose such a nomination, and I am highly confident that the community will agree with me. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:54, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I invite any editor to read this article in the Seattle Times and other similar articles, and then try to argue that Nordean is not notable. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 05:17, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, BLPCRIME/BLP1E have a higher weight here, particularly as there's no conviction yet so we cannot assume guilt (compared to the tone of these articles you are using). We purposely avoid giving these type of people standalone articles if they have no significant notability ahead of time (which is definitely the case with Nordean) and there's no post-conviction analysis of the person's motives. This is not to say that if Nordean is found guilty (or even what we know now) he cannot be covered in the PB article to document his involvement, but we cannot presume guilt and write that way about it. --Masem (t) 05:27, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Israel Finkelstein

I started a topic at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#WP:BLP violations at Talk:David but no admin has answered my question: does calling Israel Finkelstein "insane" and "incompetent" at Talk:David amount to a WP:BLP violation? Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:18, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Graywalls: You have just edited WP:BLPN and Israel Finkelstein (separately). May I ask you to chime in? Tgeorgescu (talk) 09:36, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Given the context, colourful or hyperbolic opinions about a source's reliability in discussions should be given leeway if they are not defamatory per WP:BLPTALK and opinions are not defamatory. Morbidthoughts (talk) 09:54, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

How is calling a very famous (in his field) professor emeritus insane/incompetent not defamatory? "Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced and not related to making content choices should be removed, deleted, or oversighted, as appropriate." Or do you mean such opinions are relevant to content choice? Doug Weller talk 11:42, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Both. Opinions are not defamatory. Dismissive opinions about the professor's analysis or expertise are relevant to content choice in assigning weight. Morbidthoughts (talk) 11:58, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

The comments would certainly not be defamatory in a legal sense. Based on the ANI thread, the comments also appear to not be about Finklestein himself but instead about his analysis/reasoning. I don't think the language is helpful, but Tgeorgescu making allegations against the other editor without evidence is more concerning to me. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 12:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

@Wallyfromdilbert: As I said there, I no longer pursued the paid editing accusation after they have denied making paid edits. Tgeorgescu (talk) 12:14, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Lou Dobbs

The entire article is rife with biased opinions and material from biased sources presented as fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.205.160.37 (talk) 14:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Examples? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 16:08, 6 February 2021 (UTC)

Sherlie Matthews

how do I delete my account. I am the author, Sherlie Matthews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Praterwhip (talk • contribs) 06:03, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Luigi De Falco

• Luigi De Falco (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

The page does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject & seems to have been self-published|bio|February 2021 Mobydick98 (talk) 16:49, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Both Luigi De Falco and H2biz scream non-notable and undisclosed paid editing to me. Woodroar (talk) 17:39, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

I propose the deletion of this page. It's clearly a self published résumé. Also, no page in Italian of this "notable" Italian guy.Can you please assist me with this? Mobydick98 (talk) 16:01, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Emma Barnett

Please can someone check recent edits to Emma Barnett, as I'm on mobile and unable to devote the necessary time to doing so. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 23:22, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Done. Revdelled and protected for a week. Fences&Windows 00:39, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Fences and windows: Not done. You revdelled something that was changed after I posted here, but left the uncited claims about her supposed awareness of her father's criminality. I've now removed that. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:57, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I'm not a mind reader. Use Wikipedia:Oversight next time. Fences&Windows 14:38, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Wan Junaidi

Just noticed the section on Wan Junaidi#Controversy...GrahamHardy (talk) 00:09, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I removed the note as there is nothing libelous about the claim. There also do not seem to be reliability issues with the source, Malay Mail, and it seems to simply be repeating the article subject's own words. I did merge the content into the previous section on his political career as per WP:CSECTION. Since that sentence is actually the only prose with a cited source at all in the article, I also added a need citations tag to the top and removed some of the unsourced content that seemed more promotional. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 00:35, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

OR and non-independent sourcing on Roger Kimball page

The Roger Kimball page appears to be a BLP that doesn't get much traffic. I'm concerned about recent material that was added to the article which is solely sourced to Kimball's own article and contains OR. It appears that in December of 2020 Kimball published articles in the Epoch Times and The Spectator saying something to the effect that the outcome of the 2020 election was fraudulent.[[9]]. The Epoch Time source was removed but the Spectator article was retained. This meant the only source was Kimball's own article used as a source for this content.[[10]] Additionally, the text was edited to say Kimball repeated the "debunked and discredited" claim... It's probably safe to assume the claims were debunked and discredited by the time the article was published but Kimball didn't say that about his own claims. I believe that makes this OR. Anyway, absent 3rd party sources raising a concern about this I think this would be UNDUE and violates OR. I would be interested in the take of editors here. Springee (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

If there are no reliable, independent sources that note Kimballs articles, I don't see how it could possibly meet BLP, NOT, POV. --Hipal (talk) 22:41, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

@Hipal: The disputed content is sourced to Spectator Australia, which is a WP:RS. Our perennial sources page directs that The Spectator primarily consists of opinion pieces and these should be judged by WP:RSOPINION and WP:NEWSBLOG. Since the specific cited opinion piece is not a blog, we must look to WP:RSOPINION, which explains, Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact. For example, an inline qualifier might say "[Author XYZ] says....". A prime example of this is opinion pieces in sources recognized as reliable. When using them, it is best to clearly attribute the opinions in the text to the author and make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion. In saying that Kimball has repeated the debunked and discredited claim that Joe Biden won the election because of large-scale electoral fraud, we clearly attribute that opinion to him. In so doing, we have properly used a reliable source. NedFausa (talk) 22:51, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I wrote there are no reliable, independent sources. Articles that he wrote are not independent. --Hipal (talk) 22:55, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

He is expressing his opinion, as published in a WP:RS. It is entirely compliant with Wikipedia policies and guidelines for us to rely on this source, as long as we identify it as his opinion. We do. NedFausa (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

NOT emphasizes the need for independent sources.

If you're only using his own writing, then it's an OR violation as well. --Hipal (talk) 23:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Independent_sources#Why_independent_sources_are_required. That should clear things up. For the sake of neutrality, Wikipedia cannot rely upon any editor's opinion about what topics are important. Everything in Wikipedia must be verified in reliable sources, including statements about what subjects are important and why. To verify that a subject is important, only a source that is independent of the subject can provide a reliable evaluation. Springee (talk) 00:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Seems like the problem is that relying solely on the author's work does not demonstrate DUE weight. Without an independent source, we haven't shown that this is due in an article on Kimball. Shinealittlelight (talk) 01:16, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Springee, Hipal and Shine - the whole gang's here. Springee, you've quoted the WP:INDEPENDENT page out of context. "Subject" (noun) on WP:INDEPENDENT (it's used 33 times) clearly means "the subject of an article" (e.g. Roger Kimball himself), rather than "the subject of Roger Kimball's views on Trump". Looking at WP:PRIMARY and WP:BLPPRIMARY, there is no overt prohibition on primary sources, merely a stipulation that extreme caution should be shown. There are several more references to Kimball's own journalistic work in the article, but only the reference to Kimball's (repeated and vocal) support for a debunked conspiracy theory has been called into question. Is the position you are taking that primary sources can never be used for a BLP article? Or that calling the "2020 stolen presidential election" conspiracy theory "debunked and discredited" constitutes OR? Noteduck (talk) 01:47, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Even though it seems obvious, an independent reliable source must discuss Kimball's opinions as debunked and discredited or it is considered synthesis. Morbidthoughts (talk) 19:36, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: Please help me understand. It seems you are saying that if a WP:RS were to publish an opinion piece by Roger Kimball in which he declares, for example, that the Earth is flat, we cannot add it to his BLP unless a different WP:RS reports both that:

• Kimball believes the Earth is flat; and
• generic claims that the Earth is flat have been debunked and discredited.

Do I have that right? NedFausa (talk) 20:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes. That is classic WP:SYN. Picking and choosing opinion pieces that he wrote based on what we feel is important or outrageous is coatracking and unverified WP:WEIGHT. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:12, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: Thank you. And, to extend the analogy, if we were to add to his BLP merely the attributed quotation "I believe the Earth is flat" without identifying it, in Wikipedia's voice, as a debunked and discredited claim, would that be acceptable? NedFausa (talk) 20:23, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Why would I agree to extend the analogy given my comments about coatracking and weight? Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:29, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Morbidthoughts: In my clumsy way, I'm trying to craft a compromise in which we could reach consensus on substitute phrasing such as:

In the aftermath of the United States Presidential Election, 2020 Kimball wrote, "This was no squalid two-bit voter fraud. It was a planned campaign. … some geniuses understood that COVID was the perfect cover for voter fraud on an industrial scale."

References

I do hope other editors will consider such an approach. We can then leave it to Wikipedia readers to make up their own minds about whether or not such claims have been debunked and discredited. NedFausa (talk) 20:42, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with the others above that this content is not WP:DUE because it is sourced solely to an opinion piece by the article subject. Especially if the article subject's claim is "debunked and discredited", I'm not sure why Wikipedia would be the appropriate place to serve as a mouthpiece for their opinions. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 20:54, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Ned, While that sentence doesn't have SYNTH has no weight since no independent RS has talked about it. This is what Hipal and I were trying to articulate. Per Wikipedia policies and guidelines (and with a few narrow exceptions) we need independent RSs to tell us what is important about a subject. If no independent sources call our attention to a specific thing/statement then we shouldn't discuss that thing/quote that statement even if we can verify the subject did it/said it. When editors look at a work by a BLP and decide to highlight a claim in the BLP's work then we the editors rather than an independent RS are giving weight to the statement. If no independent RSs have mentioned it then, per NPOV it has no weight. In this case that sentence would be fine if it were something like this:

"After the election Kimball wrote, [Kimball quote taken from RS]. [cite RS][cite Kimball's article]"

In this case the Kimball article is included as a supporting source because it was mentioned by the RS. Springee (talk) 21:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I agree with Wallyfromdilbert and Springee that the issue is that this content is not DUE. You can't just depend on WP editor opinions to decide what parts of what Kimball has wrote belong in the article. Per policy, we are to put the parts that are notable in the article, and we judge notability not based on our own personal opinions or even consensus among us--no matter how reasonable those opinions are--but based on what RS actually say about the subject. What we are seeing here is that a couple of editors find what Kimball is saying to be outrageous, and they therefore judge that readers of WP need to know that he said it. But look: it doesn't matter what you think even if you are right. It only matters what RS say is important about Kimball, and if they don't report it, it isn't DUE. That's it. Otherwise WP would not function. Every article would just report everything that every person ever said. Shinealittlelight (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Kimball did not just write one opinion piece in support of this discredited and ultimately insurrectionary conspiracy theory - even before results were counted he was predicting "deliberate fraud and litigation planned by the Democrats".[11] In the aftermath of the election he vociferously promoted the conspiracy theory over and over, alleging that millions of votes were fraudulent, e.g.[12][13][14][15] I can't think of any commentator who has embraced these theories more enthusiastically and more widely. At any rate, it's a moot point, as a few third-party sources have indeed written about Kimball's embrace of the "stolen election" conspiracy theory. For a critical account see[16], for more favorable ones see[17][18] The point about when primary sources can be used is an interesting one though. For example, if a controversial journalist were to be described as bigoted or Islamophobic in the media, and then wrote an article criticizing this claim and defending themselves, would this article be inadmissible on any Wiki page on the grounds that it is not "due"? What about biographical details of a subject - are the subject's own articles inadmissible for these? Noteduck (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

For example, if a controversial journalist were to be described as bigoted or Islamophobic in the media, and then wrote an article criticizing this claim and defending themselves, would this article be inadmissible on any Wiki page on the grounds that it is not "due"? That would depend. Per ABOUTSELF if an article criticizing Kimball for X, Y and Z came out and Kimball replied on his personal blog we could note that Kimball replied and cite the blog entry. If the reply was little more than "no I'm not" then we could say he replied but wouldn't bother to quote him. If the reply was pure trash (say he doubled down on a clearly debunked claim) then we probably wouldn't bother. In some cases where the reply is well considered we may choose to use more of it. See this discussion [[19]] Springee (talk) 23:18, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

The problem with the critical or favorable independent sources Noteduck provided is that they are at best WP:RSOPINION, cannot be used to assert facts, and it's not clear how much weight they should be assigned given the publishers. Morbidthoughts (talk) 23:44, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Constant removal of information

Chris Janson is once again subject to anonymous or new editors removing uncontroversial BLP content as seen in this diff.

This has been a long-standing issue with this article in particular. See the following:

• 2018 edit that gutted the article, including removal of the Holly Williams collabs; all by WP:SPA account Lboullt (talk · contribs)

• These edits by Thesongfan (talk · contribs) also removed the Holly Williams information in 2015

I used to write for a country music blog, and some inside information from my former editor implies that these edits are being made by Janson's wife. I have also had past correspondence with at least one of his lawyers who was looking to get the info removed, but one of them backed down after I pointed out the appropriate Wikipedia policies. (Sadly I did not save said correspondence.) Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 04:52, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Gina Din

Gina Din

A PR person is Spamvertising on Wikepedia. Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ButterflyMon (talk • contribs) 12:11, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This does not appear to be spam, but a biography of a notable person. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Martin Oduor-Otieno

Martin Oduor-Otieno

Businessman Spamvertising on Wikepedia. Please delete. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ButterflyMon (talk • contribs) 12:31, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

This does not appear to be spam, but the biography of a notable person. It was created by en editor in good standing who has been active here for thirteen years, and with whom you have not attempted to communicate. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Jane Fraser (executive)

Jane Fraser (executive) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Hi, my name is Jennifer and I work for Jane Fraser. Jane’s current photo was taken as a screenshot and therefore renders as poor quality. I’m including her headshot here as an original, higher-quality file so that it can be updated. Additionally, the reference to her being one of only two women on Citi’s Operating Committee is inaccurate, as the source citation is several years outdated. This Reuters article offers more recent coverage on Citi’s leadership structure, which includes Jane among 5 women on the current Executive Management Team. Can someone please review these suggestions? LowneyJen (talk) 16:48, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

LowneyJen, I have made the requested changes, though bear in mind I don't really know anything about Jane Fraser so I am trusting what you say is correct. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:03, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

File:Fraser Jane hi res.jpg

Ritchie333, thank you for your quick attention to this. I do want to point out that it's not accurate to say she leads the Operations team. It would be correct to simply say that she has served as President of Citi since 2019 and will be taking over the role of Chief Executive Officer in 2021. Thank you again for your consideration. LowneyJen (talk) 17:29, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

LowneyJen, Okay, the headline does say "Citi's incoming CEO Fraser forms new operating team to build leadership accountability", and I assume if somebody is forming a team, it implies they lead it. Incidentally, you may be able to get more help asking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Women in Red. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:32, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Great Barrington Declaration

Hi, BLP articles are not really my turf so I am not exceedingly familiar with BLP policies. However, I recently got involved with the article on the Great Barrington Declaration and noticed that some pretty strongly worded things were said about its authors in the Authors section. I was wondering if more experienced editors would like to take a look.--JBchrch (talk) 18:23, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Speaking as one of the people familiar with BLP issues, thats not strongly worded (take a look at some past discussions here, or anything involving Trump). It looks to be well sourced, with a mixture of newspapers like the guardian & journals like BMJ. It concentrates on what their positions are, and for the most part gives equal, if not more space to their own self-declared views. To be honest it looks more as if someone padded it out to just include more information about the authors. The majority of it could be included in the other sections on criticism (if it hasnt already). But you would be left then with just a bare bones description of the three authors. Only in death does duty end (talk) 20:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

I also don't see anything seriously concerning with the section. It may be able to be improved, but that would require going through the refs and pointing out what phrases or sentences need improvement. – wallyfromdilbert (talk) 21:12, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

There seems to be an issue with WP:SYNTH, because there is commentary on the GBD authors using sources that don't discuss the GBD. Fences&Windows 16:57, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Eddie McGuire

There has been multiple founded claims about Eddie McGuire being racist from players who played for Collingwood FC. While this is a contentious issue, the topic is factual, and of interest to the entirety of Australia. Understandably, multiple other users and IPs have come out in support of McGuire. I would appreciate some help in dealing with this matter objectively as BLPs are not really my territory. The rules of the fourth estate apply here to defend the validity of claims until proven otherwise. --120.22.146.148 (talk) 07:10, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

No problem with it being on the article, as long as it is properly sourced and WP:NPOV. No need for it to be in the lede. --SuperJew (talk) 09:01, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

If you have a better solution then fix it. --210.1.220.106 (talk) 09:03, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

You're welcome to. I don't have the time or energy rn to do that legwork, research, and careful writing. My point is that the information shouldn't be in the lede. That doesn't put the onus on me to put it elsewhere. --SuperJew (talk) 10:39, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Well, SuperJew, I think you're wrong: it's a big deal, controversy about racism and sexism has surrounded him for years, and being made to step down is important enough. Drmies (talk) 16:19, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: It's a big deal, because that's how the media likes to paint it. McGuire has done plenty for inclusion, both of indigenous and LGBT. As JackofOz says below, we need to be careful with the wording and give a neutral point-of-view. Your message is enough example of it - not everyone will agree with you that he was made to step down - he surely could've continued, but has decided to retire as he has been considering the last couple of years. --SuperJew (talk) 05:42, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

@Drmies: After looking at the article in it's current form, I will say that the way you worded it in the lede seems to me more neutral and descriptive than the previous ways (which said he is racist or accused of racism). --SuperJew (talk) 05:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

SuperJew, I was trying to find a way that got the bare facts in without either casting stones (though it seems clear there's plenty of rocks laying around) or getting all verbose with describing who said what in which context and which publication. Economy is a virtue. Thanks--but I'll add that I wrote that up after just a cursory read so I'm sure there's room for improvement. Drmies (talk) 14:57, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

• We have to be very careful with our wording. It's one thing to say that a joke, statement, decision or whatever is racist; but it's quite another to say that the person involved is a racist, which means that he has a deeply imbedded bias/hatred against some/all other races, which is demonstrated on a very frequent, probably daily, basis. Some of McGuire's utterances might be described as racist in content, but to extrapolate from that to say that he is a racist is a step fraught with difficulties, and best avoided. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:44, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

And that would apply regardless of sources/commentators who describe him as racist. They probably call him an arsehole, wanker, dickhead ... as well, but that doesn't make him one. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 00:47, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

We have a problem in this country of not calling a spade a spade when it comes to racism... Regardless of who said what, if you make racist comments you are racist. This applies under calling a duck a duck and there is specifically worded tight regulations on when you can apply the duck theory above. --120.22.234.44 (talk) 20:24, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Stanko Subotić

This BLP desperately needs a neutral editor who can read the sources and who can write proper English. A few recent edits alerted me to it; the article violated all kinds of neutrality standards (obvious even to someone who can't read the sources), and this IP editor tried to swing it the opposite way. I cut some of the most blatantly non-neutral content (where sourcing was questionable, and the writing was poor), but this article needs more help than I can give it. Drmies (talk) 16:06, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

• BTW I have a strong suspicion that much of this article was written by a paid editor: look at the contributions of User:Dmelow, and their deleted contributions. Drmies (talk) 16:13, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Leslie Tripathy

Besieged by several accounts posting poorly sourced fancruft. Could use more eyes, and perhaps page protection if this continues. 2601:188:180:B8E0:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 19:22, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

Qiyu Zhou

User Ben-Tiger-Woods appears to be the subject's mother. I don't understand the full story, but apparently she is worried about how her daughter's choices will reflect on the family. I do not have any proof, btw., that this user is in fact her mother. It just fits the story that has been told on twitch and the contributions of this user also make it fairly clear that there is some COI (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Ben-Tiger-Woods). Also her talk page hints at this having been a problem in the past as well (which apparently got forgotten/dropped when there was some unpleasantness with vandalism in the past).

User Ben-Tiger-Woods seems to hide "problematic" edits between larger numbers of mostly innocent edits. For example I don't know if every single interview someone has done is relevant for their wiki page. And making it into a story about "positive effect on society" is a bit of a reach. I wouldn't even care about those edits.

But then there is stuff like this one somewhere in the middle of a couple of other revisions https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qiyu_Zhou&type=revision&diff=1005669698&oldid=1005666112

The streamer explicitly said that she dropped out of school to pursue streaming. She intends to finish her degree "one day before her grandparents die". For this year she has dropped her classes and did the official paperwork to drop out. And the justification for the linked change was "correct the vandalism for a livng person, in Canada, you can never drop out a college, instead, you can pursue the degree as long as you want in your lifetime span" - which is ridiculous.

(Removing poland, btw., is correct (same revision, a bit further up). That is a running gag in her stream that keeps getting put back on her page. This might warrant protecting the page.)

--2A02:810B:C63F:DF78:ACBA:45DA:8CEE:DF4 (talk) 19:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Still me. There was a bit of an edit war in the history and I just noticed this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/GordonJunior

In the specific case of https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qiyu_Zhou&diff=prev&oldid=1005998487 I tend to agree. They streamed together for a while. Now they don't. That doesn't seem to warrant marking them as associated acts (not sure what the rules for that attribute are, but this is a very loose association).

But considering all the contributions this user did it is clear that this is another account that has been created with the specific purpose of making "friendly"/COI edits to this page.

e.g. (keeping with the above theme of covering up dropping out of school) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Qiyu_Zhou&diff=prev&oldid=1005792986

--95.89.12.116 (talk) 20:50, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh, good gravy. Where to start... This article has been created and maintained, and edit-warred over by a host of SPAs (WP:Single purpose accounts). It's not proper to speculate on who, but I would say it's likely several of them are the same user, or otherwise have some COI. That said, the subject is most certainly notable, but the article is just awful. It takes the idea of putting everything into a timeline of events much too literally, making for a very dry reading. There are a lot of good sources, and a lot of good info from those sources that tell us more about the person --which is what this article is about-- which for some reason we're not utilizing. Then there are quite a few primary sources that are being used inappropriately. There is also quite a bit of chess jargon that is not really explained to the general reader (ie: things like U-10 should be spelled out at least one, "under the age of 10). This article is in the need of a major overhaul to make it more of an encyclopedic article and less like a resume. Zaereth (talk) 23:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)

Gorilla Glue

Gorilla Glue (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

I'm sure that many of you are familiar with this news story, but if you're not then here's a quick synopsis:

A woman ran out of her typical hair product and used Gorilla Glue in its place. She had to go to the ER to try and get it removed. During this she posted about this to social media, gaining media attention in the process. Around this time an outlets began to spread false claims that she is considering a lawsuit - apparently it started with TMZ. The woman herself has denied that a lawsuit was ever actually considered.

Information about this woman has been repeatedly added to the article. This poses a BLP issue since there's no evidence of lasting (or really any) impact to the company and there's the concern of misinformation being added to the article, as well as WP:NOTNEWS. I just want some extra eyeballs on the article for the time being to help prevent it from being re-added. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 09:58, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

At best, this may have potential as a meme but that requires some element of enduring coverage of that, of which this is not yet at. Agreed that removal at this point given the person otherwise being a non-public figure would be 100% the best option. Even if it was added, it could be added without WP mentioning the name (even though the sources would). --Masem (t) 14:36, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Pretty much the textbook example of why we have both WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. Person does something foolish, it creates a flash-in-the-pan slow-news-day item, we erect an permanent monument to her shame. This is something that needs to have been forgotten— yesterday. Mangoe (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

100%. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:13, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

No issue for me if the story is mentioned in the article without naming her per WP:AVOIDVICTIM. Morbidthoughts (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you be considered a "victim" if you do something to yourself and then draw attention to your actions by posting about it on social media? I don't think that's what WP:AVOIDVICTIM is meant to do. Mo Billings (talk) 19:05, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Yes, people are often victims of their own silliness or stupidity. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:12, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Terry Randall

This article is significantly in violation of policy for being short on citations.

Two examples just in the OPENING header: 1) "which he later abandoned." -- What is the source?

2) "The group became particularly prominent beginning in 1987 for blockading the entrances to abortion clinics" -- What is the source?

3) "Terry led the group until 1991." What is the source

4) "In 2003, Terry founded the Society for Truth and Justice and conducted a program called Operation Witness." What is the source?

Also, this article, like so many on Wikipedia, weaves a pro-abortion worldview into the narrative. What happened to the Wiki standard for the facts...and nothing but the facts???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.47.70.178 (talk) 19:00, 11 February 2021 (UTC)